{"id":20648,"date":"2013-04-02T03:25:36","date_gmt":"2013-04-02T03:25:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/zenpundit.com\/?p=20648"},"modified":"2013-04-02T03:25:36","modified_gmt":"2013-04-02T03:25:36","slug":"recommended-reading-121","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/?p=20648","title":{"rendered":"Recommended Reading"},"content":{"rendered":"

Top billing! Sam Liles \u00a0– Manhattan project for cyber security<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mr. Lewis Shepherd of Microsoft came to Purdue to give a talk for CERIAS awhile back and he talked about how equating the Manhattan Project to the world of cyber security is completely wrong. I liked his talk quite a bit, and it aligned closely with something I\u2019ve been talking to people about for awhile. Talking to people is important. I know my impact on the world is going to be negligible but I\u2019ve dedicated my life to infecting the youth of the world with a few stray ideas. They call it teaching, and it doesn\u2019t pay much. I think Mr. Shepherd was making a good case that scope, and cause and effect, and process of one program might no align realistically with another program. The secrecy, single mindedness, and type of problem that was the Manhattan project has almost nothing to do with the quite different project of cyber security. Much like I\u2019ll never be able to equate my teaching to Socrates, the cyber security community shouldn\u2019t really think \u201cManhattan Project\u201d.<\/strong><\/p>\n

….<\/strong>Everything you likely think about defense in depth is wrong. All of the audit and compliance stuff is wrong. The firewall and intrusion detection and prevention technologies are wrong. The autocratic and dictatorial policies of information security are wrong. The underlying theories of robust and resilient programming are wrong. There is nothing about the current information technology infrastructure that is security oriented. The foundations of the technologies are fundamentally at odds with creation of an information secure culture. Now to be honest I didn\u2019t say this. Neumann, Saltzer, Cerf, Bernack, and so many other people said this long before I did. But, maybe you haven\u2019t read their stuff before.<\/strong><\/p>\n

How can I possibly support that they are all wrong and don\u2019t work? Pretty simple. They don\u2019t. Though we can secure systems to some point we are almost always talking about a security absent some failure in the system. There is nothing really secure. This is a huge problem that breaks most peoples \u201ccommon sense\u201d way of thinking about security. Simply put the way we do things will never be secure and we should stop trying to fix things the way we know doesn\u2019t work.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Read the rest here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

John Hagel –A Contrarian View on Resilience<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

In a world of growing uncertainty and mounting performance pressure, it\u2019s understandable that\u00a0resilience has become a very hot topic. Everyone is talking about it and writing about it. We all seem to want to develop more resilience. But\u00a0I\u2019m going to take a contrarian position and suggest that resilience, at least as conventionally defined, is a distraction and perhaps even dangerous.<\/strong><\/p>\n

….In this context, the conventional view of \u201cbounce back\u201d resilience for enterprises is profoundly dangerous. It simply increases the ability of the institutional status quo to survive when conditions demand a fundamental transformation. It increases the gap between what we are doing and what we need to do. We already face a growing mismatch between the institutions and practices that dominate in business and the needs of the markets and societies that are being re-shaped by the global forces outlined earlier. As long as this mismatch persists, we will face increasing disruptions and stress as struggle to maintain institutions and practices that are no longer viable.\u00a0We don\u2019t need to bounce back; we desperately need to move forward.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation (ICSR)<\/strong> –“Who Matters Online: Measuring Influence, evaluating content and countering violent extremism in online social networks<\/a>“<\/strong> by JM Berger<\/strong> and Bill Strathearn<\/strong><\/p>\n

J.M. Berger, author of Jihad Joe<\/a><\/strong><\/em> (reviewed here<\/a><\/strong> by Charles) frequently tackles Islamist militants and various kinds of terrorism at Intelwire<\/a><\/strong> but the focus in the above paper is on far Right, \u00a0white nationalist and radical racist strands of violent extremism<\/p>\n

SWJ Blog<\/strong>– \u00a0(Bunker)\u00a0Review: Intersections of Crime and Terror<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0and (Sullivan)\u00a0Spillover\/Narcobloqueos in Texas<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

A new Texas Department of Public Safety Threat Assessment report states that \u00a0criminal cartels are operating in Texas and are the No. 1 threat to the Lone Star State.\u00a0Narcobloqueos<\/em>\u00a0(narco-blockades) are now being seen north of the border.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Eeben Barlow – Failing to Listen<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

….Often, the government forces appear to be very well trained in running away<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Timothy Thomas – Why China is reading your email<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Abu Muqawama (Trombly) – Limits of Proxy Warfare in Syria<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

GLORIA Center – (Col. Norvel DeAtkine) Western Influence on Arab Militaries: Pounding Square Pegs into Round Holes<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

David Stockman –\u00a0State-Wrecked: The Corruption of Capitalism in America<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

ZeroHedge – List Released With 132 Names Who Pulled Cyprus Deposits Ahead Of “Confiscation Day”<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Harvard Magazine<\/strong><\/em> –The Humanities, Digitized<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Chicago Boyz (Foster) –RERUN\u2013Author Appreciation: Rose Wilder Lane<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

From BOYD & BEYOND 2012<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

Dr. Chet Richards<\/strong> on the work of \u00a0Colonel John Boyd<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

 
\n