Threatgen, Kidoz, Sweetrush, VR Education Holdings, MLevel The report provides a comprehensive view on the Game-Based Learning market. To understand the competitive landscape in the market ...

Game-Based Learning Market Report Covers Future Trends with Research 2023-2032

Discount includes all products, but excludes facilitation services) We are thrilled to announce the latest update to our ThreatGEN® Red vs. Blue Cybersecurity Simulation Platform! And ...

ThreatGEN® Red vs. Blue Fall Kickoff: New Features, New Maps, and a 50% Off Sale!

This article was also featured in the Packt _secpro Newsletter: https://security.packt.com/emerging-threats-securing-applications-in-the-age-of-language-models/ The ...

Emerging Threats: Securing Applications in the Age of Language Models

🚨 Frequent IR tabletops = better preparation. But 🕑 planning takes time. 🎮 ThreatGEN's automated, game-based platform enables more regular, effective exercises. Expert facilitation ...

Too Important to Skip, Too Broken to Ignore: Fixing the IR Tabletop Exercise

🚨 Frequent IR tabletops = better preparation. But 🕑 planning takes time. 🎮 ThreatGEN's automated, game-based platform enables more regular, effective exercises.

How ThreatGEN® Red vs. Blue Enables More Frequent Exercises This is where ThreatGEN® Red vs. Blue can help organizations conduct more frequent IR tabletop exercises while minimizing the planning ...

Toyota North America is excited to be at the BSides Security Conference in Las Vegas next week. Come by and meet our Cybersecurity team at our table and learn all about how we are becoming the ...

Debbie West’s Post

Threatgen, Kidoz, Sweetrush, VR Education Holdings, MLevel The report also covers key industry trends. The new developments that are driving the global Game-Based Learning market including new product applications that may boost the market have been ...

Game-Based Learning Market Leading Fortune Companies That Will Change in Coming Future 2023-2032

Another way to measure activities is to use #simulations, like ThreatGEN® Red vs. Blue, or scenarios that are as realistic as possible. By creating realistic scenarios, organizations can simulate ...

Maximizing the Impact and Effectiveness of Tabletop Exercises

The threat of cyber crime continues to rise. It seems we can’t go very long without reading about yet another company breach. Research points to a significant increase in sophisticated, socially engineered attacks and a market unprepared to deal with the ...

If It’s Convenient Be Suspicious – The Human Aspect

ThreatGEN

threatgen

Well, well, well. Look what the cat dragged in from cyberspace. The cybersecurity industry is pulling off a magic trick that would make Houdini proud: simultaneously inflating consultant rates and flooding the market with wide-eyed newbies. A paradox wrapped in an enigma, served with a side of irony. You’d think this would be cause for celebration but hold your horses. This little circus act might just be setting us up for a spectacular face-plant, reminiscent of the outsourcing fiasco that keeps IT veterans up at night. So, let’s peel back the curtain on this digital drama and see if we can’t spot the sleight of hand before it’s too late. The cybersecurity community once prided itself on a sense of camaraderie and shared purpose. However, this spirit has been eroded by a race to the bottom in terms of pricing and perceived value. By offering free or extremely low-cost training and services, the industry inadvertently sends a message that these skills and efforts have little intrinsic worth. The rise of influencer culture in cybersecurity The devaluation of cybersecurity expertise is further exacerbated by the rise of the “influencer culture” within the industry. In recent years, there’s been a surge of individuals focusing on building their personal brand and becoming influencers in the cybersecurity space. While some of these voices provide valuable insights, the field has become saturated with people eager to share their thoughts, regardless of their actual expertise or experience. This proliferation of self-proclaimed experts has led to an overwhelming amount of noise in the cybersecurity information landscape (See Alyssa Miller‘s article on “Infosec Rockstars vs Influencers”). Social media platforms and online forums are awash with advice, tips, and “training” of varying quality. Unfortunately, quantity often drowns out quality, making it difficult for learners to discern valuable information from mere speculation or oversimplified explanations. The abundance of free or low-cost content creates a false perception that high-quality cybersecurity education should be easily accessible and inexpensive. As a result, reputable training providers like SANS Institute, CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency), and Cybrary, which offer comprehensive, vetted, and up-to-date courses, are often perceived as prohibitively expensive. The reality is that developing and maintaining high-quality, current cybersecurity training requires significant resources and expertise. However, many aspiring cybersecurity professionals, faced with course fees running into thousands of dollars, opt for the more affordable or free alternatives. This choice, while understandable from a financial perspective, often leads to gaps in knowledge and skills that can have serious consequences in real-world cybersecurity scenarios. This trend creates a vicious cycle. As more people turn to free or cheap resources, there’s less financial support for high-quality training programs. This could potentially lead to a decline in the overall quality of cybersecurity education, just when the need for skilled professionals is at its highest. Moreover, the focus on personal branding and influencer status can divert attention from the core mission of cybersecurity: protecting systems, data, and people. When the goal becomes amassing followers rather than developing deep expertise, the industry as a whole suffers. Outsourcing Boomerang: History’s Tech Lesson Ignored The situation eerily echoes a famous quote from the reimagined Battlestar Galactica series: “All of this has happened before. All of this will happen again.” Indeed, we’ve seen similar patterns play out in other tech sectors, most notably in the outsourcing boom of the early 2000s. During that period, many American companies rushed to outsource software development to countries like India, attracted by significantly lower labor costs. While this strategy seemed economically sound in the short term, it had far-reaching consequences for the U.S. tech industry – read this research article “Impact of Offshore Outsourcing of IT Services on the US Economy” by Kalyan Chakraborty and William Remington for more detail: Job Offshoring: A substantial number of U.S. service industry jobs, particularly in IT, were moved abroad. By 2015, it was estimated that 3.4 million U.S. service industry jobs would be offshored. This shift was driven by the cost savings associated with outsourcing, which allowed companies to lower software and service prices, increase productivity, and invest in new technologies and business ideas. By offshoring entry-level positions, American companies inadvertently created a gap in their domestic talent pipeline. Fresh graduates found it increasingly difficult to gain the necessary experience to progress in their careers. Fast forward 15 years, and the U.S. now faces a shortage of experienced senior developers and technical managers – professionals who would have cut their teeth on those entry-level jobs a decade and a half ago. Ironically, the outsourcing tide is now turning against early adopters like India. As companies seek ever-cheaper labor sources or turn to automation, Indian tech workers find themselves facing the same challenges that their American counterparts did years ago. The parallels to the current state of cybersecurity are clear and concerning. By undervaluing the human element in cybersecurity – whether through free training, rock-bottom service pricing, or over-reliance on AI – we risk creating a similar talent gap in this critical field. The cybersecurity industry must learn from these historical lessons. While innovation and cost-efficiency are important, they shouldn’t come at the expense of nurturing human talent and expertise. The complex, ever-evolving nature of cyber threats requires a workforce that is not only skilled but also continually developing and adapting. As we move forward, it’s crucial to strike a balance between leveraging new technologies and valuing human expertise. Only by recognizing and appropriately compensating the skills and efforts of cybersecurity professionals can we ensure a robust, effective defense against future digital threats. The cyclical nature of these industry trends serves as a reminder that short-term gains often lead to long-term challenges. As we navigate the future of cybersecurity, let’s strive to break this cycle and build a sustainable model that values both innovation and human expertise. Summary The cybersecurity industry faces a critical challenge: the devaluation of expertise and services, fueled by free but often subpar training and an oversaturated information landscape. This trend, reminiscent of past outsourcing mistakes, threatens to undermine the field’s effectiveness against evolving digital threats. To safeguard the future of cybersecurity, stakeholders must: Recognize the true value of expert knowledge and quality training Critically evaluate information sources and invest in reputable education Prioritize building a skilled workforce over personal brand promotion By addressing these key issues, the industry can maintain its integrity, improve its talent pool, and enhance its capacity to protect our digital infrastructure in an increasingly complex threat landscape. Credits I’d like to acknowledge an ongoing discussion between the founders of ThreatGEN and myself about how free training and low costs services are destroying cybersecurity. Clint Bodungen, Aaron Shbeeb, and Matthew Anderson have felt this firsthand. Jeff Whitney and Gary Leibowitz as board members are helping to combat this prevailing “free mentality “. I’d also like to acknowledge my best friend Patrick Anderson who is experiencing this from another perspective – the IT outsourcing process and implementation. Patrick and I along with Eddie Tipton were partners in Systems Evolution Incorporated in the early years 1999 through 2003, and we were part of onshore outsourcing with the likes of EDS, Accenture, and other large consulting firms. Later in the evolution of Systems Evolution (at that point, a publicly traded company), we acquired Duration Software, which was the largest custom software developer for the state of Texas. Chris Montgomery, Rich Steinle, Frank Prevatt, and Scott Friesen among others understand the later stages of outsourcing as we were competing with the offshore wave. Lastly, I disclose that I used Anthropic’s Claude to polish my thoughts as well as Perplexity’s search engine for references that underscore my thoughts. Here is a link to the original article on LinkedIn. Well, well, well. Look what the cat dragged in from cyberspace. The cybersecurity industry is pulling off a magic trick that would make Houdini proud: simultaneously inflating consultant rates and flooding the market with wide-eyed newbies. A paradox wrapped in an enigma, served with a side of irony. You’d think this would be cause for celebration but hold your horses. This little circus act might just be setting us up for a spectacular face-plant, reminiscent of the outsourcing fiasco that keeps IT veterans up at night. So, let’s peel back the curtain on this digital drama and see if we can’t spot the sleight of hand before it’s too late. The cybersecurity community once prided itself on a sense of camaraderie and shared purpose. However, this spirit has been eroded by a race to the bottom in terms of pricing and perceived value. By offering free or extremely low-cost training and services, the industry inadvertently sends a message that these skills and efforts have little intrinsic worth. The rise of influencer culture in cybersecurity The devaluation of cybersecurity expertise is further exacerbated by the rise of the “ influencer culture ” within the industry. In recent years, there’s been a surge of individuals focusing on building their personal brand and becoming influencers in the cybersecurity space. While some of these voices provide valuable insights, the field has become saturated with people eager to share their thoughts, regardless of their actual expertise or experience. influencer culture This proliferation of self-proclaimed experts has led to an overwhelming amount of noise in the cybersecurity information landscape (See Alyssa Miller ‘s article on “Infosec Rockstars vs Influencers”) . Social media platforms and online forums are awash with advice, tips, and “training” of varying quality. Unfortunately, quantity often drowns out quality, making it difficult for learners to discern valuable information from mere speculation or oversimplified explanations. Alyssa Miller “Infosec Rockstars vs Influencers”) The abundance of free or low-cost content creates a false perception that high-quality cybersecurity education should be easily accessible and inexpensive. As a result, reputable training providers like SANS Institute , CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency), and Cybrary , which offer comprehensive, vetted, and up-to-date courses, are often perceived as prohibitively expensive. SANS Institute CISA Cybrary The reality is that developing and maintaining high-quality, current cybersecurity training requires significant resources and expertise. However, many aspiring cybersecurity professionals, faced with course fees running into thousands of dollars, opt for the more affordable or free alternatives. This choice, while understandable from a financial perspective, often leads to gaps in knowledge and skills that can have serious consequences in real-world cybersecurity scenarios. This trend creates a vicious cycle. As more people turn to free or cheap resources, there’s less financial support for high-quality training programs. This could potentially lead to a decline in the overall quality of cybersecurity education, just when the need for skilled professionals is at its highest. Moreover, the focus on personal branding and influencer status can divert attention from the core mission of cybersecurity: protecting systems, data, and people. When the goal becomes amassing followers rather than developing deep expertise, the industry as a whole suffers. Outsourcing Boomerang: History’s Tech Lesson Ignored The situation eerily echoes a famous quote from the reimagined Battlestar Galactica series: “ All of this has happened before. All of this will happen again. ” Indeed, we’ve seen similar patterns play out in other tech sectors, most notably in the outsourcing boom of the early 2000s. All of this has happened before. All of this will happen again. During that period, many American companies rushed to outsource software development to countries like India, attracted by significantly lower labor costs. While this strategy seemed economically sound in the short term, it had far-reaching consequences for the U.S. tech industry – read this research article “ Impact of Offshore Outsourcing of IT Services on the US Economy ” by Kalyan Chakraborty and William Remington for more detail: Impact of Offshore Outsourcing of IT Services on the US Economy Job Offshoring: A substantial number of U.S. service industry jobs, particularly in IT, were moved abroad. By 2015, it was estimated that 3.4 million U.S. service industry jobs would be offshored. This shift was driven by the cost savings associated with outsourcing, which allowed companies to lower software and service prices, increase productivity, and invest in new technologies and business ideas. Job Offshoring: A substantial number of U.S. service industry jobs, particularly in IT, were moved abroad. By 2015, it was estimated that 3.4 million U.S. service industry jobs would be offshored. This shift was driven by the cost savings associated with outsourcing, which allowed companies to lower software and service prices, increase productivity, and invest in new technologies and business ideas. By offshoring entry-level positions, American companies inadvertently created a gap in their domestic talent pipeline. Fresh graduates found it increasingly difficult to gain the necessary experience to progress in their careers. Fast forward 15 years, and the U.S. now faces a shortage of experienced senior developers and technical managers – professionals who would have cut their teeth on those entry-level jobs a decade and a half ago. Ironically, the outsourcing tide is now turning against early adopters like India. As companies seek ever-cheaper labor sources or turn to automation, Indian tech workers find themselves facing the same challenges that their American counterparts did years ago. The parallels to the current state of cybersecurity are clear and concerning. By undervaluing the human element in cybersecurity – whether through free training, rock-bottom service pricing, or over-reliance on AI – we risk creating a similar talent gap in this critical field. The cybersecurity industry must learn from these historical lessons. While innovation and cost-efficiency are important, they shouldn’t come at the expense of nurturing human talent and expertise. The complex, ever-evolving nature of cyber threats requires a workforce that is not only skilled but also continually developing and adapting. As we move forward, it’s crucial to strike a balance between leveraging new technologies and valuing human expertise. Only by recognizing and appropriately compensating the skills and efforts of cybersecurity professionals can we ensure a robust, effective defense against future digital threats. The cyclical nature of these industry trends serves as a reminder that short-term gains often lead to long-term challenges. As we navigate the future of cybersecurity, let’s strive to break this cycle and build a sustainable model that values both innovation and human expertise. Summary The cybersecurity industry faces a critical challenge: the devaluation of expertise and services, fueled by free but often subpar training and an oversaturated information landscape. This trend, reminiscent of past outsourcing mistakes, threatens to undermine the field’s effectiveness against evolving digital threats. To safeguard the future of cybersecurity, stakeholders must: Recognize the true value of expert knowledge and quality training Recognize the true value of expert knowledge and quality training Critically evaluate information sources and invest in reputable education Critically evaluate information sources and invest in reputable education Prioritize building a skilled workforce over personal brand promotion Prioritize building a skilled workforce over personal brand promotion By addressing these key issues, the industry can maintain its integrity, improve its talent pool, and enhance its capacity to protect our digital infrastructure in an increasingly complex threat landscape. Credits I’d like to acknowledge an ongoing discussion between the founders of ThreatGEN and myself about how free training and low costs services are destroying cybersecurity. Clint Bodungen , Aaron Shbeeb , and Matthew Anderson have felt this firsthand. Jeff Whitney and Gary Leibowitz as board members are helping to combat this prevailing “ free mentality “. ThreatGEN Clint Bodungen Aaron Shbeeb Matthew Anderson Jeff Whitney Gary Leibowitz free mentality I’d also like to acknowledge my best friend Patrick Anderson who is experiencing this from another perspective – the IT outsourcing process and implementation. Patrick and I along with Eddie Tipton were partners in Systems Evolution Incorporated in the early years 1999 through 2003, and we were part of onshore outsourcing with the likes of EDS, Accenture , and other large consulting firms. Later in the evolution of Systems Evolution (at that point, a publicly traded company), we acquired Duration Software, which was the largest custom software developer for the state of Texas. Chris Montgomery , Rich Steinle , Frank Prevatt , and Scott Friesen among others understand the later stages of outsourcing as we were competing with the offshore wave. Patrick Anderson Accenture Chris Montgomery Rich Steinle Frank Prevatt Scott Friesen Lastly, I disclose that I used Anthropic’s Claude to polish my thoughts as well as Perplexity’s search engine for references that underscore my thoughts. Claude references Here is a link to the original article on LinkedIn. link

The Cybersecurity Paradox: Why Free Costs Too Much

সাইবারসিকিউরিটি প্যারাডক্স: কেন বিনামূল্যের খরচ অনেক বেশি

Das Cybersecurity-Paradox: Warum kostenlos zu viel kostet

La paradoja de la ciberseguridad: por qué lo gratuito cuesta demasiado

Le paradoxe de la cybersécurité : pourquoi la gratuité coûte trop cher

साइबर सुरक्षा विरोधाभास: क्यों मुफ़्त बहुत महंगा है

サイバーセキュリティのパラドックス: 無料にはコストがかかりすぎる理由

사이버 보안 역설: 무료가 너무 비싼 이유

O paradoxo da segurança cibernética: por que o gratuito custa muito caro

Парадокс кибербезопасности: почему бесплатное стоит слишком дорого

Siber Güvenlik Paradoksu: Ücretsiz Olan Neden Çok Pahalıdır?

Nghịch lý an ninh mạng: Tại sao miễn phí lại tốn kém quá nhiều

网络安全悖论：免费为何代价太大

GenAI in Elections: Reshaping Campaigns, Raising Ethical Concerns

নির্বাচনে GenAI: প্রচারাভিযান পুনর্নির্মাণ, নৈতিক উদ্বেগ উত্থাপন

GenAI bei Wahlen: Kampagnen neu gestalten, ethische Bedenken aufwerfen

GenAI en las elecciones: remodelando campañas, planteando preocupaciones éticas

GenAI dans les élections : remodeler les campagnes et soulever des préoccupations éthiques

चुनावों में GenAI: अभियानों को नया स्वरूप देना, नैतिक चिंताएं बढ़ाना

選挙における GenAI: 選挙運動の再構築、倫理的懸念の高まり

선거에서의 GenAI: 캠페인 재편, 윤리적 우려 제기

GenAI nas eleições: remodelando campanhas, levantando preocupações éticas

ГенИИ на выборах: изменение избирательных кампаний, рост этических проблем

Seçimlerde GenAI: Kampanyaları Yeniden Şekillendirmek, Etik Kaygıları Artırmak

GenAI trong bầu cử: Định hình lại các chiến dịch, nâng cao mối quan ngại về đạo đức

GenAI 在选举中的应用：重塑竞选活动，引发道德担忧

As a professional at , I have a passion for creating and executing across various industries. However, since I joined the industry with three years ago, I have realized that there is a crucial step that I have overlooked in my planning process: using tabletop exercises ( ) to test the validity and effectiveness of my plans and procedures. #managementconsulting DSV Consulting #businessplans #cybersecurity ThreatGEN #TTX In this article, I will focus on how TTX can help improve cybersecurity outcomes, as well as their benefits, limitations, and the next level of innovation. I will also discuss how TTX can be applied to other types of business plans in future articles. What are Tabletop Exercises? [Bing generated] Tabletop exercises in the cybersecurity area are that test the human and managerial factors, rather than technical defenses, to a potential . They help organizations to respond to detected threats and unfolding attacks, should they occur. They also help validate existing plans and expose weaknesses that can lead to improvement. simulations of cyber crisis situations #cyberattack devise #bestpractices #incidentresponse The typical format for tabletop training involves: . Testing preplanned actions in response to scenarios Group discussions to review the effectiveness of strategies and tactics, led by a skilled facilitator. Introduction of additional challenges to the presented scenarios to widen the scope of cybersecurity problem-solving. Tabletop exercises can be completed in as little as and are a convenient tool for putting your team in the cybersecurity mindset. There are also available to assist stakeholders in conducting their own exercises. 15 minutes various resources and templates TTX Benefits [Bing generated] Cybersecurity tabletop exercises have many benefits for an organization, such as: of the Crisis Management Team (CMT) and other employees involved in responding to cyber incidents. Improving the skills plans and playbooks and identifying areas for improvement. Testing existing #incidentresponse among different stakeholders and partners during a cyber crisis. Improving internal and external communications Improving response times and reducing the risk of damage from a cyber attack. Building of cyber risk and the . #awareness potential impact of cyber incidents on the organization Getting management buy-in and support for investing in cybersecurity measures and resources. Tabletop exercises are a valuable tool for . enhancing the organization’s cybersecurity posture and resilience TTX Preparation [Bing generated] There are different steps for preparing for a , depending on the scope and complexity of the exercise, but a basic framework is as follows: #cybersecurity #TTX : The first step is to define the key objectives, strategies and goals for the exercise, as well as the target audience, roles and responsibilities, and . It is also important to determine the scope, duration, format, and location of the exercise, and to . Step 1 – Pre-Exercise Planning expected outcomes identify the facilitator and the evaluators : The next step is to create a practical cyber incident scenario that could affect the organization, based on the most . The scenario should include a timeline, injects, and triggers that simulate the unfolding of the incident and challenge the participants to respond. The scenario should also align with the objectives and goals of the exercise, tailored to the audience and the organization’s context. Step 2 – Exercise & Scenario Design frequent and painful threats : The third step is to finalize the , such as the scenario, the questions, the injects, the evaluation forms, and the feedback forms. It is also important to communicate with the participants and the stakeholders about the exercise, and to provide them with any pre-exercise information or instructions. Additionally, it is advisable to test the exercise and the technical equipment before the actual delivery. Step 3 – Final Preparations exercise materials : The fourth step is to conduct the exercise according to the . The facilitator should guide the participants through the scenario, injects, and questions, and encourage discussion and collaboration among them. The evaluators should observe and document the participants’ actions, decisions, and performance, and provide feedback and recommendations. Step 4 – Exercise Delivery planned agenda and format : The final step is to analyze the results and outcomes of the exercise, and to identify the strengths, weaknesses, gaps, and lessons learned. The facilitator and the evaluators should prepare a report that summarizes the findings and recommendation, and share it with the participants and the stakeholders. The report should also include an action plan for implementing the improvements and follow-up activities. Step 5 – Post Exercise Activities Innovation in delivering Tabletop Exercises [Bing generated] There are various innovations taking place in delivering today, such as: #cybersecurity #TTX Using to build realistic and relevant scenarios that reflect the current and emerging cyber threats facing the organization. active threat intelligence Using to conduct tabletop exercises remotely and efficiently, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the increased reliance on . virtual platforms #workfromhome Using diverse and creative scenarios that go beyond the technical aspects of cyber incidents and explore the human, organizational, and societal impacts and implications. Using context and the challenges and opportunities for nursing students and professionals. patient scenarios to simulate the disaster healthcare These innovations aim to enhance the quality and value of the tabletop exercises and to prepare the participants for the dynamic and complex cyber environment. ThreatGEN® Red vs. Blue As I said earlier in this article, I work directly with and ThreatGEN founder & President and believe that the ThreatGEN® Red vs. Blue product embodies the greatest innovation in available. Here is an excerpt from the website: ThreatGEN Clint Bodungen #cybersecurity #TTX ThreatGEN® Red vs. Blue is the next evolution in . It is a game-based cybersecurity simulation platform that combines the power of an actual computer gaming engine and , to provide the most practical and effective way for ANYONE to learn cybersecurity, from beginners to experts, and even leadership. It doesn’t require any prior technical knowledge or command line skills… not even to play as the red team! Used for cybersecurity education, awareness, training, and IR tabletop exercises, ThreatGEN® Red vs. Blue is immersive, interactive, and hands-on, and it’s supported by an education portal with online courses, labs, scenarios, and an online community. cybersecurity education, training, and IR tabletop exercises adaptive adversary simulation A.I. ThreatGEN’s multitude of benefits the TTX platform include: An active (A.I.) tuned to each scenario to deliver a different simulated response EVERY time – the is a challenge! #artificialintelligence #redteam facilitators save over 100 hours of preparation time, equating to over $18,000 over only 5 uses. #TTX Capturing simulation session over time allows management to determine a team’s cyber posture today, and how it matures over time (a time dimension). #metrics Analysis of session historical metrics can be automated and integrated into available throughout an organization. #dashboards Building on these REAL benefits of today, one can imagine these possible benefits: ThreatGEN Automated ingestion of client network environments, analysis of , and delivery of customized scenarios to each client. #threatvectors review of session metrics and generation of remediation plans to remediate deficiencies in an organization’s cyber posture. #artificialintelligence Reporting of session metrics against like NIST Cybersecurity Framework or ISO/IEC 27001, providing actionable remediation plans generated by bots like ChatGPT.ai, Bard by or Bing from . #industryframeworks #artificialintelligence Google Microsoft TTX in other industries Tabletop exercises can be useful in contexts other than , such as an effective way to test in various scenarios and situations. They could: #cybersecurity #businessplans Identify roles and responsibilities of the team members and stakeholders involved in the plans. Assess the readiness and preparedness of the organization to handle the potential impacts and risks. Enhance the communication and coordination among the team members and stakeholders. Discover the gaps, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement and revision of the plans. In conclusion, the community has been caught flat footed when it comes to simulating and using a feedback loop to make business plans more effective. I will be writing more articles focused on that specific for , in the vain of capturing the that has already delivered to the community! #managementconsulting #usecase #TTX #innovation ThreatGEN #cybersecurity Please note that certain portions of this article were originally generated by Microsoft Bing Conversational Experiences, also referred to as the “Enhanced Bing”, and as such are used under its . Terms of Use Each block was edited for readability and where possible, references were retained to other original content provided by Bing. The questions used were as follows for each section: Define tabletop exercises in the cybersecurity area. What are the benefits of a tabletop exercise in the cybersecurity area? What are the steps for preparing for a tabletop exercise in the cybersecurity area? What innovation is taking place in delivering tabletop exercises today? The questions left unanswered, “ ” What are your thoughts on this? Are ChatGPT.ai, Bard and Bing the coming of SkyNet? About Robert C. Rhodes Robert C. Rhodes is an experienced sales and business development professional with a background in finance, operations, and strategic planning. His proven track record of success in driving sales, leading teams, and managing customer relationships is visible as a former CEO of publicly traded companies with a history of successful fundraising, M&A, and revenue growth. He is skilled in managing financial and operational challenges in high-tech and industries. #cybersecurity Industries – Edtech, Oil & Gas, Heavy Industry, and Technology Specializes in public company M&A and disclosure profile LinkedIn Listed on as available for projects through Business Talent Group DSV Consulting Mail LinkedIn Twitter Here is a to the original article as published on LinkedIn on February 14, 2023. link

How to Utilize Tabletop Exercises in Cybersecurity and Beyond

সাইবারসিকিউরিটি এবং এর বাইরেও ট্যাবলেটপ অনুশীলনগুলি কীভাবে ব্যবহার করবেন

So nutzen Sie Tabletop-Übungen zur Cybersicherheit und darüber hinaus

Cómo utilizar ejercicios teóricos en ciberseguridad y más allá

Comment utiliser les exercices sur table en cybersécurité et au-delà

साइबर सुरक्षा और उससे परे टेबलटॉप अभ्यासों का उपयोग कैसे करें

サイバーセキュリティなどで机上演習を活用する方法

사이버 보안 및 그 이상 분야에서 모의 훈련을 활용하는 방법

Como utilizar exercícios de mesa em segurança cibernética e muito mais

Как использовать настольные учения в области кибербезопасности и не только

Siber Güvenlik ve Ötesinde Masaüstü Egzersizlerinden Nasıl Yararlanılır?

Cách sử dụng các bài tập trên máy tính bảng trong lĩnh vực An ninh mạng và hơn thế nữa

如何在网络安全及其他领域利用桌面练习

Meet the Winners of Startups in North and Central America

Hari to Bis: AI in Financial Systems Could Threaten Democracy

Artisanal Power: How to Avert a Threatened Mass Casualty Event

কারিগর শক্তি: কিভাবে একটি হুমকিমূলক গণহত্যার ঘটনা এড়ানো যায়

Handwerkliche Macht: Wie sich ein drohendes Massenopferereignis abwenden lässt

Energía artesanal: cómo evitar una amenaza de incidente con víctimas en masa

Pouvoir artisanal : comment éviter une menace d’événement causant des pertes massives

कारीगर शक्ति: सामूहिक दुर्घटना की आशंका को कैसे टालें

職人の力：脅威となる大量死傷事件を回避する方法

장인의 힘: 대규모 사상자 위협을 방지하는 방법

Poder artesanal: como evitar um evento com ameaça de vítimas em massa

Ремесленная сила: как предотвратить угрозу массового поражения

Zanaat Gücü: Tehdit Altındaki Kitlesel Kayıp Olayı Nasıl Önlenir?

Sức mạnh thủ công: Làm thế nào để ngăn chặn một sự kiện thương vong hàng loạt bị đe dọa

手工力量：如何避免大规模伤亡事件的威胁

The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation Court Filing December 27, 2023 is part of s. You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 7 of 27. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Serie here IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. The New York Times and its Mission 4. GenAI Products Threaten High-Quality Journalism 47. Making great journalism is harder than ever. Over the past two decades, the traditional business models that supported quality journalism have collapsed, forcing the shuttering of newspapers all over the country. It has become more difficult for the public to sort fact from fiction in today’s information ecosystem, as misinformation floods the internet, television, and other media. If The Times and other news organizations cannot produce and protect their independent journalism, there will be a vacuum that no computer or artificial intelligence can fill. 48. The protection of The Times’s intellectual property is critical to its continued ability to fund world-class journalism in the public interest. If The Times and its peers cannot control the use of their content, their ability to monetize that content will be harmed. With less revenue, news organizations will have fewer journalists able to dedicate time and resources to important, in-depth stories, which creates a risk that those stories will go untold. Less journalism will be produced, and the cost to society will be enormous. 49. The Times depends on its exclusive rights of reproduction, adaptation, publication, performance, and display under copyright law to resist these forces. The Times has registered the copyright in its print edition every day for over 100 years, maintains a paywall, and has implemented terms of service that set limits on the copying and use of its content. To use Times content for commercial purposes, a party should first approach The Times about a licensing agreement. 50. The Times requires third parties to obtain permission before using Times content and trademarks for commercial purposes, and for decades The Times has licensed its content under negotiated licensing agreements. These agreements help ensure that The Times controls how, where, and for how long its content and brand appears and that it receives fair compensation for third-party use. Third parties, including large tech platforms, pay The Times significant royalties under these agreements in exchange for the right to use Times content for narrowly defined purposes. The agreements prohibit uses beyond those authorized purposes. 51. Times content is also available for licenses for certain uses through the Copyright Clearance Center (“CCC”), a clearinghouse that licenses material to both corporate and academic users. Through the CCC, The Times permits limited licenses for instruction, academic, other nonprofit uses, and limited commercial uses. For example, a for-profit business can acquire a CCC license to make a photocopy of Times content for internal or external distribution in exchange for a licensing fee of about ten dollars per article. A CCC license to post a single Times article on a commercial website for up to a year costs several thousand dollars. 52. The Times’s ability to continue to attract and grow its digital subscriber base and to generate digital advertising revenue depends on the size of The Times’s audience and users’ sustained engagement directly with The Times’s websites and mobile applications. To facilitate this direct engagement with its products, The Times permits search engines to access and index its content, which is necessary to allow users to find The Times using these search engines. Inherent in this value exchange is the idea that the search engines will direct users to The Times’s own websites and mobile applications, rather than exploit The Times’s content to keep users within their own search ecosystem. 53. While The Times, like virtually all online publishers, permits search engines to access its content for the limited purpose of surfacing it in traditional search results, The Times has never given permission to any entity, including Defendants, to use its content for GenAI purposes. 54. The Times reached out to Microsoft and OpenAI in April 2023 to raise intellectual property concerns and explore the possibility of an amicable resolution, with commercial terms and technological guardrails that would allow a mutually beneficial value exchange between Defendants and The Times. These efforts have not produced a resolution. Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case 1:23-cv-11195 retrieved on December 29, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. nycto-assets.nytimes.com

The Times v. Microsoft/OpenAI: GenAI Products Threaten High-Quality Journalism (7)

দ্য টাইমস বনাম মাইক্রোসফ্ট/ওপেনএআই: জিনএআই পণ্য উচ্চ-মানের সাংবাদিকতাকে হুমকি দেয় (7)

The Times vs. Microsoft/OpenAI: GenAI-Produkte bedrohen hochwertigen Journalismus (7)

The Times contra Microsoft/OpenAI: Los productos GenAI amenazan el periodismo de alta calidad (7)

The Times contre Microsoft/OpenAI : les produits GenAI menacent le journalisme de haute qualité (7)

द टाइम्स बनाम माइक्रोसॉफ्ट/ओपनएआई: जेनएआई उत्पाद उच्च गुणवत्ता वाली पत्रकारिता के लिए खतरा हैं (7)

タイムズ対マイクロソフト/OpenAI: GenAI 製品が高品質のジャーナリズムを脅かす (7)

The Times 대 Microsoft/OpenAI: GenAI 제품이 고품질 저널리즘을 위협합니다(7)

The Times x Microsoft/OpenAI: Produtos GenAI ameaçam o jornalismo de alta qualidade (7)

The Times против Microsoft/OpenAI: продукты GenAI угрожают высококачественной журналистике (7)

The Times - Microsoft/OpenAI: GenAI Ürünleri Yüksek Kaliteli Gazeteciliği Tehdit Ediyor (7)

The Times v. Microsoft/OpenAI: Các sản phẩm GenAI đe dọa nền báo chí chất lượng cao (7)

《泰晤士报》诉 Microsoft/OpenAI：GenAI 产品威胁高质量新闻 (7)

In the global tech ecosystem and beyond, 2023 has undoubtedly been “The Year of AI”. Reports, speculations, and even conspiracy theories regarding generative AI's capabilities, potential, shortcomings, and risks have traversed the globe—from major media networks to your mother’s WhatsApp group. This shiny, new (well, sort of)  technology has seen adoption grow so much that businesses of every scale have moved mountains to build AI tools or, at the very least, integrate them into their workflows and service offerings. OpenAI, the poster child of the AI revolution, has enjoyed on the back of its golden goose, ChatGPT. However, the company’s success in the realm of AI has not been a solitary journey. Other companies, spurred by OpenAI’s “proof of concept,” have since sought after geese of their own. meteoric growth With a valuation bump of , since it shifted the main focus of its graphic cards from PC gaming to AI, it’s clear that Nvidia has had one of the picks of the golden gaggle. $200 billion in May Already the most valuable chip maker in the world before the AI boom, Nvidia’s value and monopoly have unsurprisingly continued to grow steadily throughout the year. Adding context, the company third-quarter earnings of $18.12 billion, marking a remarkable 206% increase from a year ago and a substantial 34% growth from the previous quarter. Further, it commands an in the global AI chip market, soaring even higher to 90% in China's $7 billion market—a dominance that could potentially disrupt. reported 80% monopoly Biden's technology controls In October, the U.S. government to halt shipments to China of more advanced AI chips designed by companies like Nvidia to prevent Beijing from receiving cutting-edge U.S. technologies that could strengthen its military. set plans in motion Even though most consumer chips, as can be found in laptops, smartphones, and gaming PCs, were effectively exempt from these rules, the Calif-based chip maker suffered a 3.7% fall in share price after the announcement was made. About two months after the October 16 announcement, Nvidia is starting to feel the impact of Biden’s export restrictions as Chinese chip designers like Tencent holdings, State-backed Hygon, and startup Iluvatar CoreX make a play for the market leader’s freshly vacant throne. However, , Huawei seems closest to the crown, with its holding its own against in terms of computing power. as Reuter reports Ascend 910 Nvidia’s A100 In a Biden-sponsored free-for-all, Tencent - China’s largest social media and gaming firm - and other Chinese-based companies are marketing their chips as holistic alternatives to Nvidia and not just for its advanced offerings. Ironically, U.S. actions aimed at slowing down China's AI capabilities have unintentionally boosted China's self-development capability. However, Chip designers in the region might struggle to meet the demands of Chinese tech giants due to production capacity constraints—resulting from U.S. curbs on foundries working with Chinese firms. When the new regulations were first introduced in October, Nvidia said it complies completely and does not expect significant near-term impact on results. I wonder if they still maintain that position. Nvidia finished at #31 on this week’s HackerNoon Tech Company Rankings 👋 You’re reading of HackerNoon's Tech Company News Brief, a weekly collection of tech goodness that combines HackerNoon's proprietary data with internet trends to determine which companies are rising and falling in the public consciousness. goes live tomorrow. Hate waiting? No problemo! Just subscribe to receive the newsletter part 1 Part 2 here complete a day early in your inbox. In Other News… You Should be Skeptical about QR Codes, FTC Warns - The Verge Epic Games Wins Antitrust Lawsuit against Google - Tech Crunch SpaceX postpones planned launch of US military's secretive X-37B spaceplane - Reuters New Mexico lawsuit accuses Meta of creating ‘breeding ground’ for child predators - CNN Teslas will be able to automatically call 911 if you get in a Crash - The Verge This brings us to the end of this week’s Tech Company News Brief. Don’t forget to share this newsletter with your family, friends, and everyone in between! See you next week! - , Editor, World News & Scifi @ HackerNoon. Asher Umerie

Uncle Sam Threatens Nvidia’s 90% Monopoly in the Chinese AI Chip Market

The United States v Meta Platforms Court Filing October 24, 2023 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 74 of 100. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here COUNT XXIX: DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES BY META IN VIOLATION OF THE NEBRASKA CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1029. The State of Nebraska realleges and incorporates herein each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 850 as though fully alleged in this cause of action. 1030. The Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (NE CPA) prohibits deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-1602. 1031. As described in preceding paragraphs and summarized in Section XI.A of the Complaint, Meta has engaged in deceptive acts or practices in violation of the NE CPA. 1032. Each deceptive act or practice, as alleged herein, constitutes a separate violation of the NE CPA and the NE UDTPA. Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case 4:23-cv-05448 retrieved on October 25, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. Washingtonpost.com

Nebraska Flames Meta for Threatening Consumer Rights

United States Of America. v. Microsoft Corporation Court Filing by Thomas Penfield Jackson, November 5, 1999 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 53 of 58. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here VI. MICROSOFT’S RESPONSE TO THE THREAT POSED BY SUN’S IMPLEMENTATION OF JAVA For Microsoft, a key to maintaining and reinforcing the applications barrier to entry has been preserving the difficulty of porting applications from Windows to other platforms, and vice versa. In 1996, senior executives at Microsoft became aware that the number of developers writing network-centric applications in the Java programming language had become significant, and that Java was likely to increase in popularity among developers. Microsoft therefore became interested in maximizing the difficulty with which applications written in Java could be ported from Windows to other platforms, and vice versa. A. Creating a Java Implementation for Windows that Undermined Portability and Was Incompatible with Other Implementations Although Sun intended Java technologies eventually to allow developers to write applications that would run on multiple operating systems without any porting, the Java class libraries have never exposed enough APIs to support full-featured applications. Java developers have thus always needed to rely on platform-specific APIs in order to write applications with advanced functionality. Recognizing this, Sun sponsored a process for the creation of a software method that would allow developers writing in Java to rely directly upon APIs exposed by a particular operating system in a way that would nevertheless allow them to port their applications with relative ease to JVMs running on different operating systems. On March 12, 1996, Sun signed an agreement granting Microsoft the right to distribute and make certain modifications to Sun’s Java technologies. Microsoft used this license to create its own Java development tools and its own Windows-compatible Java runtime environment. Because the motivation behind the Sun-sponsored effort ran counter to Microsoft’s interest in preserving the difficulty of porting, Microsoft independently developed methods for enabling “calls” to “native” Windows code that made porting more difficult than the method that Sun was striving to make standard. Microsoft implemented these different methods in its developer tools and in its JVM. Microsoft also discouraged its business allies from aiding Sun’s effort. For example, Gates told Intel’s CEO in June 1996 that he did not want the Intel Architecture Labs cooperating with Sun to develop methods for calling upon multimedia interfaces in Windows. Since they were custom-built for enabling native calls to Windows, and because they were developed by the firm with the most intimate knowledge of Windows, the native methods that Microsoft produced were slightly easier for developers to use than the method that derived from the Sun-sponsored effort, and Java applications using Microsoft’s methods tended to run faster than ones calling upon Windows APIs with Sun’s method. If a developer relied on Microsoft’s methods rather than Sun’s, however, his Java application would be much more difficult to port from the Windows-compatible JVM to JVMs designed to run on different operating systems. Microsoft easily could have implemented Sun’s native method along with its own in its developer tools and its JVM, thereby allowing Java developers to choose between speed and portability; however, it elected instead to implement only the Microsoft methods. The result was that if a Java developer used the Sun method for making native calls, his application would not run on Microsoft’s version of the Windows JVM, and if he used Microsoft’s native methods, his application would not run on any JVM other than Microsoft’s version. Far from being the unintended consequence of an attempt to help Java developers more easily develop highperforming applications, incompatibility was the intended result of Microsoft’s efforts. In fact, Microsoft would subsequently threaten to use the same tactic against Apple’s QuickTime. Microsoft continued to refuse to implement Sun’s native method until November 1998, when a court ordered it to do so. It then took Microsoft only a few weeks to implement Sun’s native method in its developer tools and JVM. Although the Java class libraries have yet to provide enough functionality to support full-featured applications, they have gradually expanded toward that goal. In 1997, Sun added a class library called Remote Method Invocation, or “RMI,” which allowed Java applications written to call upon it to communicate with each other in certain useful ways. Microsoft was not willing to stand by and allow Java developers to rely on new Java class libraries unimpeded. The more that Java developers were able to satisfy their need for functionality by calling upon the Java class libraries, the more portable their applications would become. Microsoft had developed a set of Windows-specific interfaces to provide functionality analogous to the functionality RMI offered; it wanted Java developers to rely on this Windowsspecific technology rather than Sun’s cross-platform interface. Microsoft thus refused to include RMI as a standard component of the Java runtime environment for Windows that it shipped with Internet Explorer 4.0. The license agreement it had signed with Sun the previous year obligated Microsoft to offer RMI, at a minimum, on its developer Web site. Microsoft did so, but with respect to the RMI beta release, it buried the link in an obscure location and neglected to include an entry for it in the site’s index. Referring to RMI and any Java developers who might access Microsoft’s site looking for it, a Microsoft employee wrote to his approving manager, “They’ll have to stumble across it to know it’s there. . . . I’d say it’s pretty buried.” It is unclear whether Microsoft ultimately placed RMI in a more prominent place on its developer Web site. Even if it did, the fact that RMI was not shipped with Microsoft’s Java runtime environment for Windows meant that Java developers could not rely on its being installed on consumers’ PC systems. If developers wanted their Java applications to call upon communications interfaces guaranteed to be present on Windows users’ systems, they had no choice but to rely on the Microsoft-specific interfaces instead of RMI. Microsoft undertook the effort to remove RMI from the rest of the Java class libraries, instead of simply leaving it in place and allowing developers to choose between it and Windows-specific interfaces, for the sole purpose of making it more difficult for Java developers to write easily portable applications. In a further effort intended to increase the incompatibility between Java applications written for its Windows JVM and other Windows JVMs, and to increase the difficulty of porting Java applications from the Windows environment to other platforms, Microsoft designed its Java developer tools to encourage developers to write their Java applications using certain “keywords” and “compiler directives” that could only be executed properly by Microsoft’s version of the Java runtime environment for Windows. Microsoft encouraged developers to use these extensions by shipping its developer tools with the extensions enabled by default and by failing to warn developers that their use would result in applications that might not run properly with any runtime environment other than Microsoft’s and that would be difficult, and perhaps impossible, to port to JVMs running on other platforms. This action comported with the suggestion that Microsoft’s Thomas Reardon made to his colleagues in November 1996: “[W]e should just quietly grow j++ [Microsoft’s developer tools] share and assume that people will take more advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps.” Microsoft refused to alter its developer tools until November 1998, when a court ordered it to disable its keywords and compiler directives by default and to warn developers that using Microsoft’s Java extensions would likely cause incompatibilities with non-Microsoft runtime environments. Continue reading . here About We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: This court case Civil Action No. 98-1232 (TPJ) retrieved on 2-13-2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. justice.gov

Microsoft Was Threatened by Java: That's Why They Made the Decision to Undermine Its Portability

Stories, News & Mentions about THREATGEN

Threatgen’s Stories on HackerNoon

Threatgen's News & Mentions