And if the current stats are even close to accurate there are something like
200000 unfilled cybersecurity jobs at the moment with only about 20000
qualified people to fill them, and the unfilled numbers are growing faster than
the qualified people. That would lead me to think that the ‘career ending
event’ would actually be a gateway to a new job where they probably understand
that you can’t possibly catch everything, particularly heretofore unknown
things.
How’s that saying go? You can’t know what you don’t know.
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world...
those who understand binary and those who don't.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Andrew S. Baker
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 11:43 AM
To: ntsysadm <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] OS in the CPU
Sure, but there are lots of ways to lose jobs -- many of which have nothing to
do with your own personal actions.
InfoSec currently lends itself more to employment than unemployment.
Regards,
ASB
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Jonathan Link
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
More like job insecurity. Missing an exploit might be a career ending event,
even if it is heretofore an unknown exploit.
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:54 AM Melvin Backus
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Some call them opportunities, we in IT call them job security. ☺
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world...
those who understand binary and those who don't.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>]
On Behalf Of Kurt Buff
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 11:34 AM
To: ntsysadm <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] OS in the CPU
There are always more problems:
https://www.thezdi.com/blog/2017/10/04/vmware-escapology-how-to-houdini-the-hypervisor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRemWLNBSZg
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Andrew S. Baker
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
But wait! There's more...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrksBdWcZgQ
(I see your "solution" and raise you two more problems)
Regards,
ASB
On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Kurt Buff
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
The OS in question (minix), isn't in the main CPU - it's in the CPU of the
management engine, which is completely separate, and doesn't, or at least
shouldn't, affect system performance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Active_Management_Technology#Hardware
That actually makes it worse, since as long as the machine is connect to power,
even though putatively "off", the management engine is available. That is, if
it's been configured. This is an enterprise feature, so the ME is usually not
active in consumer-grade computers.
But, if it's present and turned on, then it's pretty risky:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/09/chipzilla_come_closer_closer_listen_dump_ime/
But there's some hope, of a sort - Google is on the case:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/google-removing-minix-management-engine-intel,35876.html
Kurt
On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 6:34 AM, Andrew S. Baker
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
No wonder our machines don't seem as fast as we think they *could* be...
They're busy running more stuff than we thought:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/minix-intels-hidden-in-chip-operating-system/
The security implications are also pretty staggering...
Regards,
ASB
[https://my-email-signature.link/signature.gif?u=162639&e=13791714&v=7975870bc76bdc7c79b2d58cdfb91e073b6d44ef6b8306b92a5cf8598e0753bb]
