One of the essential securitylists on the internet (there are only about 10 of them) is the Open Source Information list about all kinds of security incidents made by the US Department of Home Security.
As already happened once with the emaillist from our security institution BIPT, that list got hijacked the last days and tens, sometimes hundreds of messages started flowing around to all these ITsec people all around the world. Emailmessages began blacklisting the server and blocking all messages, people started responding to 'all' to know what has happening, only increasing the noise and the volume.
Seemed that they didn't configure well their mailinglistserver and that some people found a way to spam securitypeople with messages of all kinds. It seemed they had outsourced it. Easy, but that doesn't make you less responsable. Quite funny otherwise
btw one problem is that it was possible to make a list of many of people that are subscribed to that list because the emails were flowing all over. This could make them targets for specific attacks as their emails are normally not so very public. Another reason why internal securitypeople should have independent emailaddresses. The subscribers should be more cautious now what they open in their mailbox.
Omdat Vlaanderen zonder Brussel niets waard (volgens eigen Vlaamse studies) is en omdat Brussel zonder België niets waard is en Brussel een marktwaarde heeft van miljarden euro's en zorgt voor duizenden jobs en opdrachten-inkomsten over het hele land.
Omdat het leuker is te leren en te verschillen dan zich in te graven in een dorpscultuur waar alles wat vreemd is raar blijft en moeilijk aanvaard wordt.
Omdat we moeten stoppen met te spreken over elkaar en met spreken met elkaar.
Omdat de vlaming, de waal, de brusselaar, de franstalige, de werkloze, de hardwerkende vlaming niet bestaat omdat elke 'de' een zodanige vervlakking en veralgeming is dat ze racistisch wordt (wijzig in veel discours de term vlaming of waal door marokkaan of jood en je zou verbaasd staan van wat je zegt).
Omdat vroeger de walen rijker waren dan de vlamingen en nu zijn wij rijker dan de walen maar de walen hebben meer bouwgrond en meer mankracht terwijl wij geen plaats meer hebben en een steeds oudere bevolking hebben zodat op termijn zij zullen moeten bijdragen. Trouwens wat blijft er van onze rijkdom over zonder Brussel en zonder een 10tal grote fabrieken.
Omdat ook in Vlaanderen subgewesten naar elkaar geld sturen (en de rijke er niet zo tevreden over zijn), omdat ook in Vlaanderen centrumgemeenten geld verliezen aan mensen die in de villawijken rond hen wonen (en minder betalen maar wel dezelfde diensten gebruiken), omdat als het elk voor zich, het niet alles voor Antwerpen zal zijn.
Omdat zonder Belgische sociale zekerheid er geen sociale zekerheid meer is, punt gedaan.
Omdat er veel belangrijker dingen zijn in het leven van de mensen dan een staatshervorming.
Omdat vlaanderen niet alles zelf beter doet en sommige dingen beter op een ander niveau worden beheerd. Dat zou het enige uitgangspunt moeten zijn.
Omdat elke cultuur haar rijkdom heeft waarvan we kunnen leren en onze eigen cultuur mee kunnen uitbreiden. Tenzij we de verengelsing binnen 2 generaties zullen vervloeken en op de brandstapel gooien.
Omdat het vlaanderen van termen zoals volksverraders, wie voor België is tegen Vlaanderen me schrik aanjaagt....
De eerste reactie onder dit artikel heb ik niet uitgevonden, ze is dan ook een voorbeeld waarom dit Vlaanderen niet mijn Vlaanderen is en het ook nooit kan worden, omdat ik mensen nooit op die manier zal beoordelen of behandelen. Laat taalracisten onze politiek niet sturen. Welke taal ze ook spreken.
deze contextual ads zijn veel te laat want de verkiezingen zijn al lang voorbij en trouwens deze tegenkandidaat voorzitter zou een pub krijgen voor de officiële sp, wel contextuele ads zijn een gevaarlijk goedje gewoonweg
soms wel grappig
Just simple, you can't even start because there are so many unknown factors and so many things that would take years to negotiate and so many scenario's with so many different possible outcomes that the balance could tilt totally in the direction of 'don't start what you can't end.'
Belgium is not tsjechoslavkije. The economies, transport and public infrastructure are much more intertwinned than was the case in tsjechoslov. There is one capital Brussels that brings in billions of Euro's each year for both regions because it is an international diplomatic capital. Playing with Belgium and losing Brussels would have immediate effects on every region. The unknown factor is if the European Commission and the hundreds of other organisations and institutions would stay if Brussels was to become 'independent'. This would not be up for the ex-belgians to decide. Can you imagine Brussels without European institutions ? Half of its center would be a ghosttown, real-estate prices would crash and employment would follow, because there would be no strategic reason for all those headquarters to stay in Brussels.
The social security, health care and pensions are another factor with which one can't play without making a risk assessment. And when you note the risks, you will see that the only effect would be that the risks would afterwards be distributed among smaller populations that would be more vulnerable to demographic trends, privatisations and epidemics. Do not forget that Flanders will have in 10 years from here a population that would have more pensioners and older sick people than the other regions.
And there are so many other risks and unforeseenable events and scenario's that the old rule of IT should come back to politics.
Do not fix it if it ain't broke
Just patch it a little here and a little there. And go on with the work you were elected for.
This franco-german organisation called 'eurosafe' treats security problems around and with the nuclear industry. But is is solely focused on environmental and mechanical aspects of security. In the last years only one presentation was given about the security of the software they were using.
It is like the neighbor who has dogs, guns, metal doors and anti-burglar windows but who controls his garage door with wifi or bluebooth. Security is not only the things that you see. It is thinking about the things that could happen and the things you don't know about yet but should investigate. They should investigate their cybernetworks and their software and be absolutely sure that everything is 1000% as it should be now and in the future.
Scade networks and network connections need to be as secure as the anti aircraft missiles around the nuclear installations.
I am reading a lot nowadays about risk assessment. The best advice I should give you is to read several books before talking to consultants because every book seems a bit different from another, so without having enough background information the consultants will be able to push you in a particular direction. If he is just out to earn a lot of money, he will set up a very complicated and enduring process that will lead nowhere on the field.
Today I experienced a good example of the difference between quantitative and qualitative risk assessment.
The belgian national railways are working on their infrastructure and for this reasons trains to the coast would take 40 minutes more than usual.
In the quantitative risk assessment the probability of having a sunny weekend this weekend is statistically nearly non-existant. And so if one informs everybody that is on the train during the weeks before would be sufficient.
In the qualitative risk assessment there is a probability that there can be a very sunny weekend during these weekends and so there is a possibility that thousands of people will take the train who didn't take the train during the weeks before because there was no sun. So you should foresee communication on tv and radio and in the press and you must foresee more extra trains and be prepared that if anything else goes wrong you have the procedures in place to restore the network or trainnetwork because otherwise there will be an exponential dynamic of chaos.
A stupid example. I do not believe there is any professional risk assessment in our national railway company.
Since many years there have been reports that cyberwar is next on our doorstep and some films (even recent ones like die hard 4) have glamorized this. The panick around the Chinese cyberattacks on our cyberinfrastructure is good for a big laugh. Why ?
For three reasons. First European Commission nor any European country is investing appropriately in cyberdefense and the protection of the networks and infrastructure. The fact that in Belgian there is still no CERT and the Belgian government in place have done nothing to implement what it has voted with the new Telecomlaw is just typical.
Secondly The reports that the Chinese are building (just as the Americans who are even actively seeking to recruit hackers) a Cyberarmy are already several months old. What do you think those thousands of cybersoldiers would do all day behind their screens ? Play videogames ? Watch movies ? Like any soldiers they would like some action..... See if their stuff actually works. Even without telling 'on paper' their superiors who afterwards can deny everything.
Thirdly The malicious traffic coming out of China is - aside from these cyberattacks - something every admin is used to. According to one study there are millions of botnet infected computers behind the great political internetfirewall of China. You can't get a political internetmessage out of China, but you may freely bombard the world with phishing, viruses and spam. China is saying it will change that and start filtering that malicious traffic, but we will have to see it before believing.
The most interesting part about the Chinese story is that according to a new newsreport coming out of the States is that they infiltrated the Pentagon Network by hopping in from the networks from their 'trusted' firms. Every network has - had ? - priviliged network acces for the supportpeople from the firms that installed and furnished the goods and services. Should we trust any network blindly knowing that there are now thousands of cybersoldiers working all over the world ? Hackers are one thing, but cybersoldiers are different.
Question a belgian journalist should ask Do we have a cyberarmy - a cyberstrategy ? On paper.... we a an virtual army on paper...