I'll be more nuanced.Doing operational security can enhance your security posture, but the real trick in cybersecurity isn’t just putting measures in place, it’s keeping them up over time. That’s where checklists come in.
A lot of companies get it wrong. They think the checklist is the security. But really, the checklist is just there to remind you that you did something right before and you need to keep it up. Treating the checklist like it’s the goal is where things go off track.
This is a CISO's nightmare fuel. Shadow IT is a real pain, consisting of systems with no ownership, no control, and possibly a tight link with the inner IT system.
And the majority of this is only exacerbated by the complexity of the decision-making process.
And yet, most IT will see it as an opportunity for locking down systems and policies, instead of the call for help shadow IT is: people want systems that are reliable, efficient, and adaptable to rapidly changing business needs. Providing them is part of the core mission of IT, and they're failing at it in some companies. One anecdotal example: I'm responsible for doing trainings at my company. If I see someone providing trainings on their own, creating their own class material, using their own platform... basically wasting company resources; I don't consider it shadow training but I take it as an indication that A. they have a need B. are very willing to work to achieve it and C. I'm not filling up that need properly, maybe not even communicating correctly about it. I take ownership and I don't play vigilante. When IT are providers, helpers to the employees, instead of self-appointed inquisition on a mission to purify the systems and its users, it works for the best.
At my company IT wants funding before you even talk to them. After you play the shell game it’s months and months before a half baked solution is cobbled together. So we have Shadow IT, our own Linux servers, JIRA, git, and now a couple off the shelf SaaS products we can configure ourselves and skip IT all together.
I'm using EF Core with SQL Server and PostgreSQL for two different production projects; it works like a charm, and the performance is great.
All recent projects in my company are PostgreSQL based (> 2000 production applications), and we have far fewer troubles with PostgreSQL than with Oracle, not to mention the licensing.
Wouldn't it be simpler to plant trees instead of using energy to capture carbon? To absorb 1000 tons of CO2 a year, you'd need roughly 200 acres of land, which seems more feasible.
You'd want to put them in Low Earth Orbit, not Ceres. Data centers (CDNs) in space would have 10ms ping times in basically the worst case (assuming a relatively high low earth orbit of 1000 km and hitting satellites at approximately 45 degrees elevation). In the best case they'll have ping times possibly as low as 3ms (satellites that happen to be directly overhead in their 400 km orbits).
You get direct connections to the servers without going through multiple local jumps and you aren't slowed down by the slower speeds of light in fiber.
Error correction, mass limits, and power generation are the difficult parts.
Horror story here our servers are in a basement datacenter under another datacenter. An intervention on the upper datacenter caused water to flow on our servers on 23th of december.
Same experience here, my company was unable to choose a collaborative software, but in just one day 250 people had to work remotly while none before.
Teams is somewhat good, good tools to create wikis and integrate third party solution like Jira and office integration. One selling point to me is that "it just works" even with non technical users.
Problem with looking at case numbers is, you need to know how many tests have been executed. If they doubled the number of tests within those 3 days, then you measure the increase in tests, not an increase in cases.
