|
Dear Reader,
In April we said we were going to the RSAC Conference to get some insight on the U.S. move toward a pariah state and the degradation of government security practices. We also wanted to look at demands for encryption backdoors, ethical consideration in the use of AI, and a hard look at the viability of quantum computing for malicious purposes.
The events in the past few weeks provided some insight into the first two (we are and it is). And our conversations at RSAC confirmed this: Many vendors we met with privately agreed that the federal government will become a barrier to security rather than a solution. None wanted to go on record. At least, those doing business in the US didn’t want to say anything, but we did get on the record corroboration before the conference from professionals in the United Kingdom, the EU and Canada.
Next up
We got some hints about AI ethics and backdoors, but nothing on malicious quantum computing, so those are subjects we will be hoping to move forward on some coverage in those areas. We have strong evidence that “Q-Day,” that moment a quantum computer powerful enough to break modern military grade encryption comes on line, is at least 50 years away. But we are open to be proven wrong. Give us your best shot.
A new subject came to light in the discussions and other research we are doing: the Battle of the Bots, and there was one company, Netacea out of the UK, that did have something to say about that problem. As we have dug into the subject, it seems we will be doing several stories in a deep dive on bots. We will produce a history of the technology, how it is used both for good and bad, and what can be done to lessen the damage from malicious use.
Supporting independent media
The first question of chief editor asked in 30-plus meetings at the conference was, “Have you read the magazine?” A few admitted they had not, most said they had and a couple said they subscribed. One company said they were very excited to meet with us and said they were subscribers. Another called us “the Bible of the cybersecurity industry.”
As gratifying as those responses are, we were able to determine, fairly quickly, there was little evidence of their consumption of our content.
When we talk about supporting media, we are not necessarily talking about taking out advertising (although that will be happily accepted). Buying a subscription ($24.99 a year) is another great support. We also have a free subscription level that gives limited access to content and all that costs is giving us a name and email address.
Understanding media
Knowing that people are reading and listening to our content tells us we are doing something right. We do know who reads our content and most of them are not in the industry. They rely on us to explain what cybersecurity is and how to stay secure. They aren’t particularly concerned about new investments, partnerships, product enhancements or most of the content of the news releases you send us.
They often read stories about reports and studies we publish, but they rely on us to filter out those documents that are mostly dedicated to marketing and rehashing already well-known (often inaccurate) statistics. There are, maybe, three companies that put our statistically relevant studies. One of them is Sophos, who we met with at the conference and will be doing adeep dive on their report and the most recent Verizion Data Breach Investigaton Report (DBIR) in the next month.
So that gives you a good idea as to what kind of content and news we are looking to produce. We look forward to hearing from you.
Again with the embargoes?!
We keep telling PR firms and companies that we don’t have time to keep track of your marketing calendars. By the end of the week after RSAC we had requests for more than 200 embargoes. None of them constituted newsworthy content (see above). That being said, if you have real news under embargo, we are not going to honor it. So just send it when it is ready.
Ok, now we are putting Oscar the Grouch back in his can.
Enjoy Reading
Lou, Joe and Patrick |
