Advanced Persistent Threat Compromise of Government Agencies

Re:Advanced Persistent Threat Compromise of Government Agencies by astockwell on Thursday December 17, 2020 @06:15PM (#25461777)

I agree on all fronts. Preparedness is the clearest way. But our economy (and capitalism in general) don't reward preparedness, in fact they often punish for it. I read some article about how building slack into systems is equal to building resiliency into them. How can we build an economy that aligns incentives to be resilient?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Advanced Persistent Threat Compromise of Government Agencies by physicsgraph on Thursday December 17, 2020 @08:49PM (#25462890)

The same applies to pandemic preparedness. There is no incentive for a hospital to over-provision beds that are empty most of the time.

Looking for examples of cultures and organizations that over-provision, the military might be an example. Why do we translate worry about physical attacks into action but not cyber attacks or environmental harm?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Advanced Persistent Threat Compromise of Government Agencies by Leherenn on Friday December 18, 2020 @04:38AM (#25465436)

Because we have had millennia to observe the effects of physical attacks, but the other 2 are much more recent? We haven't yet learnt the hard way.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Advanced Persistent Threat Compromise of Government Agencies by tw25460241 on Thursday December 17, 2020 @11:15PM (#25463795)

The underwriting of business ventures goes back at least three centuries, and the market process aligns incentives pretty well. But if you think you can price over/under-preparedness better, that sounds like a profit opportunity for you.

[ Parent | on HN ]