- Home
- About Us & Project Introduction
- What Are "Cyber Security" and "Cyber Attack"?
- Why Does Cyber Security Matter?
- International and Local Cooperation on Cyber Attacks
- Simple Steps Towards Enhanced Cyber Security
- Educating the Public
- Video Reviews & Useful Resources
- Bibliography
- Acknowledgements
Videos Reviews
Mikko Hypponen describes the evolution of computer viruses since the very
first PC (Personal Computer) virus Brain A was released. He delves into how
cyber security experts and police work together to track and capture the cyber
criminals and organised gangs who release lethal viruses around the world.
Mikko outlines some of the root causes of the viruses and cyber crimes, e.g.
online criminal gangs, computer experts about to join those gangs, etc. However,
Mikko does not explain clearly how we are going to deal with them, but gives a
general idea of international cooperation in combating computer viruses and
online criminal gangs. How to deal with the online criminal gangs would be
international yet local and regional law enforcements will have to play their
crucial parts due to the vast complexity and variety of computer viruses and
gangs. As an expert who has been fighting against computer viruses for many
years, Mikko gives an insightful general direction the world should be headed in
order to preserve the beauty of the Internet.
Addtional Video by Mikko Hypponen
first PC (Personal Computer) virus Brain A was released. He delves into how
cyber security experts and police work together to track and capture the cyber
criminals and organised gangs who release lethal viruses around the world.
Mikko outlines some of the root causes of the viruses and cyber crimes, e.g.
online criminal gangs, computer experts about to join those gangs, etc. However,
Mikko does not explain clearly how we are going to deal with them, but gives a
general idea of international cooperation in combating computer viruses and
online criminal gangs. How to deal with the online criminal gangs would be
international yet local and regional law enforcements will have to play their
crucial parts due to the vast complexity and variety of computer viruses and
gangs. As an expert who has been fighting against computer viruses for many
years, Mikko gives an insightful general direction the world should be headed in
order to preserve the beauty of the Internet.
Addtional Video by Mikko Hypponen
_Schneier
begins his discourse with the premise that security is made up of two
different entities. The feeling of being secure and the reality of being
secure. This forms the basis of his talk as he analyzes where they
overlap and where they do not. From an economic point of view, security
is a trade-off. Schneier’s conception of security is utilitarian, as he
urges us to consider if a security measure is worth the trade-off, not
whether it makes us safer.
He argues that security measures should be contextualized, and cannot be said to be right or wrong since they are tradeoffs. As the most advanced species on the planet that has dominance over earth, most of all think that making trade-offs is the master trait of man. Schneier changes this common perception through his explanation that humans react to feelings of security and not reality itself. Men (and women) are prone to multiple cognitive biases in risk perception according to experiments and research. These cognitive biases create the difference between reality and feeling.
Schneier later adds to the first to notions of security, a new element, the model. Feeling and model are in our minds while reality is the physical. Models are based on reason, but are restricted by the technology available for security and risk assessment models. They come from culture, religion, government, industry and the media and since they are largely based on research, they always change. Overtime, our models can move closer to our feelings as we get used to new realities.
According to Schneier, as there are multiple stakeholders in making security decisions, those of them with specific trade-offs will try to influence the the public into choosing a policy that favours them. It is advertising and politics, attempting to convince you to adopt one model over another or even trying to convince you to ignore a model and trust your feelings!
Schneier identifies the confirmation bias as a current against accepting new models: we tend to embrace information that confirms our beliefs and reject those that don’t. Information needs to be really convincing before we'll pay attention. He acknowledges that strong feelings can build new models too. For example, the September 11th attacks created a security model in the minds of many Americans. Health scares in the news are another example. They can create models instantaneously, because they are very dramatic.
Schneier wants people to get familiar with better models -- to have them correspond to their feelings -- so that they can make smarter trade-offs. When these 'feeling' and 'model' aren’t in sync, we can either correct people's feelings by appealing to them or modify the model. With reality changing all the time. feeling, model and reality might never match each other perfectly.
In conclusion, Schneier brings home the point that public security policies must take into account feeling and reality. We should match these two aspects as closely as possible so that we can make better trade-offs.
He argues that security measures should be contextualized, and cannot be said to be right or wrong since they are tradeoffs. As the most advanced species on the planet that has dominance over earth, most of all think that making trade-offs is the master trait of man. Schneier changes this common perception through his explanation that humans react to feelings of security and not reality itself. Men (and women) are prone to multiple cognitive biases in risk perception according to experiments and research. These cognitive biases create the difference between reality and feeling.
Schneier later adds to the first to notions of security, a new element, the model. Feeling and model are in our minds while reality is the physical. Models are based on reason, but are restricted by the technology available for security and risk assessment models. They come from culture, religion, government, industry and the media and since they are largely based on research, they always change. Overtime, our models can move closer to our feelings as we get used to new realities.
According to Schneier, as there are multiple stakeholders in making security decisions, those of them with specific trade-offs will try to influence the the public into choosing a policy that favours them. It is advertising and politics, attempting to convince you to adopt one model over another or even trying to convince you to ignore a model and trust your feelings!
Schneier identifies the confirmation bias as a current against accepting new models: we tend to embrace information that confirms our beliefs and reject those that don’t. Information needs to be really convincing before we'll pay attention. He acknowledges that strong feelings can build new models too. For example, the September 11th attacks created a security model in the minds of many Americans. Health scares in the news are another example. They can create models instantaneously, because they are very dramatic.
Schneier wants people to get familiar with better models -- to have them correspond to their feelings -- so that they can make smarter trade-offs. When these 'feeling' and 'model' aren’t in sync, we can either correct people's feelings by appealing to them or modify the model. With reality changing all the time. feeling, model and reality might never match each other perfectly.
In conclusion, Schneier brings home the point that public security policies must take into account feeling and reality. We should match these two aspects as closely as possible so that we can make better trade-offs.
Other Useful Videos to Watch
GoogleCyberSecurity Channel