SOGETI UK BLOG

All together now…

On the first day of Christmas my developers sent to me:
One new release

On the second day of Christmas my developers sent to me:
Two urgent fixes
And one new release

On the third day of Christmas my developers sent to me:
Three patch notes
Two urgent fixes
And one new release

On the fourth day of Christmas my developers sent to me:
Four conference call invites
Three patch notes
Two urgent fixes
And one new release

On the fifth day of Christmas my developers sent to me:
Five new features!
Four conference call invites
Three patch notes
Two urgent fixes
And one new release

On the sixth day of Christmas my developers sent to me:
Six features failing
Five new features!
Four conference call invites
Three patch notes
Two urgent fixes
And one new release

On the seventh day of Christmas my developers sent to me:
Seven wireframes
Six features failing
Five new features!
Four conference call invites
Three patch notes
Two urgent fixes
And one new release

On the eight day of Christmas my developers sent to me:
Eight last minute changes
Seven wireframes
Six features failing
Five new features!
Four conference call invites
Three patch notes
Two urgent fixes
And one new release

On the ninth day of Christmas my developers sent to me:
Nine new defects
Eight last minute changes
Seven wireframes
Six features failing
Five new features!
Four conference call invites
Three patch notes
Two urgent fixes
And one new release

On the tenth day day of Christmas my developers sent to me:
Ten users journeys
Nine new defects
Eight last minute changes
Seven wireframes
Six features failing
Five new features!
Four conference call invites
Three patch notes
Two urgent fixes
And one new release

On the eleventh day day of Christmas my developers sent to me:
Eleven changed requirements
Ten users journeys
Nine new defects
Eight last minute changes
Seven wireframes
Six features failing
Five new features!
Four conference call invites
Three patch notes
Two urgent fixes
And one new release

On the twelfth day of Christmas my developers sent to me:
Twelve Coders fixing
Eleven changed requirements
Ten users journeys
Nine new defects
Eight last minute changes
Seven wireframes
Six features failing
Five new features!
Four conference call invites
Three patch notes
Two urgent fixes
And one new release

Andrew Fullen AUTHOR: Andrew Fullen
Andrew is a managing consultant who looks after strategy for technical aspects of testing in the quality centre.

Posted in: Developers, Technical Testing, Technology Outlook      
Comments: 0
Tags: ,

 

Interactive-notifications-let-you-take-action-right-from-the-lock-screen-and-Notification-Center-e1410861264801At the beginning of the year I wrote a blog titled “Contextual is the new Mobile” in which I wrote that contextual based interaction with devices is key to making the future of mobile work. The new mobile requires devices, services and information to be embedded (integrated into the environment), personalised (tailored to your needs), adaptive (change in response to you) and anticipatory (anticipating a users intentions without conscious mediation).

This idea fits into a broader shift in the way we interact with the web. It is increasingly less about pages and destinations, and more about personalised experiences built on an aggregation of many individual pieces of content from different sources. A development based on the diversity of screens in all shapes and sizes and widespread access to data from all kinds of sources through APIs and SDKs.

The notification is the interface

Dubbed the notification as the interface (12), this design framework is being built today. In IOS8 the notification center aims to be the most important screen on your iPhone with interactive notifications.

They’re not just simple announcements or calls to action anymore, they are actions in and of themselves. Android has similar functionality. Emerging platforms like Android Wear and Apple Watch are confirming these trends towards notifications being both content and action.

Some argue that the idea of having “a screen full of icons, representing independent apps, that need to be opened to experience them, is making less and less sense. The idea that these apps sit in the background, pushing content into a central experience, is making more and more sense.” I could not agree more.

Designing the notification layer

Notifications are often associated with information overload. However if we use the contextual framework from my previous post and design for relevancy and contextual triggers, (better) notifications could actually save users a lot of time and lower the pressure of having to deal with incoming information.

The primary design pattern here are cards as small containers for content that can come from any app to notify you and offer you a way to take action. Cards should be perceived as modular, bite-sized content containers designed for easy consumption and interaction on (small) screens. Apps such as Trello and Evernote have successfully introduced card-based interfaces. Then there are other formats who depend on cards as well, such as intelligent assistants like Microsoft Bing and Cortana, Google and Google Now and Apple Siri.

Designing the notifications, and the actions within them, will become an increasingly important part of product and service design. This requires breaking things down to individual packages of relevant content that can show up anywhere, on any device. This means that we will need to spend as much of our time on the outside-experience of an app (meaning designing the system experience), as on the experiences within the app itself.

To read the original post and add comments, please visit the SogetiLabs blog: CONTEXT, CARDS AND NOTIFICATION DESIGN IN MOBILE

Related Posts:

  1. Digital marketeers : don’t underestimate mobile app projects
  2. Start of the 9th Annual Sogeti Executive Summit – Design to Disrupt
  3. Policy has to answer strategy’s call in mobile
  4. Top 10 post: “Mobile is not apps or tools, Mobile is a strategy”

 

Thomas van Manen AUTHOR: Thomas van Manen
Thomas van Manen is an analyst and digital/social strategist at VINT. His research focuses on the impact of Big Data, Mobile Information Technologies, Gamification and the Web of Things. He is also Chief Editor at the VINT research blog and was part of the HOT100 in 2012, a yearly selection of the most promising alumni in Media & Arts studies.

Posted in: Business Intelligence, communication, Developers, Human Interaction Testing, Microsoft, mobile applications, mobile testing, Open Innovation      
Comments: 0
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

 

handshakeI have been working with a company that is attempting to create repeatable innovation. So far, we have defined the innovation iteration (experiment, measure, decide, repeat) and have determined that we had the wrong approach for working with partners. These are the partners who provide services, software, hardware or ideas. The partners are not doing anything wrong; we just aren’t working with them in the right way.

The beginning of the innovation cycle is defining the vision/purpose of the experiment. What we failed to do was fit the right partner with the right experiment vision. It’s not that the partner did not offer the right thing, it is that we did not find the right partner personality fit for the experiment. The innovation lab is within a larger company, and we worked with partners from the perspective of the larger company… not the small, startup that the innovation lab really is. By doing that, we dealt with partners who expected defined process and solid direction. We don’t have that currently, so there was a miss on some of the innovation execution.

Below are some of the things we now keep in mind when looking for a partner, or to tell an existing partner about what we need from them. Even though these items were devised for a small startup organisation, I think these ideas are valid expectations of a partner working with larger organisations… or even internal groups dealing with each other.

Manage yourself – The startup has limited resources – not only people but time. The startup is trying to do many things at once and doesn’t always have time to keep a vigilant eye on the partner. There are times when the management of a project is in auto-pilot mode. That’s when a trusted partner keeps moving in the decided direction, without prompting, and over-communicates the status.

Be flexible – Small organisations are nimble since they don’t “weigh much”. The nimbleness can be a benefit that allows the project to discover requirements on the fly and to change directions easily. By not expecting a rigid process or static direction, the partner can be more flexible when changes come to the project. Because, that’s what innovation is about.

Tell me what you can do for me – In the beginning of the partnership, the partner does not know a lot about the customer. But in a short period of time, the customer’s needs become clearer. Instead of telling me about the services or solution you sell, tell me what you can do for me. Don’t sell, explain your abilities and how those fit with the project vision, or the organisation’s vision on the whole.

Tell me what I will get out of it – After learning more about each other, the partner should have a good idea of the benefits the customer should expect from the partner’s capabilities. The benefits need to be more tangible that soft, like cost savings as opposed to time savings. Also, improvements or better stability are welcome benefits.

What does success look like? – The partner is more familiar with its capabilities than the customer is, so the partner should be able to tell when their capabilities are starting to be used correctly to gain the benefit. So, the partner should tell the customer how to measure success, like better throughput or achieving a stated goal. The customer will also provide measurements of their own to describe when they are satisfied, but those measurements need to come after the partner defines their own.

To read the original post and add comments, please visit the SogetiLabs blog: THE POWER OF PARTNERSHIP

Related Posts:

  1. Repeatable innovation
  2. The Power of Prediction
  3. Using the power of networking to boost women in IT
  4. Competition on the web reshapes software product development strategies

 

 

 

Leigh Sperberg AUTHOR: Leigh Sperberg
Leigh Sperberg has been a consultant in the Dallas office since 2007. During that time, he has served as practice lead for Advisory Services, Microsoft and Business Applications practice. In those roles, he has supported customer engagements in the Texas region and nationally focusing on Microsoft technologies and enterprise architecture.

Posted in: Business Intelligence, Innovation, Open Innovation, Opinion, project management      
Comments: 0
Tags: , , , , , , ,

 

Forty percent of companies have adopted a company-owned bring-your-own-device (BYOD) policy, according to InfoSec's 2014 "BYOD and Mobile Security" report.Forty percent of companies have adopted a company-owned bring-your-own-device (BYOD) policy, according to InfoSec’s 2014 “BYOD and Mobile Security” report. Fifty-seven percent of respondents said keeping employees mobile was the most significant benefit of adoption, with employee satisfaction and productivity close behind. But the report also speaks to IT concerns: 67 percent of those surveyed said they worried about losing company or client data, while 57 percent feared unauthorized network or device access.

Has “breach-your-own-data” become the new BYOD?

Evolving Mobile Apps

The most popular enterprise apps on mobile devices are email clients, calendars and contacts, which makes sense since productive employees are those who can access client and colleague information regardless of their physical location.

Document editing and intranet access are also important to users, but according to a recent TechRepublic article, this is just the beginning. Israel Lifshitz of Nubo Software argues that semi-business apps are starting to emerge in the marketplace but will soon be followed by more complex applications such as customer relationship management and enterprise resource planning. The logic isn’t hard to follow: If employee productivity is enhanced by using mobile devices to communicate and schedule, imagine how much more could be gained with access to consumer history or production data.

Lifshitz also sees this app-based market driving improved device security at the manufacturer level, which may eventually lead to the holy grail of mobile defense: apps that will only run on an uncompromised device. However, the fragmented nature of the device market makes this an unlikely possibility since 40 percent of users still run BlackBerry and almost 70 percent run Android. It’s also worth noting that despite significant growth of alternative operating systems, Apple remains the dominant enterprise player and still marches to the beat of its own security drum.

The New Insiders

Losing corporate, client and employee data weighs heavily on the minds of BYOD-enabled organizations. And while malicious outsiders might attempt to compromise an employee’s device or hack company networks using mobile malware, there’s a more sinister threat: insider access.

As noted by IT Business Edge in a report on a recent Ponemon Institute study, many individuals with permission to access confidential or sensitive data did so without a clear purpose. In fact, 65 percent of those asked said that curiosity, not business roles or responsibilities, drives this kind of internal access; in other words, employees aren’t shy about using role-based permissions to go digging around company servers.

It’s not surprising, then, that while 16 percent of InfoSec’s respondents said the biggest negative impact of BYOD was the actual loss of data, 30 percent lamented the need for additional IT resources to manage mobile security. The bottom line? The risk of insider threats, both out of curiosity and with malicious intent, requires more IT spend.

Taking Control of BYOD

So how do organizations safeguard their mobile deployments?

Sixty-seven percent still primarily rely on password protection, while 52 percent opt for remote wiping, and 43 percent require mandatory encryption. Despite their ubiquity, passwords remain a problem, as noted by Lorrie Faith Cranor of Carnegie Mellon University in a recent TED Talk.

Many users are frustrated with complex password requirements, while password strength meters are too lenient. Passwords like “123456” and “iloveyou” remain common, and users tend to think of simple concepts that make them happy when creating passwords; in turn, this makes them easier to guess. Research into “pronounceable passwords,” which aren’t real words but are easy to remember, has returned some success, but for corporate-wide mobile device policies, passwords — and remote wipes and encryption — simply aren’t enough.

To handle the growing number of devices on their network, companies are turning to mobile device management (MDM) tools, which beat out endpoint security and network access controls for the top spot in the InfoSec survey. According to FierceMobileIT, however, MDM may soon be a thing of the past. Jason McNicol, senior analyst at ABI Research, said that mobile application management (MAM) will dominate the enterprise market in five years with a 60 percent market share.

Why? Because MAM tools follow the data, not the device, and they restrict or enable apps on a case-by-case basis. Ideally, app developers would code in support for MAM products before releasing any application, making control possible no matter what kind of device an employee chooses. In effect, this allows IT to include broader device support without compromising security.

Is breach-your-own-data the inevitable next generation of BYOD? Not quite. While companies see the inherent value (and momentum) in mobile device use, they’re also better at identifying pain points, and the security market is evolving to target data before devices.

The original post by IBM can be found here: The New BYOD: Breach-Your-Own-Data?

IBMSecurityIntelligence AUTHOR: IBMSecurityIntelligence
Analysis and Insight for Information Security Professionals

Posted in: Developers, mobile applications, mobile testing, Security      
Comments: 0
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

 

WP_20141113_002I have a new car and I love it.

To achieve better fuel efficiency, it tells me when to shift and this has made me more aware on how much fuel I use. The display in my new car can show me this in real-time, however while driving home yesterday I noticed something odd.

When I drove 130 km/h, the car used the same amount of fuel when driving 100 km/h in the same gear (as suggested by the car). My assumption was that 100 km/h was too slow for that particular gear. I tested this assumption by shifting back a gear on the next 100 km/h stretch. Even though my car was telling me to shift to 6th gear, I found that in 5th gear the car used 0.3 l/100km less fuel. This morning I tried again, and found no difference between 5th and 6th gear. Apparently there are environmental factors (e.g wind, incline, engine temperature etc.) that influence which gear is most efficient. The algorithm in my car doesn’t take this into account. It just looks at speed and acceleration to determine the right gear.

We could try to make the algorithm smarter, but that is a flawed approach; the premise that we can create an algorithm upfront that makes the best calculation is fundamentally wrong. This is a perfect case for Microsoft Azure Machine Learning as through learning it can figure out when to use which gear based on telemetry data. This shouldn’t only be used in my car but all the cars worldwide; there are approximately 1 billion cars in the world and assuming these drive an average of 10,000 km a year, saving just 0.1 l/100km would save 1 trillion liters of fuel per year.

Related Posts:

  1. Top 10 post: “Machine learning: the next big thing in big data for our everyday life?”
  2. Machine learning: the next big thing in big data for our everyday life?
  3. Facebook’s Deep Learning project
  4. Will Big Data save us from Ebola? Where does it provide its real value?

To read the original post and add comments, please visit the SogetiLabs blog: SAVE THE PLANET WITH MACHINE LEARNING

 

 

Michiel van Otegem AUTHOR: Michiel van Otegem
Michiel van Otegem is Principal Architect for the Microsoft Business Line at Sogeti Netherlands. In that role he advises clients on strategy and architecture for the Microsoft platform in conjunction with other technologies, specifically focusing on Cloud and Integration. Although focused on Microsoft, Michiel has broad knowledge of other technologies and integration between technologies.

Posted in: Automation Testing, Azure, Business Intelligence      
Comments: 0
Tags: , , ,

 

Baron AronTechnology around us becomes more accessible and more personal everyday. The closer it gets to us, the more we should be able to trust it and let it become a part of our lives, a true part of us. Marketers have been very creative on positioning solutions to a larger audience with a friendly name. They are even using names that sound like they could really be our friends.

Remember Dr. Sbaitso? The programme that came with the first SoundBlaster and would “converse” with you as if he was your psychologist. It was kind of an ELIZA/A.L.I.C.E. chat robot. It was one of the first software solutions I remember to have a kind of a personal touch in the name. Although Sbaitso was just an acronym for “Sound Blaster Artificial Intelligent Text to Speech Operator” it still had that friendly ring to it. Maybe it also helped that he talked to me… about me…

These names of technology also remind me of the first digital pet I had: a Tamagotchi. Not really a friendly name and that might be why I was unable to keep it alive for longer than a few hours. I started calling it the ‘trauma got me’ just to have a bit more fun with it. Furby was a much friendlier example of a name. Remember these funny little fellows? Cute and playful. A name that fits and a name that sticks. A very successful strategy.

In the Netherlands we have several popular online and connected solutions with common, friendly names. We got Evi van Lanschot who actually is an online platform from the bank van Lanschot. Tim from ING bank who helps us with insight in our household spending’s. And we have Toon© from Eneco, who is our thermostat that sounds just a bit friendlier than NEST does to me. Would a friendlier name be a better fit for such a smart and learning solution like NEST?

Does adoption really go faster when using friendly names? I’m not sure on that one. I do think however it is a nice way to introduce new friendly concepts, especially those that learn from our behaviour. We live in a world where digital is the most direct channel to do business on a bigger scale and we still forget to behave friendly and personal.

With all the data we collect these days, we should move up from business information and business intelligence to a much more personal delivery of services. This especially is valid for business over all the digital channels: business intimacy as the new normal for digital. Doesn’t being personal deserve or maybe even need a friendly name?

I propose Aron for the next grand and smart personal digital assistant, as Aron gave me the inspiration to write this blog post. Baron Aron. Friendly and of good heritage J. Wouldn’t you trust his guidance?

Related Posts:

  1. The most personal device in the utility world [Download]
  2. Distributed platform: The dawn of a revolution?
  3. Get inspired at the Sogeti Acceleration points
  4. Our personal computer: NEW tool to dramatically improve big data processing

To read the original post and add comments, please visit the SogetiLabs blog: FRIENDLY NAMES JUST MAKE IT MORE PERSONAL

 

Arnd Brugman AUTHOR: Arnd Brugman
As an innovator Arnd helps organisations with innovative project delivery - from the initial idea and inspiration through to the vision, strategy and roadmap all the way through to assissting with proof of concepts and pilots. He has significant experience with innovation, product development and service delivery.

Posted in: Business Intelligence, communication, Developers, Human Interaction Testing, Innovation, Open Innovation, Opinion      
Comments: 0
Tags: , , , ,

 

Source: WikipediaRecently I read this interesting post about the hummingbird effect: how in some cases one change clearly and intelligibly lead to change in other, unrelated area’s. Sort-of like the butterfly effect, but traceable. For me, it also nicely describes what I feel every time I’m thinking about the self-driving car concept: What will happen when they become reality?

Let’s imagine there are self-driving cars: autonomous vehicles that can transport people and goods, navigate complex traffic situations, avoid accidents etc. Originally we may still imagine these self-driving cars as similar to our ‘old’ cars, but then without a steering wheel. Yet when I start to reason this through, I think very little will remain the same.

First of all, once we can avoid accidents through software, cars can do away with many of their safety features. Bye-bye airbags, extra steel, crumple zones etc. We could design a car that is much lighter, smaller and probably more efficient. Basically a chair in an aerodynamic box, with motor and battery hidden in the wheels.

Then, if you think about optimising the system, quickly cars will start to talk to each other: negotiating priority, optimising traffic flow or improving safety. Wait, perhaps cars could even start teaming up to form mini-trains to save energy! All this has immediate effect on the roads too: we’ll need much less space, since cars can be much closer together. Traffic lights, signs or even streetlights are no longer needed: the car will negotiate crossings, bring it’s own route and traffic information and of course has an infrared camera. Oh… and I’m sure we’ll speed up… human reflexes are really slow compared to a computer, so why stick to 100 KM/H? I’m sure we can go faster… much faster!

This ‘car’, if we still call it that, of course doesn’t have to be our own: we simply use one if we need one, much cheaper ultimately, and you can scale up and down depending on your need. Commuter-pod for one or vacation-pod for six-with-luggage?

And these are only the effects in the direct area of car and transportation. Second and third order effects may be in ‘in-car entertainment’, in design of our cities (no more parking?), our stores, our logistics, … just imagine…

To read the original post and add comments, please visit the SogetiLabs blog: FROM CAR TO POD

Erik van Ommeren AUTHOR: Erik van Ommeren
Erik van Ommeren is responsible for VINT, the international research institute of Sogeti, in the USA. He is an IT strategist and senior analyst with a broad background in IT, Enterprise Architecture and Executive Management. Part of his time is spent advising organizations on innovation, transformational projects and architectural processes.

Posted in: Behaviour Driven Development, Business Intelligence, Innovation, Transformation, User Experience      
Comments: 0
Tags: , , , , ,

 

The Need for Secure BIOS

In 1981, the concept of the Basic Input/Output System (BIOS) and the concept of the Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) were introduced. These concepts were farfetched then because at the time very few people perceived any security threats that could have infected BIOS. Three decades later, security researchers have identified vulnerabilities to servers and endpoints posed by BIOS.

NIST Publication 800-147B is aimed at the unauthorised modification of BIOS firmware through malware. Such guidance can help improve security and mitigate remote attacks, but it will not stop a dedicated attacker who may try to tamper with BIOS using unshackled physical access to respective servers.

BIOS is a de facto standard-defining firmware interface built into IBM-compatible PCs and servers. BIOS is the first software run when the system is turned on. Although BIOS has not been a primary target of attackers, recent low-level attacks on endpoint systems have created the perception that attackers can gain entry into the systems by going lower or putting in more effort to reach bare metal. Getting any closer to bare metal is as good as reaching BIOS.

In 1998, the Chernobyl, or Spacefiller, virus attempted to overwrite critical information and overwrite BIOS, such as NSA BIOS backdoor (DEITYBOUNCE) and the Mebromi rootkit. All of these attempted to reinsert malware into the BIOS that would continue to reinfect the system. Infected BIOS is more than a problem; it is a persistent attack. Even if an antivirus program detects and cleans the master boot record infection, after every system reboot, the infected BIOS payload will repeatedly overwrite the master boot record code. Developing antivirus code for BIOS is a challenge since any error within the antivirus solution will render the system unbootable.

A stronger, more secure BIOS is the foundation of computer and endpoint security — as well as greater trust within a computer system. Such protection can be found in UEFI.

Advent

Some describe UEFI as the complete reimagining of the computer boot environment. As BIOS is a solid piece of firmware, UEFI is a programmable software interface that resides on computer hardware and firmware. UEFI resides on the /EFI/directory in non-volatile memory as opposed to the entire boot code sitting on the motherboard’s BIOS. Once the computer boots into UEFI, a set of instructions is carried out for POST to load the operating system. In the process, the UEFI specification defines boot and runtime services, protocols for communication between device drivers, services and extensions. Further flexibility is offered as UEFI can be used by almost every combination of 32- and 64-bit Intel and AMD chips. Each case is a matter of compiling the boot code for the target platform.

Security

So what makes UEFI more secure than BIOS? Among other features, UEFI’s specifications add a protocol known as a secure boot. The beauty lies in how the secure boot prevents device drivers and operating system loaders unless they are not signed with an acceptable digital signature. When the secure boot is enabled, it allows a public key commonly known as a platform key to be written to the firmware. When the secure boot is in “user mode,” the driver and loaders that are signed with the platform key can be loaded and ready for operation.

Critics describe secure boot as an attempt to remove a user’s ability to control the operating system of a computer. Distribution developers may not disclose the private key, making the boot loader a problem in secure boot. Amid some practical issues regarding key disclosure and key shipping, several Linux distributors have developed different implementations for secure boot. For example, shim is a pre-compiled, signed boot loader that allows users to individually trust keys provided by distributors. Essentially, we have witnessed the partial adoption of UEFI, such as functionality with certain customisations. This is all well and good, but is it entirely secure?

Attacks Against UEFI

At the recent Black Hat conference, a group of security researchers presented a series of exploits specifically implementing UEFI to compromise a secure boot. These exploits work because certain vendors do not protect the firmware at the required level, allowing attackers to modify the code responsible for invoking the secure boot. Once these exploits are targeted to modify the platform key, however, it needs to be executed in kernel mode, which limits the possibility of the attack to a certain extent.

The problem grows exponentially when attackers are able to execute the exploit in secure boot’s user mode, gaining permission to execute code on the trusted system’s device drivers, operating system and regular applications, such as Java and Microsoft Office.

Systems whose UEFI variable can be modified directly from the OS can be rendered unusable and easily exploited in cyberattacks where mass systems are impacted.

UEFI security features are designed to prevent bootkits from being installed. These bootkits hide inside the system loader and start before the actual OS can run. It is possible to modify a setup variable in certain implementations of UEFI that can bypass the secure boot feature. The affected computer will fail to start again in case the unprotected setup variable is set to “zero.” This is called a “brick” system. Recovering from such an attack would be difficult and time-consuming because it involves reprogramming the BIOS chip, which requires manual intervention and specialised equipment.

Conclusion

UEFI was originally designed to replace BIOS to standardise modern computer firmware through the usage of common framework and reference specifications to be used by original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and BIOS vendors. However, practically, there can be significant differences in how UEFI is implemented across different computer manufacturers and may even vary across different products from the same vendor.

Investigating BIOS security issues has been difficult in the past due to cost and a need for specialised skills. However, with the advent of UEFI, more researchers are looking into and investigating the problems. Hopefully, over the next few years, the most obvious vulnerabilities will be identified and fixed.

I feel that despite these vendor implementation differences, secure boot is still a huge step forward and, in the future, its implementation should be tightly controlled with predetermined and monitored reference specifications governing OEMs’ system build process.

The original post by IBM can be found here: Endpoint Security: Is It Time to Bid Farewell to BIOS and Embrace UEFI?

 

IBMSecurityIntelligence AUTHOR: IBMSecurityIntelligence
Analysis and Insight for Information Security Professionals

Posted in: Business Intelligence, communication, Research, Security      
Comments: 0
Tags: , ,

 

© WikipediaI’m a musician. I make music drawing a bow across 4 strings. I’ve been refining my art for over 30 years.

I’m a software architect. I use rapidly evolving technology and devices to develop enterprise business solutions. I’ve been refining my art for over 20 years.

The first signs of the convergence of music and computers began almost 50 years ago. The invention of the synthesizer by Dr. Robert Moog changed everything; creating music was no longer relegated to plucking strings, blowing through pipes, or banging sticks. We could use electronics to make music!

Roll forward 50 years and we’ve reached a point where the entire music production process can be performed on my laptop. Gone are the days of tens of thousands of dollars of equipment needed to produce and even perform music. With modern DAWs (Digital Audio Workstations) a musician/producer can perform just about every aspect of the music production process with a computer and software for a cost of less than $2K.

Everywhere we look, computers and software are taking over. We see many recent articles on “Software Eating the World,” and how IDC predicts that every industry will be transformed by SMAC technologies. And now we see that invasion in the creative realms like music and art.

But do we lose something when a musician no longer has to hone their craft, learning over decades how to coax music out of instruments of wood and brass? Is an artist still an artist if they no longer need paint and brushes?

Or is our interaction with computers just a new way to express our creativity? Fundamentally, music theory has not changed. Scales are still scales, chords are still chords. The computer is just a new musical instrument. Perhaps it is the final new instrument with endless possibilities.

In the end, the arts are nothing without the human element. Computers cannot replace the creative process. They are a tool, a new way to express ourselves. So my violin has nothing to fear!

I’m an electronic musician. I use my computer to sample, synthesize, chop, mangle, distort, mix, edit, and master music. I’ve been learning my new tools for the last 6 months. I’m a complete novice.

Welcome to the new world!

To read the original post and add comments, please visit the SogetiLabs blog: MY COMPUTER ATE MY VIOLIN!

Related Posts:

  1. Our personal computer: NEW tool to dramatically improve big data processing
  2. The empathic computer
  3. An algorithm to recover sounds from Silent Movies
  4. The Fine Art of Destructive Recreation by Joseph Pine

Martin Kastenbaum AUTHOR: Martin Kastenbaum
Martin Kastenbaum joined Sogeti in 2009 and very quickly established himself as a leader in the Business Application practice in Houston. For the past 5 years he has served as an enterprise architect on CSMART, a municipal case management system for The City of Houston and the largest project in Sogeti USA history.

Posted in: Developers, Digital, e-Commerce, Innovation, Internet of Things, IT strategy, Opinion, SMAC      
Comments: 0
Tags: , , , , , , ,

 

Continuum Continuum is a Canadian science fiction series in which the world, by year 2077, is run by huge hi-tech corporations and is heavily surveilled with few freedoms. The only dissenters are a terrorist organization called Liber-8. When Keira Cameron, a cyber-enhanced cop, attends the execution of a captured group of Liber-8 she’s thrown back in time along with them, to year 2012. Through the 3 seasons you learn that everything the world goes through is consequence of the invention of a wearable bracelet called Halo. A wearable device which measures vital statistics, amount of sleep, food intake, exercise, etc., and also sends signals to the brain to correct any problem it may detect… By year 2077 Halo is used to control the world population.

Back in our time we have corporations like Apple and Microsoft creating devices which can measure our vitals, we are in the middle of the internet of things boom and as F-Secure’s Chief Research Officer, Mikko Hypponen, stated in one of his 2013 TED talks, we live in a Surveillance State who constantly gathers every possible piece of information it can about anyone and anything connected to the internet.

Corporations are worried about BYOD and the threats and risk it represents to their data security and privacy. But are we looking at the big picture here? Are we thinking of light bulbs, coffee machines, wearables or virtually every connected “thing” to the internet or network? Have these artifacts been audited? How secure are these “things”?

Privacy should be built in through all the systems we use. – Mikko Hypponen

In the light of the last question, we know by Edward Snowden’s leaks that US and UK intelligence agencies have weakened on purpose cryptographic algorithms in order to be able to snoop though our communications and data. Also in the last months we’ve learned about Heartbleed, a serious bug affecting the popular OpenSSL cryptographic software library and Shelshock a family of security bugs found in the widely used Unix Bash shell, which must lead to a change in how the Open Source Software movement works. Nespresso’s customer support knows if something goes wrong with your coffee machine, they also know how much coffee your employees drink and the time when all this occurs. Isn’t that too much information? We all use cloud services and search engines and without even knowing about it we are leaving behind a trace of our life, our preferences and secrets.

In spite of all the above, I often hear people, after swearing they have nothing to hide, asking: what is the issue with all this security and surveillance state buzz? Dilma Roussef president of Brazil has given a simple and yet powerful answer: “If there is no right to privacy, there can be no true freedom of expression and opinion, and therefore no effective democracy”.

As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. – Abraham Lincoln

To wrap things up, I don’t think wearables are going to make us all zombies, or that our only hope will be a group of Liber8-like terrorist. But we must definitely change the world as we know it today. We need to take security seriously and regain our privacy, because we don’t want to end up like Continuum’s 2077, do we?

The game is changing Kellog, the future may be in play… – Keira Cameron

To read the original post and add comments, please visit the SogetiLabs blog: CONTINUUM AND THE SURVEILLANCE STATE

Related Posts:

  1. “Privacy may be an anomaly”
  2. The Internet of Things is watching you!
  3. Perfectly securing critical infrastructure: the dream will soon come true?
  4. The Internet of un-maintained and insecure Things?

Carlos Mendible AUTHOR: Carlos Mendible
Carlos Mendible has been .Net Architect for Sogeti Spain since 2012. He is Head Solutions Architect in, one of our major clients, A3 Media, and is also responsible for assisting with the sales process as Pre-Sales Engineer and for conducting workshops and training sessions.

Posted in: Application Lifecycle Management, Behaviour Driven Development, Business Intelligence, Developers, Internet of Things, mobile applications, Open Innovation, Opinion, privacy, Security, Technology Outlook, Virtualisation, wearable technoloy      
Comments: 0
Tags: , , , , , ,