Input & Output...
Communication it's self is vulnerable yet the it is the very medium of formal exchange on any given instance to verify system that interacts with given subject.
Typically the message is what is regarded as key details.
However, if we implement the intent of the message it can
solidify and help us avoid system manipulation. As it is;
the message being received is being processed for validation
of subjective comprehension.
For instance:
when you speak to someone;
if you ever read anything on psychology,
you comprehend very well that:
- Body language is far more important (meta-data => content of data.) than what is actually being told.
A result of most cyber attacks is based on systems that lack intuitive design with imperative approach. Yes, most modern system are somewhat dynamic; yet still lack the intuitiveness of what I am attempting to coin as way of designing software that matches our current reality...
When you look at philosophy, psychology & history;
they're are trends that we can spot across the board:
solvency for ambiguity...
What is the meaning of all this?
Our external realities have advanced far more than our internal cognitive level of how we view the world around us and within us...
Therefore;
the trending pattern becomes:
What is a repetitive theme across all the subjects of atomic matter?
Psychology, History, Philosophy are all the same given that they are all trying to express how
we dynamically evolve across chronological sequential change of events and relatively subjection to different enviroments.
Subjective reaction is the common theme across all these 3 subjects.
When you apply this way of thinking in attempt and figure what
are the weakness of any system you may intend to break-into:
The
- What
- Why
- Where
- Who
- When
are the building blocks to apply (in reverse) the same method of resolving for ambiguity of any given system; using the example above.
Building on-top of the example above:
We are beings that follow the same pattern when we
forego breaking out of said pattern of behavior.
Therefore,
all communicative systems that rely on external reception & internal reception are subject to manipulation;
especially if the given system lacks self-awareness & proactive intuition...and none-chronological evolutionary lifecycle.
Hence the saying within cyber-security circles:
"It is never a matter of if Hackers will get in, rather a case of when they do..."
A highly robust system is one that has a level of
self-awareness that is:
intuitive, proactively & constantly (a moving target)
evolving without predictable (trend pattern with basis of origin on an macro scale) + none-chronological evolutionary life-cycle.
However,
as that is the case; most modern system are very much the opposite
of what I stated earlier;
Given that:
they mainly rely on principles that are outdated and highly predictable
in their evolutionary life-cycle.
Authenticity is the point of failure in any system that depends on
reception.
Yet,
it is the very thing that is required
for these systems to do what they do absolutely.
So,
what would resolve this issue?
Again like I said:
evolving without a chronological pattern, while imperatively
being aware of self beyond any given scope of subject matter you may inquire of given system, is the solution...
When you combine a creative approach and ingenuity while
implementing any given details of system from a perspective of timelessness on any system,
the chances of a break-in reduce close to null.
Top comments (0)