Page 11234..1020..»

The Center for Internet Security (CIS) Use Cases and Cost Justification – Security Boulevard

Vince Lombardi, the famous football coach, used to start his training camp each season with a talk about doing the basics. Hed tell the players that they start with the basics, then hed take a football and hold it up and tell them, This is a football. In football, as in life and IT Security, starting with the basics is the most important step you can take. Dont assume anything.

So, let us begin with the basics.

CIS is the Center for Internet Security. In Tripwire terms, what does CIS mean?

There are two kinds of CIS used by Tripwire:

The CIS Top 20 Critical Security Controls give you a set of steps. Start from the top, and work your down the list, adding layers of security along the way. They start with the basics. Knowing what is changing in your environment and how things are configured are two very basic parts of the 20 Controls.

The CIS recommendations for how to securely configure assets is used by Tripwire to guide you in terms of how to configure various software packages in a secure way.

For instance:

Each OS and application has configuration settings like Login Success and Failure that have (Read more...)

Follow this link:
The Center for Internet Security (CIS) Use Cases and Cost Justification - Security Boulevard

Read More..

Peering into the Future of Sino-Russian Cyber Security Cooperation – War on the Rocks

Editors Note: This is the third article in a series on Sino-Russian defense cooperation organized by the Center for a New American Security. Be sure to read to the first and second articles in the series.

Beijing and Moscow have long wanted to control their domestic internets. Now they are working together to remake global cyberspace in their own image. The two launch widespread cyber operations that threaten U.S. interests, and they want to reshape the internet to reduce U.S. influence. Chinese hackers have mounted a long campaign to steal intellectual property, as well as military and political secrets, and are a growing threat to U.S. critical infrastructure. Russian hackers pose the threat of cyber espionage, influence operations, and attacks on the infrastructure of the United States and its allies. Moreover, China and Russia have over the past five years worked together to tighten controls on their domestic internet and promoted the idea of cyber sovereignty to diminish U.S. sway over the global governance of cyberspace.

Over the next decade, China and Russia are likely to continue close technical and diplomatic cooperation. Beijing now appears more willing to adopt information operations techniques historically associated with Russian actors to shape the narrative on the responsibility for and response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but the two sides are unlikely to coordinate on offensive cyber operations. To counter these efforts, policymakers should revitalize U.S. cyber diplomacy, providing an alternative framing to cyber sovereignty and building a coalition of like-minded partners to define and enforce norms of behavior in cyberspace.

Drivers of Cooperation

Both Moscow and Beijing perceive the open internet as a threat to domestic stability and regime legitimacy. The United States and its allies stress cyber security with a focus on the confidentiality, integrity, and assurance of data. In contrast, Russia, China, and their partners prefer the term information security, which includes not only protecting data but also controlling content and communication tools that may threaten regime stability. The International Code of Conduct for Information Security, for example, which representatives of China, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistanproposed to the U.N. secretary-general in 2011 and 2015, calls on states to curb the dissemination of information which incites terrorism, secessionism, extremism, or undermines other countries political, economic and social stability.

From the Clinton through the Trump administrations, the United States has pushed, with varying degrees of attention from senior decision-makers, a set of ideas and policies that became known as the internet freedom agenda. Washington argued that information should flow freely across the web and that people had the same rights online as they did off. U.S. policymakers argued that the open internet would drive innovation and economic growth. In support of these ideas, the United States funded the training of activists and the development of circumvention and anti-censorship software. Chinese and Russian analysts warned of hostile foreign powers using the internet for ideological subversion and to promote color revolutions. In opposition to this idea of cyberspace as an open, global platform, Chinese and Russian officials pushed the idea of cyber sovereignty and the right of all states to regulate the internet based on national interests.

In addition, while Washington has promoted a multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance driven by the private sector and technical experts, Moscow and Beijing have pushed a more democratic governance located at the United Nations. A multilateral approach located at the United Nations would prioritize the interests of governments over those of technology companies and civil society groups. It would also allow China and Russia to mobilize the votes of developing countries, many of which would also like to control the internet and the free flow of information.

Bilateral Cooperation

In 2015, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed an agreement on cooperation in ensuring international information security. While the Western press reported that the two sides had signed a nonaggression pact, it is more realistic to see the agreement as reflecting China and Russias shared threat perceptions. It also provided a framework for future cooperation on internet control (and did not, in fact, stop Moscow and Russia from hacking each other).

The agreement contains a long list of threats to domestic stability, and in the years after its signing, the majority of exchanges appear to be designed to share technologies, information, and processes on the control of the internet. In June 2019, for example, a Chinese delegation participated in the Russian International Conference on Information Security and discussed Russias network disconnection exercises. A month later a delegation from the Cyberspace Administration of China traveled to Moscow and met with Roscomnadzor, Russias federal executive body responsible for censorship in media and telecommunications; Yandex, the Russian internet giant; and Kaspersky Lab.

Over these years, Moscow has introduced a series of more internet-restrictive laws. Anti-terrorist legislation, known as the Yarovaya Law, required internet service providers, cellphone operators, and search engines and other web services to store all Russian traffic, including all private chat rooms, emails, and social network posts, for as long as six months at their own expense as of July 1, 2018. The Chinese telecom giant Huawei reportedly held talks with Bulat, the Russian telecom equipment manufacturer, to provide hardware to assist with storage. The Sovereign Internet Law, which came into force in November 2019, gives Russian authorities the ability to control data traffic and in theory shut Russias internet off from the rest of the world. The law requires telecom operators to install certain hardware, software, and Russian-origin equipment provided by Roscomnadzor to counter cyber threats, including deep packet inspection equipment, and helps create an internet infrastructure that looks more similar to Chinas.

There has also been growing cooperation between Russia and China on 5G, the next generation of telecommunications networks. As Huawei has faced resistance in the United States, Australia, and some European countries, it has expanded its operations in Russia, growing research and development operations and signing cooperative agreements with Russian universities. Huawei signed a deal with telecom company MTS to develop 5G networks, and the two launched a 5G test zone in Moscow in October 2019. The company expects to quadruple its research and development personnel in Russia by 2024, bringing the total to 2,000 engineers. Huawei has also reportedly advertised to recruit engineers experienced in offensive skills such as vulnerability exploitation and penetration testing.

International Norms

The 2015 bilateral agreement on cyberspace called for China and Russia to enhance cooperation and coordination on international information security. The two sides have promoted cyber sovereignty through the United Nations, International Telecommunications Union, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the BRICS group (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).

Cooperation at the United Nations is important to both partners. A great deal of the action has occurred in the Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security. Established in 2004, the group has convened five times since and has identified some shared norms for responsible behavior of states in cyberspace.

The United States hoped to use the 2016 to 2017 Group of Governmental Experts meeting to discuss specific applications of international law to cyberspace as well as the development of confidence building measures, not the identification of new norms. The group, however, failed to issue a consensus report, and divisions over the question of the applicability of the law of countermeasures and the inherent right of self-defense proved especially contentious. The Cuban representative publicly opposed these measures, arguing that they would lead to a militarization of cyberspace that would legitimize unilateral punitive force actions. As Elaine Korzak argues, it is safe to assume that Russia and China shared this position (and perhaps promoted via Cuba) since they both have maintained similar views in the past.

In December 2019, member states approved a Russian-backed resolution that established a committee of experts to consider a new U.N. cyber crime treaty. Russia has long wanted to replace the Council of Europes Budapest Convention. The convention is the one international agreement subject to human rights safeguards that criminalizes computer crimes and prohibits illegal access, system interference, and intellectual property theft. Although 64 countries have now signed the treaty, including Argentina, Australia, Japan, Turkey, and the United States, Moscow has consistently argued that the convention is only a regional agreement. Russia has also claimed that it violates principles of state sovereignty and noninterference. In the run-up to the vote, U.S. officials warned that the proposal was an opportunity for Russia, China, and others to create U.N.-approved standards for controlling the flow of information, but large democracies such as Nigeria and India have found Moscow and Chinas arguments on the need to fight cyber crime and terrorism convincing.


Despite shared threat perception and interests, there are limits to how closely the two sides will cooperate. Beijing and Moscow are likely to remain wary of the others cyber capabilities, and, given the strong connection of cyber capabilities to each countrys respective intelligence services, it is unlikely that the two sides would share offensive capabilities. This lack of exchange of offensive techniques seems to be mirrored by criminal and non-state hacking groups as well. Cyber security firms report little interchange or cooperation between Russian and Chinese criminal hackers. Defense will remain the primary focus of cooperation of the two sides.

Moreover, some of the defense will be directed at the other, despite the nonaggression pact. The public reporting from cyber security companies suggests that the two sides have continued hacking each other after signing the 2015 agreement. The Russian cyber security firm Kaspersky Lab, for example, saw Chinese hacking cases of Russian industries, including defense, nuclear, and aviation, nearly triple to 194 in the first seven months of 2016, from 72 in the whole of 2015.

Russia is also wary of the intelligence risks that dependence on Huawei equipment entails. The Russian leadership knows that it will bring vulnerabilities, but it hopes the partnership will speed the deployment of 5G in the country and tie Russian companies into Huaweis supply chain. Similarly, Huaweis buildout of 5G networks in Central Asia and Eastern Europe is likely to bring these areas under Beijings technological influence and cause tension with Moscow.

The long-term issue for Moscow is the technological asymmetry with China, especially in commercial information and communication technologies. There are no Russian companies with the global reach of the big Chinese firms, and these firms will help shape global technology developments and provide intelligence benefits to Beijing, not Moscow.

U.S. Policy Response

China and Russia are likely to continue to strengthen their technical exchanges on the control of the internet over the next five years. Recent diplomatic success at the United Nations will provide the base for future joint efforts to promote cyber sovereignty. Given the increasing complexity of operations in joint military exercises such as Tsentr, the Chinese and Russian militaries may also eventually engage in joint defensive cyber exercises.

In addition, Russian and Chinese information operations appear to be learning from each other. Previous Chinese online disinformation campaigns were focused on Hong Kong and Taiwan, political struggles the Chinese leadership considers internal issues. With the novel coronavirus pandemic, Chinese diplomats and state media accounts have become more divisive. They have linked to conspiracy websites arguing that the United States was the real source of COVID-19, and this messaging has been amplified by bots and fake accounts. Unnamed U.S. officials also told The New York Times that Chinese actors sent text messages warning of a lockdown designed to create panic, rather than spread pro-Beijing propaganda.

The United States has long argued that an open, global internet serves its political, economic, and diplomatic interests. Russian and Chinese cyber cooperation reinforces and accelerates the splintering of cyberspace into more controlled, national internets. To be sure, Moscow and Beijing are not the sole sources of fragmentation. Many countries are looking to data localization, filtering, and online content moderation to exert sovereignty over cyberspace. But their collaboration, and their increasing ability to use the United Nations to promote cyber sovereignty, provides diplomatic and political support to states that want to control and restrict online information. In addition, their technical cooperation demonstrates what is possible with filtering, blocking, and censorship. The Chinese in particular have been exporting the model through investment, business deals, and training local officials.

The United States does not have an obvious response on the technical side. Russias partnership with Huawei is in part driven by the breakdown of relations, and U.S. and E.U. economic sanctions on Russian companies. With those remaining in place, there is little alternative the United States can offer. There is the additional constraint, clearly demonstrated in Washingtons ineffective efforts to convince European friends and allies not to use Huawei for 5G networks, that the United States does not have an equipment manufacturer to compete with the Chinese telecom.

U.S. efforts should be focused on combating Chinese and Russian efforts to promote cyber sovereignty through the United Nations and other international organizations. This would require a rethinking of the U.S. internet freedom agenda and a re-engagement with international organizations. In the wake of the interference in the 2016 election, the United States and its allies have increasingly called for online content moderation and other controls on disinformation. While Washington might stress that these processes occur transparently and through the rule of law, they do not look dissimilar to Chinese and Russian calls for cyber sovereignty to third countries that face similar pressures.

There are tools Washington can rely on, though the State Department needs support. Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson shut down the Office of the Coordinator for Cyber Issues, and then, a little before he was fired by the president, recommended the creation of a cyber bureau with an assistant secretary for cyberspace and digital economy. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has supported the same idea through the Cyber Diplomacy Act. Even if a bureau is not created, cyber issues need more attention and resources from the top.

One forum worth engaging is the Freedom Online Coalition, a partnership of 30 governments that continues to meet and issue statements in support of an open internet. In addition, Congress remains engaged in the issue and in 2018 voted for $50 million in anti-censorship technology and other programs. The United States has been essentially reactive to Chinese and Russian efforts at the United Nations, warning others of the negative impact but providing no real alternative to countries seeking a response to online threats. Washington, along with its friends and allies, will not only have to promote new avenues of coordination and collaboration, but also have to contribute significant resources to capacity building. Any new strategy will, however, require acknowledging the link between U.S. domestic efforts to regulate content and cyber diplomacy. Washington should have a coherent argument for what it is trying to accomplish at home before it convinces others to fight for a free, open, and global internet.

Adam Segal is the Ira A. Lipman chair in emerging technologies and national security and director of the Digital and Cyberspace Policy Program at the Council on Foreign Relations. His most recent book, The Hacked World Order: How Nations Fight, Trade, Maneuver, and Manipulate in the Digital Age, describes the increasingly contentious geopolitics of cyberspace.

Image: Russian Ministry of Defence

Read the original:
Peering into the Future of Sino-Russian Cyber Security Cooperation - War on the Rocks

Read More..

Internet of Things Security Industry Market Sales, Price, Revenue, Gross Margin and Industry Share 2020-2025 – Express Journal

According to new Recent report on Internet of Things Security Industry Market Size by Application (Healthcare,Information Technology (IT),Telecom Banking,Financial Services and Insurance (BFSI),Automotive andOthers), By Types (Network Security,Endpoint Security,Application Security,Cloud Security andOthers), By Regional Outlook - Global Industry Analysis Report, Regional Outlook, Growth Potential, Price Trend, Competitive Market Share & Forecast, 2020 2027

The research report on Internet of Things Security Industry market comprises of an in-depth analysis of this business vertical, while evaluating all the segments of this industry landscape. The report provides with key insights regarding the competitive ambit as well as gross earnings of key market players. Moreover, the information concerning the regional contribution and the competitive landscape of the market is cited in the report.

Request Sample Copy of this Report @

The COVID-19 pandemic has compelled various governments to impose strict lockdown which in turn has halted the operations and processes of several firms as well as manufacturing facilities, thereby affecting global economy. Additionally, numerous enterprises across the globe are witnessing scarcity of labor along with insufficient raw materials owing to the disease outbreak, which is estimated to result in modification in the growth of Internet of Things Security Industry market in the forthcoming years.

Highlighting the major parts from the Internet of Things Security Industry market report:

Elaborating on the regional scope of Internet of Things Security Industry market:

Emphasizing on the competitive spectrum of Internet of Things Security Industry market:

Other aspects of Internet of Things Security Industry market research report:

Key points of Internet of Things Security Industry Market Report

Important Questions Answered In This Market Report:

Request Customization on This Report @

Visit link:
Internet of Things Security Industry Market Sales, Price, Revenue, Gross Margin and Industry Share 2020-2025 - Express Journal

Read More..

So What Does Trump Have Against TikTok? – The New York Times

The one thing my students all invariably know about China is that you cant use Facebook there, or YouTube or Google. For at least a decade, China has maintained strict control over the internet and aggressively blocked foreign tech platforms within its borders.

So when President Trump issued two executive orders Thursday night that all but ban two Chinese social media networks the video app TikTok and the messaging app WeChat from operating in the United States, citing national security concerns, the decision seemed straight out of Chinas own playbook.

The executive orders and Microsofts interest in buying TikToks American business echo what happened in 2017, when Chinas cybersecurity law went into effect and required foreign companies to store data about Chinese customers within China. Some American companies, including Amazon, had to sell the hardware components of their cloud computing services in China to Chinese companies in order to continue operating there.

The United States governments approach to cybersecurity is now looking more and more like Chinas. If that meant only limiting access to humorous video apps then it would be merely unfortunate. But its a deeply misguided and unproductive way to try to secure data and computer networks one that relies on the profoundly untrue assumption that data stored within a countrys own borders is more secure than data stored in other places.

No one knows better than the United States government that the data kept within its borders is highly vulnerable to Chinese cyberespionage. In 2015, Chinese hackers stole personal information belonging to more than 21 million people from the federal governments Office of Personnel Management. In 2017, members of the Chinese military managed to steal records belonging to 145 million Americans from the U.S. credit bureau Equifax, according to charges filed by the Department of Justice earlier this year.

Any number of lessons could be drawn from these incidents, including the importance of vetting outside vendors and the need to carefully monitor outbound data. But deciding that information is more secure because it is collected and stored by American companies is precisely the wrong conclusion.

In January, the Department of Defense announced that military personnel would be required to remove TikTok from their government-issued smartphones. Even absent any evidence that ByteDance was sharing data with the Chinese government, that decision made sense for smartphones that were being used by military officers given the sensitive nature of their work. But for the government to expand that ban to the phones of civilians in the United States, it needs to show some clearer indication that the app poses a real risk to its users. Otherwise, this just looks like an anti-competitive decision made to disadvantage a Chinese tech firm in the name of strengthening security.

Its not clear whether the Trump administration regards either TikToks or WeChats data, or their parent companies, as particularly pernicious or dangerous, but it has not released any evidence that these companies are distributing compromised software to their users via the apps or sharing any data about their American customers with the Chinese government.

But make no mistake: the presidents executive orders are not about cybersecurity they are a retaliatory jab in the ongoing tensions between China and the United States. In fact, the bans greatest impact will probably not be on the bottom lines of TikTok and WeChats parent companies, but instead on promoting a fundamentally Chinese view of internet security.

For years, the American government has championed the idea of an open and global internet, in which the same online content and services are available worldwide, regardless of where users live. Tech companies could operate internationally, moving data freely between their data centers across the globe. But if the government now believes that the only safe data and computer networks are within its own borders as the animus toward TikTok and WeChat suggests then, like China, the United States fundamentally does not believe in a global internet. Thats a terrible mistake for a country whose tech industry depends heavily on companies that do business all over the world. Its also a mistake from a security perspective.

To protect Americans data, the federal government needs to set clearer and more rigorous standards for how that data is protected and what the consequences are for failing to meet those standards. By pretending that restricting the use of TikTok and WeChat could possibly serve the same or even a similar purpose, the government is failing to engage with the hard questions around liability for cybersecurity breaches. Instead, it is buying into Chinas belief that the only way to secure the internet is to keep international influences and services offline.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email:

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

So What Does Trump Have Against TikTok? - The New York Times

Read More..

Insights on the Cyber Security Global Market to 2028 – Featuring Dell Technologies, Fireeye & Fortinet Among Others – GlobeNewswire

Dublin, Aug. 05, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The "Global Cyber Security Market 2019-2028" report has been added to's offering.

According to this report the global cyber security market is predicted to grow at a CAGR of 10.65% during the forecasting period 2019-2028.

The increasing viruses and Trojan attacks among organizations are primarily driving the cyber security market growth. Attackers often use such malware to take over control of devices and make a financial gain. There is an increase in the adoption of the cloud computing model owing to its flexible infrastructure option. This is also likely to push market growth.

Also, the adoption of BYOD (bring your own device) and IoT (Internet of Things) has increased the risk of Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs), thereby instigating the demand for cyber security solutions. However, complex designs of device security are restraining the market. Also, the lack of cyber security professionals is a major challenge to market growth.

The global market report covers the countries from North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and the Middle East and Africa.

Asia-Pacific is estimated to be the fastest-growing region for the cyber security market in the projected period. The increasing number of connected devices in the region and the technologically advanced use of mobile devices is primarily driving the growth of the cyber security in the Asia-Pacific. The escalating cyber attacks in countries like South Korea is instigating the need for the cyber security market. For example, in 2014, a cyber attck on Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power (KHNP) plant took place. Several government agencies have also been targeted before. These factors are likely to aid the studied market growth.

The major companies in the cyber security market are Dell Technologies Inc, AVG Technologies (Acquired By Avast Software sro), Check Point Software Technologies Ltd, Rapid7, International Business Machines Corporation, Imperva, Palo Alto Networks Inc, Proofpoint Inc, Symantec Corporation (Broadcom Inc), Cisco Systems Inc, FireEye Inc, Cyber Ark Software Ltd, Fortinet Inc, Trend Micro Incorporated and Intel Security (Intel Corporation).

AVG Technologies, acquired by Avast Software sro, is a global company involved in developing and marketing internet security software across the world. The company provides identity protection, dynamic secure search, internet security, online backup, mobile control & location services, remote control and virtual private network services. AVG Internet Security (AVG) is a product provided by the company that is an advanced antivirus software.

Key Topics Covered:

1. Global Cyber Security Market - Summary

2. Industry Outlook2.1. Market Definition 2.2. Key Insights 2.2.1. Asia-Pacific is the Fastest-Growing Market 2.2.2. Services Segment is the Fastest-Growing Component 2.2.3. The Infrastructure Security Segment Dominates the Market 2.2.4. The Healthcare Application is Anticipated to Register a High Growth Rate 2.3. Porter's Five Force Analysis 2.3.1. Threat of New Entrants 2.3.2. Threat of Substitute 2.3.3. Bargaining Power of Suppliers 2.3.4. Bargaining Power of Buyers 2.3.5. Threat of Competitive Rivalry 2.4. Key Impact Analysis 2.5. Market Attractiveness Index 2.6. Value Chain Analysis 2.6.1. Developing 2.6.2. Distributors 2.6.3. Services 2.6.4. Customers 2.7. Vendor Scorecard 2.8. Market Drivers 2.8.1. Increasing Virus Threats Among Organizations 2.8.2. Surge in Demand for Cloud-Based Cyber Security Solutions 2.8.3. Adoption of Byod & IoT 2.8.4. Rise in Cyber Security Incidents and Cyber Security Regulations 2.9. Market Restraints 2.9.1. Complex Designs of Device Security 2.9.2. Limited Budget Among Sme Organizations 2.9.3. Insufficiency of Cyber Security Professionals 2.10. Market Opportunities 2.10.1. Sturdy Validation Functionality 2.10.2. Rise in Mobile Device Applications and Platforms 2.10.3. Upgrading Traditional Anti-Virus Software 2.11. Market Challenges 2.11.1. Availability of Pirated Version of Software 2.11.2. Avoiding Software Upgrades 2.12. Impact of Covid-19 on Cyber Security2.13. Types of Cyber Security 2.13.1. Network Security 2.13.2. Cloud Security 2.13.3. Application Security 2.13.4. End-Point Security 2.13.5. Wireless Network Security 2.13.6. Database Security & Web Application Security

3. Global Cyber Security Market Outlook - by Components3.1. Solution 3.2. Service

4. Global Cyber Security Market Outlook - by Deployment4.1. Cloud 4.2. On-Premises

5. Global Cyber Security Market Outlook - by Organization Size5.1. Large Organizations 5.2. Smes

6. Global Cyber Security Market Outlook - by Application6.1. Identity and Access Management (Iam) 6.2. Infrastructure Security 6.3. Governance, Risk and Compliance 6.4. Unified Vulnerability Management Service Offering 6.5. Data Security & Privacy Service Offering 6.6. Others

7. Global Cyber Security Market Outlook - by Industrial Verticals7.1. Aerospace and Defense 7.2. Bfsi 7.3. Healthcare 7.4. Public Sector 7.5. Retail 7.6. It and Telecommunication 7.7. Energy and Utilities 7.8. Manufacturing 7.9. Others

8. Global Cyber Security Market - Regional Outlook8.1. North America 8.1.1. Market by Components 8.1.2. Market by Deployment 8.1.3. Market by Organization Size 8.1.4. Market by Application 8.1.5. Market by Industrial Verticals 8.1.6. Country Analysis United States Canada 8.2. Europe 8.2.1. Market by Components 8.2.2. Market by Deployment 8.2.3. Market by Organization Size 8.2.4. Market by Application 8.2.5. Market by Industrial Verticals 8.2.6. Country Analysis United Kingdom Germany France Spain Italy Russia Rest of Europe 8.3. Asia-Pacific 8.3.1. Market by Components 8.3.2. Market by Deployment 8.3.3. Market by Organization Size 8.3.4. Market by Application 8.3.5. Market by Industrial Verticals 8.3.6. Country Analysis China Japan India South Korea Asean Countries Australia & New Zealand Rest of Asia-Pacific 8.4. Latin America 8.4.1. Market by Components 8.4.2. Market by Deployment 8.4.3. Market by Organization Size 8.4.4. Market by Application 8.4.5. Market by Industrial Verticals 8.4.6. Country Analysis Brazil Mexico Rest of Latin America 8.5. Middle East and Africa 8.5.1. Market by Components 8.5.2. Market by Deployment 8.5.3. Market by Organization Size 8.5.4. Market by Application 8.5.5. Market by Industrial Verticals 8.5.6. Country Analysis United Arab Emirates Turkey Saudi Arabia South Africa Rest of Middle East & Africa

9. Competitive Landscape9.1. Avg Technologies (Acquired by Avast Software Sro) 9.2. Check Point Software Technologies Ltd 9.3. Cisco Systems Inc 9.4. Cyber Ark Software Ltd 9.5. Dell Technologies Inc 9.6. Fireeye Inc 9.7. Fortinet Inc9.8. International Business Machines Corporation 9.9. Imperva 9.10. Intel Security (Intel Corporation) 9.11. Palo Alto Networks Inc9.12. Proofpoint Inc 9.13. Rapid79.14. Symantec Corporation (Broadcom Inc) 9.15. Trend Micro Incorporated

10. Methodology & Scope10.1. Research Scope 10.2. Sources of Data 10.3. Research Methodology

For more information about this report visit

Original post:
Insights on the Cyber Security Global Market to 2028 - Featuring Dell Technologies, Fireeye & Fortinet Among Others - GlobeNewswire

Read More..

Internet of Things (IoT) Security Market Size, Development, Key Opportunity, Application & Forecast to 2025 – Chelanpress

Market Study Report has announced the launch of Internet of Things (IoT) Security market, a comprehensive study enumerating the latest price trends and pivotal drivers rendering a positive impact on the industry landscape. Further, the report is inclusive of the competitive terrain of this vertical in addition to the market share analysis and the contribution of the prominent contenders toward the overall industry.

The Internet of Things (IoT) Security market report offers significant information regarding this business vertical. As per the document, the market is estimated to record considerable growth as well as amass notable gains during the estimated timeframe.

Request a sample Report of Internet of Things (IoT) Security Market at:

The study elaborates the major trends of Internet of Things (IoT) Security market while evaluating the growth opportunities, industry size, volume of sales and revenue predictions. The report also provides a detailed assessment of the various segmentations and their respective impact on the overall market outlook. Moreover, it analyzes the effect of COVID-19 pandemic on the growth rate as well as remuneration generation of the market.

Objectives of the Internet of Things (IoT) Security Market Research Report:

Ask for Discount on Internet of Things (IoT) Security Market Report at:

Other data specified in the Internet of Things (IoT) Security market report:

As per the regional scope of Internet of Things (IoT) Security market:

For More Details On this Report:

Related Reports:

1. Global Calibration Management Software Market 2020 by Company, Regions, Type and Application, Forecast to 2025This report includes the assessment of Calibration Management Software market size for value and volume. Both top-down and bottom-up approaches have been used to estimate and validate the Calibration Management Software market, to estimate the size of various other dependent submarkets in the overall market.Read More:

2. Global Gas Turbine Services Market 2020 by Company, Regions, Type and Application, Forecast to 2025Gas Turbine Services Market report begins from overview of Industry Chain structure, and describes industry environment, then analyses market size and forecast of Gas Turbine Services by product, region and application, in addition, this report introduces market competition situation among the vendors and company profile, besides, market price analysis and value chain features are covered in this report.Read More:

Contact Us:Corporate Sales,Market Study Report LLCPhone: 1-302-273-0910Toll Free: 1-866-764-2150 Email: [emailprotected]

See the article here:
Internet of Things (IoT) Security Market Size, Development, Key Opportunity, Application & Forecast to 2025 - Chelanpress

Read More..

Malaysia Internet of Things (IoT) Security Market Size, Global Future Trend, Segmentation, Business Growth, Top Key Players, Opportunities and…

New Jersey, United States,- Market Research Intellect has added the latest research on the Malaysia Internet of Things (IoT) Security Market which offers a concise outline of the market valuation, industry size, SWOT analysis, revenue approximation, and the regional outlook of this business vertical. The report precisely features the key opportunities and challenges faced by contenders of this industry and presents the existing competitive setting and corporate strategies enforced by the Malaysia Internet of Things (IoT) Security market players.

The Malaysia Internet of Things (IoT) Security market report is an amalgamation of the key trends influencing the industry growth with respect to the competitive scenario and regions where the business has been successful. Furthermore, the study discusses the various restraints of the industry and uncovers the opportunities that will set the growth course. In addition, a holistic examination of the industry changes caused by the COVID-19 pandemic are also tagged in the report to aid investors and other participants in making well-informed decisions.

Key highlights from COVID-19 impact analysis:

Unveiling a brief about the Malaysia Internet of Things (IoT) Security market competitive scope:

The report includes pivotal details about the manufactured products, and in-depth company profile, remuneration, and other production patterns.

The research study encompasses information pertaining to the market share that every company holds, in tandem with the price pattern graph and the gross margins.

Malaysia Internet of Things (IoT) Security Market, By Type

Malaysia Internet of Things (IoT) Security Market, By Application

Other important inclusions in the Malaysia Internet of Things (IoT) Security market report:

A brief overview of the regional landscape:

Reasons To Buy:

About Us:

Market Research Intellect provides syndicated and customized research reports to clients from various industries and organizations with the aim of delivering functional expertise. We provide reports for all industries including Energy, Technology, Manufacturing and Construction, Chemicals and Materials, Food and Beverage, and more. These reports deliver an in-depth study of the market with industry analysis, the market value for regions and countries, and trends that are pertinent to the industry.

Contact Us:

Mr. Steven Fernandes

Market Research Intellect

New Jersey ( USA )

Tel: +1-650-781-4080

See more here:
Malaysia Internet of Things (IoT) Security Market Size, Global Future Trend, Segmentation, Business Growth, Top Key Players, Opportunities and...

Read More..

Someone just dumped 20GB of internal Intel data on the Internet – TechSpot

Bottom line: It'll take some time for researchers to comb through the data dump and determine just how harmful the information could be on the open market. But perhaps the company's bigger concern is what could be lying in wait.

Intel has reportedly suffered a massive data breach that, according to the anonymous source of the material, is the first of several planned intellectual releases to come.

The first batch of data, a 20GB collection of internal documents, debugging tools and BIOS code, was initially shared on Twitter by Till Kottmann, a Swiss software engineer with a history of sharing leaked data from major tech companies. Kottman said an the anonymous source nabbed the data by hacking Intel earlier this year.

Intel has issued the following statement to the press regarding the matter.

We are investigating this situation. The information appears to come from the Intel Resource and Design Center, which hosts information for use by our customers, partners and other external parties who have registered for access. We believe an individual with access downloaded and shared this data.

ZDNet reviewed the contents of the leak with security researchers, who deemed the material authentic. According to Kottmann, the dump includes:

Regardless of how the data was obtained, its not a good look for Intel. Perhaps even more worrisome is the possibility that this is the first of several more leaks to come.

Masthead credit: Sundry Photography

See the original post here:
Someone just dumped 20GB of internal Intel data on the Internet - TechSpot

Read More..

Global Internet of Things (IoT) Security Market 2020 Competitive Analysis Cisco Systems, Intel Corporation, IBM Corporation – Owned

Global Internet of Things (IoT) Security Market 2020 by Company, Regions, Type and Application, Forecast to 2026 comprises a comprehensive investigation of various components that expand the markets development. The report provides the scope of global Internet of Things (IoT) Security market size, industry growth opportunities and challenges, current market trends, potential players, and expected performance of the market in regions for the forecast period from 2020 to 2026. The report identifies various segments of the market such as product type, end-user, competitive landscape, and key regions. The study focuses on the possible requirements of the clients and aims to assist them in making the right decision about their business investment plans and strategies. It delivers regional and country-level market size analysis.

The report has covered the key players functioning in the global Internet of Things (IoT) Security market along with their company profile, basic information like legal name, its market position, historical background competitors by market capitalization/revenue along with contact information. The report highlights restraints, restrictions, drivers, and change that affect the market. The study throws light on current patterns and noteworthy achievements. The report is prepared with a group of graphical representations, tables, and figures which displays a clear picture of the developments of the products and their market performance over the last few years.


NOTE: Our analysts monitoring the situation across the globe explains that the market will generate remunerative prospects for producers post COVID-19 crisis. The report aims to provide an additional illustration of the latest scenario, economic slowdown, and COVID-19 impact on the overall industry.

Industry Chain Analysis The report describes upstream raw material suppliers and cost structure of Internet of Things (IoT) Security, major players with company profile, manufacturing base and market share, manufacturing cost structure analysis, market channel analysis, and major downstream buyers. Although downstream market overview, consumption, market share, growth rate, an application (2015-2020) has been covered in this report.

The report covers the following companies: Cisco Systems, Intel Corporation, IBM Corporation, Symantec Corporation, Trend Micro, Digicert, Infineon Technologies, ARM Holdings, Gemalto NV, Kaspersky Lab, CheckPoint Software Technologies, Sophos Plc, Advantech, Verizon Enterprise Solutions, Trustwave, INSIDE Secure SA,

Segmentation based on market types: Network Security, Endpoint Security, Application Security, Cloud Security, Others

Segmentation based on applications: Building and Home Automation, Supply Chain Management, Patient Information Management, Energy and Utilities Management, Customer Information Security, Other,

Global Internet of Things (IoT) Security market report categorized the information and data according to the major geographical regions which are expected to impact the industry in the forecast period. The regions covered by the report are: North America (United States, Canada and Mexico), Europe (Germany, France, UK, Russia and Italy), Asia-Pacific (China, Japan, Korea, India and Southeast Asia), South America (Brazil, Argentina, Colombia etc.), Middle East and Africa (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa)


Moreover, the report sheds light on the growth potential, revenue growth, product range, and pricing factors related to the global Internet of Things (IoT) Security market. The research analyzes the performance of some of the key players and analysis of major players in the industry, segments, applications, and regions. The report also covers the recent agreements including merger & acquisition, partnership or joint venture, and the latest developments of the manufacturers to sustain in the global competition of the market. The study contains innovative data thatll function as a helpful guide for competitions in this industry. Last, the feasibility of new projects can be evaluated with this report.

Customization of the Report:

This report can be customized to meet the clients requirements. Please connect with our sales team ([emailprotected]), who will ensure that you get a report that suits your needs. You can also get in touch with our executives on +1-201-465-4211 to share your research requirements.

About Us is a leading global Market Research agency providing expert research solutions, trusted by the best. We understand the importance of knowing what global consumers watch and buy, further using the same to document our distinguished research reports. has worldwide presence to facilitate real market intelligence using latest methodology, best-in-class research techniques and cost-effective measures for worlds leading research professionals and agencies. We study consumers in more than 100 countries to give you the most complete view of trends and habits worldwide. is a leading provider of Full-Service Research, Global Project Management, Market Research Operations and Online Panel Services.

Contact UsMark StoneHead of Business DevelopmentPhone: +1-201-465-4211Email: [emailprotected]Web:

Read this article:
Global Internet of Things (IoT) Security Market 2020 Competitive Analysis Cisco Systems, Intel Corporation, IBM Corporation - Owned

Read More..

Cryptocurrency Mining Profitability in 2020: Is It Possible? – Cointelegraph

Miner profitability metrics are based on a handful of factors regulating difficulty and emission, which are hard-coded into the blockchains attributes, making it predictable to work with. While predictability does not always immediately translate into profitability, it gives a blockchain certain parameters to rely on when predicting when mining cryptocurrency will become profitable, at which price level, and at which difficulty level during the emission cycle.

Some cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin (BTC), go through emission cycles with events such as the halving. In Bitcoins case, halvings occur once every 210,000 blocks roughly every four years until the maximum supply of 21 million Bitcoin has been mined.

This feature, self-adjusting difficulty, provides an incentive for an individual miner to join or leave the network depending on the current Bitcoin price level. Together, these incentives create a logarithmic price regression curve, which represents a probable Bitcoin exchange rate and, therefore, predictability of profitability in the current emission cycle. If Bitcoins price falls under this regression curve where the bottom line is roughly around the 200-week moving average in this emission cycle, nearly all of the miners should be at a net loss. If the price stays above this figure, at least some of the miners should be at a net profit.

Bitcoin mining difficulty is currently at an all-time high between 110 and 120 million terahashes per second, indicating that a lot of new mining capacity has been added to the network, but since the price hasnt fully recovered from the dip caused by the emergence of COVID-19, we should expect most of the miners being temporarily at a loss. However, should Bitcoins price rise back up again into the current emission cycle and go into a bull run, the economic risk miners would have taken at that point should be greatly rewarded.

Ethereum mining has been, for a while, among the most profitable in the altcoin space primarily because of the high average price of its token. However, Ethereum as a network has a primary focus on building a blockchain with a slightly different purpose compared to Bitcoin. Ethereum is a smart contract platform. While mining has previously supported the network in the phase where it isnt widely used for transactions, in the future, the network will be compelled to take on staking nodes as validators in order to provide sufficient transaction capacity. In the long run, this may have a positive effect on mining if we assume that mining will be phased out gradually. A substantial amount of coins are predicted to be locked in staking, which is going to drive up the price.

Staking is a mechanism that allows users to deposit some of their coins into a staking address owned by a validator node and locks them for a period of time. The validator node then secures the network by producing blocks relative to the number of coins deposited in it. The blocks are produced according to a hard-coded voting mechanism that calculates the staking reward from the total amount of coins staked in the network for each node.

Related: ETH Miners Will Have Little Choice Once Ethereum 2.0 Launches With PoS

The price of electricity is a defining factor in miner profitability. Currently, most industrial miners reside in countries with cheap electricity on power purchasing agreements with electricity producers ranging from hydropower to solar. However, most retail miners mostly depend on retail price fluctuations and have to calculate this factor into their investments. Moreover, the price of electricity isnt a factor when mining profitable altcoins with GPU rigs.

Equipment prices tend to fluctuate according to price cycles. At the bottom of each cycle, buying equipment is relatively affordable, but toward each cycle peak, equipment may not be affordable but also unavailable. At this point, it would likely be profitable to take a moderate risk in mining, especially in GPU mining. Regarding profitability alone, mining Bitcoin would probably require an investment beyond the reach of most retail miners on the initial cost to be remarkable at the peak of this emission cycle.

Apart from only turning a profit, mining is a way to produce coins with no prior history. For users who care about their privacy, mining represents economic freedom, making a means of payment with no ties to a specific entity accessible. This unique feature is only present in proof-of-work cryptocurrencies and connects many people on the fringes of society with often legitimate use cases to the wider world, acting as a guarantor of human and social rights.

For some organizations, maintaining a blockchain at a nominal loss can act as an investment either by supporting profitable services or by maintaining infrastructure to run services for public use. In legacy systems, this type of arrangement is comparable to public service, or a utility.

While utility provision can be an advantage for a network of entities running on a permissioned blockchain or a PoW blockchain intended for a well-defined use, on open public blockchains, in the long run, miners can be assumed to operate on a profit motive. With difficulty adjustments and profitability in public blockchains with significant utility value such as Bitcoin, mining can be seen as a profitable business in the foreseeable future.

The only credible factor that may upset the status quo in mining PoW cryptocurrencies at the moment seems to be the theoretical introduction of widespread quantum computing with enough accessible tools to create an incentive to attack public blockchains. However, this kind of risk can be exaggerated because quantum computing proof algorithms exist and are likely to be developed precisely to mitigate a risk arising from this quite predictable factor.

In this light, mining will probably not become profitable in the upcoming bull market, but more relevant in ways that are not only economically.

This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, readers should conduct their own research when making a decision.

The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Iskander Khasanov is a crypto miner and trader. He established himself first as a real estate entrepreneur and then became involved in the cryptocurrency business in 2016. Iskander is the director at Crypto Accelerator community and shares ideas of mass adoption of cryptocurrency.

See the original post here:
Cryptocurrency Mining Profitability in 2020: Is It Possible? - Cointelegraph

Read More..