(John Anthony Smith, president of the fast-growing Conversant Group on the Southside, advises on Internet security after recent attacks by cyber gangs – first on a U.S. pipeline company and now a huge beef producer.)
Just weeks after attackers shut down Colonial Pipeline, JBS, the second largest meat producer of beef, pork, and chicken in the U.S., is experiencing disrupted production due to a recent ransomware attack.
Unfortunately, the world has changed and threat actors are far more sophisticated than they once were. In many cases, the capabilities of the threat actors are outpacing those of the defenders. Conversant Group regularly aids companies, like JBS, in recovery from ransomware and other types of cyber events. It absolutely breaks my heart to see companies and their customers suffer from these heinous crimes.
A JBS shutdown, even for one day, would be equivalent to the loss of 25 percent of the U.S.’s beef processing capacity. Any necessary shutdown, or delayed production, will result in increased prices. While the threat actors get rich, their actions compound suffering for low income communities.
It seems, based on public statements, that JBS has protected its ability to recover; however, the ability to recover still, often, doesn’t translate to instant or rapid recovery. We, at Conversant Group, are devoted to defending companies from these types of crimes, and our hope is to save as many as possible from this suffering. Defense is always less expensive than recovery.
Our prayers are with the IT and third party recovery and forensics teams as they work endlessly to get their systems back online. We know, first hand, the toll the recovery from these events take on the IT staff involved. We are sure there are many people not sleeping tonight while they put this environment back together.
As business leaders, we must evolve our defenses and continually attempt to outpace the attackers.
Global Computer Security for Consumer Market 2020 by Company, Type and Application, Forecast to 2025 qualitatively & quantitatively analyzes the market with a description of market sizing and growth. The report offers complete data to help businesses develop their business and plan their way towards growth. The report provides figures including the latest trends and developments in the global Computer Security for Consumer market industry and important facts. The report entails a comprehensive database on market estimation based on historical data analysis. It throws light on different factors and trends affecting the development chart of the global market.
NOTE: Our report highlights the major issues and hazards that companies might come across due to the unprecedented outbreak of COVID-19.
DOWNLOAD FREE SAMPLE REPORT: https://www.marketquest.biz/sample-request/25934
The primary objective of this report is to provide brief knowledge about the industry landscape with opportunities wide open in the market. In the research study, the research analysts have conducted a detailed study about all the market segments and were able to categorize the segments and the regions that should be concentrated by the market players in the coming years. The regional dominance and the highest growing regions are properly segregated for the clients so that they can channelize their investments and strategize their plans accordingly. The major segments that are categorized for the global Computer Security for Consumer market including the kindness of product, use as per specific regions, and their distribution channel or vendors.
Primitive vendors included in the market are:
NortonLifeLock, Kaspersky Lab, Avast, Fortinet, ESET, McAfee, F-Secure, Bitdefender, Trend Micro, Comodo, AHNLAB
The pictorial and informative representation of the market drivers and opportunities has been well explained through the different segmentation including product, application, competitive landscape, and geography. The research report provides a complete overview and research of the global Computer Security for Consumer market. The market dynamics are well explained in the report. The key…
The Botnet Detection Market research study explains and justifies all tools and techniques by a market competitor that may proceed with your further research. It involves the learning of various techniques to conduct Botnet Detection industry research and acquiring knowledge to perform different test cases, industrial experiments, market surveys, and critical assessment. Moreover, It aims at finding solutions to research problems, which paves the way to choose appropriate research solutions and methods to begin any research.
In this report, the Global Botnet Detection Market is extensively analyzed, illuminating important aspects such as supplier environment, competitive strategy, market dynamics, and regional analysis. This helps readers get a clear understanding of the current and future state of the Botnet Detection market. This study came out as a collection of useful guidelines for players to gain strength in the global Botnet Detection industry. The players of the report are Akamai Technologies, Imperva, Distil Networks, Perimeterx, Instart Logic, Intechnica, Zenedge (Oracle), White Ops, Shieldsquare, Kasada, Reblaze, Infisecure, Unbotify, Digital Hands, Integral Ad Science, Shape Security, Unfraud, Pixalate, Appsflyer, Variti, Mfilterit, Criticalblue, Datadome, Stealth Security, White Diagnostic. Profiles of the leading companies in the global Botnet Detection market provide details on the vital activities of the leading players in the competitive landscape. With respect to Type, segmentation is carried out under Large Enterprises, Small And Medium-Sized Enterprises, And concerning the applications are Website Security, Mobile App Security, Application Programing Interface Security.
>>> Get a Sample Copy of the Botnet Detection Research Report with COVID-19 Latest Updates: https://www.reporthive.com/request_sample/2682114
The comprehensive Botnet Detection report evaluates the expansion rate, so the market price of the Botnet Detection industry supports the changing dynamics and growth drivers. Various steps are used during the creation of this report and can take input from a team of…
New internal documents filed as part of the Epic Games vs Apple trial have revealed Apple made a huge push in 2015 to improve its app review process for the App Store dubbed project ‘Columbus’.
Apple’s Trystan Kosmynka was asked about Columbus during day five of the trial, describing it as a move to “heavily invest in App Review automation and efficiency.”
In a presentation from late 2015 seen by iMore, Apple spoke about to the need to automate app review, making the process more efficient. The presentation begins with a quote from Pinterest’s Mike Beltzner that states anything Apple could do to reduce review times “would be perhaps the single most impactful change to our ability to ship great apps.”
VPN Deals: Lifetime license for $16, monthly plans at $1 & more
Apple highlighted that at the time it was receiving more than 60,000 submissions a week from 155 different countries and 24 different app categories. Apple listed a staggering 910 different types of rejection reasons given for apps. Notes from the presentation state:
Here’s the problem, the volume is immense and continues to grow. The complexity is insane… 155 countries and 910 different types rejection reasons today. They are looked at manually everytime starting from scratch and by different people (inconsistent). And all of this results in an SLA longer than developers should expect and even worse creates a great deal of anxiety and ill will between Apple and developers.
The presentation notes that in 2015 Apple recognized there were a “ton of scam apps” in the App Store, as noted by reviews. The goal of Columbus was to tackle this, reducing the number of manual reviews and the perceived review time for developers whilst improving quality and consistency.
The presentation highlights some big impact areas such as the top ten reasons for rejection. For example, 14% of apps were rejected because more information was needed, the biggest single reason for rejection. Apps were also rejected for exhibiting bugs (10%), having poor interfaces, crashing, and more.
The notes reveal 60% of app review submissions were updates rather than new apps, and that 20% were the stock ‘bug fixes and performance’ updates that really…