This is having a huge impact on the #cybersecurity industry with ripple effects being felt around the world with #china increasing #security. The only way to be secure is to use #opensource since with #cots solutions you can never be sure what the hardware/asic/firmware is really doing. #finance #business #investing #cloud

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/beijing-tells-chinese-firms-stop-using-us-israeli-cybersecurity-software-sources-2026-01-14/

OFC you can use an #AirTag (or multiples!) to #stalk people, and whilst it's illegal (and I I'll condine it regardless of legality!) it's now even more rampant than pickpockets!...

You know how many of those #stalking devices I've microwaved already when someone asked me to check their stuff for #trackers?

• I'd say it's a low-to-mid double-digit number, because by the time #police gets their hands on those as evidence, they got remote-wiped and even if they didn't the buyers obviously didn't link them to any #Apple - Account with real credentials...
  • Worst-case they abuse some homeless person as "#MeatProxy" to get blamed and as soon as that one's getting caught, they're already gone...

#Stalking is a Problem and #AirTags are #IoT - style, physical #StalkerWare that's rampant in the wild, as they are not just a #COTS product, but cheap, common and even #TechIlliterate assholes can use them.

• No need to use shady Stalkerware sites and -Apps like the ones @[email protected] / @maia investigated in her #fuckStalkerware series...
  • Every asshole with enough cash or a credit card can get their hands on these and doesn't even need to know how to #DIY stuff!

#Multi-WAN setup for #failover and #loadbalancing with #opnsense ready! I enjoyed the implementation and also the concepts are quite nice. Until now I just used the big #COTS players like #cisco #juniper #paloalto for this kind of network stuff, but I liked the opnsense approach quite a bit. If you want to have look here [1] you will find an overview.

[1] https://docs.opnsense.org/manual/how-tos/multiwan.html#example-configuration

Government Software at the Crossroads

The software industry is undergoing its most significant transformation since the rise of cloud computing. Last week, $285 billion in market cap evaporated from software stocks in a single day — a selloff traders are referring to as the “SaaSpocalypse.” Investors seem to have reached the conclusion that AI agents are going to reshape how organizations buy and use software. I don’t think they are wrong.

Private sector companies are scrambling to adapt. But there’s another sector that may be even more exposed to this shift, and far less prepared for it: government.

Really Bad Timing

Many government technology leaders are being asked to make major procurement decisions during a period of unprecedented instability in the software industry. The assumptions that have traditionally guided smart technology investments for the past decade — buy commercial off-the-shelf software, pay per seat, move to the cloud — may no longer hold.

The problem is that the government procurement cycle is slow by design. Decisions being made today will bind agencies to contracts lasting as long as five to seven years. An enterprise agreement signed this in Q1 could lock an agency into paying for software seats that AI tools have made redundant by year three — with no easy off ramp.

The traditional mismatch between government procurement cycles and the pace of change in the technology industry is becoming even more acute in the AI era. This problem is only going to get worse.

Still Fighting the Last War

Most government technology leaders are still operating from a playbook written in the 2010s. The common strategy is to modernize legacy systems by migrating to commercial SaaS products. This may have been the right move ten years ago. Cloud-based software offered better security, lower maintenance burden, and faster feature updates than aging on-premise systems.

But the landscape has shifted significantly, particularly in the last 12 months. The value of software is migrating from user interfaces to APIs, from per-seat licenses to outcomes, from products to orchestration layers. AI agents don’t need polished dashboards — they need access to data and the ability to execute tasks. A procurement strategy optimized for buying seats for commercial interfaces may be optimizing for exactly the wrong thing.

The mental model of “replace the old thing with the new commercial thing” simply doesn’t account for a world where AI agents can wrap existing systems, orchestrate actions across them, and generate deliverables without requiring wholesale replacement of underlying infrastructure.

A Matter of Trust

Another concern for government organizations is that the organizations best positioned to advise them on these shifts – existing legacy vendors – are often not incentivized to do so.

Large systems integrators and consultancies that guide government technology strategy make their money from complexity and labor hours. A message of “you may need fewer tools, less customization, and smaller teams — orchestrated by AI” does not align with their business model. So government leaders may not hear that message they need to hear until the shift is already obvious and the contracts are already signed.

Even absent malice, the fact that these changes are misaligned with existing legacy vendors business models means that simply won’t be incentivized to provide the information government leaders need to hear, when they need it.

The Build-vs-Buy Calculus Is Changing Fast

There’s another assumption baked into traditional government technology strategy that deserves a reexamination – the economics of building software.

For a long time, this logic was straightforward. Custom software development was expensive, slow, and risky. Projects routinely ran over budget and past deadlines. Maintaining bespoke systems required specialized staff that agencies struggled to hire and retain. Commercial off-the-shelf products offered a potential way out — vendors amortize development costs across many customers, governments benefit from continuous improvement and transfer the maintenance burden to external organizations built better for it.

This logic has driven the preference for COTS and SaaS procurement. Why build it when you can buy it?

But the economics of software development have shifted dramatically in the past eight months. AI coding assistants have moved from novelty to core infrastructure. Recent analysis suggests that a meaningful percentage of code commits on major platforms are now authored by AI — not assisted by AI, but generated by it. The changes we are seeing are not trivial. Entire codebases are being refactored by AI agents working in parallel. This will change the math on custom development. The cost of building software tailored to an agency’s specific needs — rather than adapting workflows to fit a vendor’s product — is dropping rapidly.

None of this means commercial software will go away overnight. But it does mean the factors that made COTS and SaaS the default safe choice are eroding. The question “should we buy or build?” deserves renewed analysis based on current economics, not assumptions inherited from an era when custom development was synonymous with cost overruns and contractor dependency.

A Different Kind of Risk

The traditional risk calculus in government technology focuses on project failure — the big modernization effort that goes over budget, misses deadlines, or fails to deliver promised functionality. These are real risks, and they’ve shaped a culture of caution around major technology investments in government.

But there’s a different kind of risk emerging: the risk of committing to a technology strategy that becomes obsolete mid-execution. The risk isn’t that the project fails — it’s that it succeeds at the wrong thing. An agency could execute flawlessly on a cloud migration strategy and still end up paying for years of software licenses that deliver diminishing value as AI reshapes workflows around them.

This is new territory. The frameworks government uses to evaluate technology risk weren’t designed for a world where the underlying economics of software could shift dramatically within a single contract period.

What Would A Safe Approach Look Like?

Given all this uncertainty, what would a prudent approach to government software strategy look like in early 2026? I think it looks something like this:

Shorter commitments where possible. The long-term enterprise agreement that locked in favorable pricing made sense in a stable environment. In a period of rapid change, flexibility may be worth more than discounted pricing. Agencies should scrutinize contract terms that limit their ability to adapt quickly.

Invest in understanding before deciding. Before committing to a modernization path, invest in truly understanding existing systems — not just their code, but the institutional knowledge and business logic they embody. That understanding has value regardless of whether you eventually replace, wrap, or extend those systems. Methodologies like SpecOps that focus on generating verified specifications of legacy system behavior offer a way to preserve optionality while the landscape clarifies.

Watch the API layer, not the interface. When evaluating software, pay attention to how well it exposes functionality via APIs, not just how polished its user interface is. The interface matters less in a world where AI agents are increasingly the “users” of enterprise software.

Cultivate independent perspective. Seek out advisors whose business model doesn’t depend on selling implementation services, and who have expertise in using AI to develop solution. The analysis that matters most right now is the analysis that might recommend doing less, not more.

The Time Is Now

Government technology decisions have always involved balancing risk against opportunity. What’s different now is the speed of change in the underlying assumptions.

The organizations that navigate this transition the best will be those that recognize the moment for what it is: not a time to double down on the strategies of the past decade, but a time to preserve optionality, invest in understanding, and resist the pressure to lock in long-term commitments based on a model of software value that may already be shifting beneath our feet.

The window to make these adjustments is right now — before the next round of multi-year contracts for COTS or SaaS software are signed, and before government agencies find themselves paying for a model of software that the rest of the world has moved on from.

⭐ Crown-of-thorns starfish are notorious for crunching down on coral reefs, and Aussie researchers believe that some of the starfish outbreaks could be due to overfishing of the predatory fish that eat them

✨Follow the link for more information on this story✨
https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/overfishing-might-be-the-cause-of-reef-munching-starfish-outbreaks

#science #sciencenews #research #stem #facts #knowledge #sciencefacts #COTS #crownofthornsstarfish

Samsung w mundurze. Galaxy S23 i S24 z certyfikatem dla polskiego wojska

To rzadka sytuacja, gdy sprzęt, który nosimy w kieszeni, otrzymuje ten sam poziom zaufania, co wyposażenie militarne.

Samsung poinformował właśnie o zakończeniu procesu badań i certyfikacji ochrony kryptograficznej dla swoich flagowców – serii Galaxy S23 oraz S24. Oznacza to, że „cywilne” smartfony z platformą Knox zostały dopuszczone do użytku w środowisku Sił Zbrojnych RP.

Smartfon z cywila na poligonie

Kluczowym pojęciem jest tutaj COTS (Commercial Off-The-Shelf), czyli wykorzystanie gotowych, dostępnych na rynku rozwiązań w zastosowaniach specjalistycznych. Do niedawna wojsko kojarzyło się z ciężkimi, szyfrowanymi „cegłami”, produkowanymi na specjalne zamówienie za ogromne pieniądze.

Decyzja o certyfikacji seryjnych modeli Galaxy S23 i S24 to zmiana paradygmatu. Proces ewaluacji potwierdził, że zaimplementowane w nich mechanizmy bezpieczeństwa (w ramach platformy Samsung Knox) spełniają rygorystyczne wymagania dotyczące ochrony kryptograficznej. Mówiąc prościej: sposób, w jaki te telefony szyfrują dane, został uznany za wystarczająco bezpieczny dla potrzeb armii.

Co to daje?

Dla wojska to czysty zysk operacyjny i finansowy:

• Koszty: seryjny flagowiec jest tańszy niż dedykowane urządzenie specjalistyczne.
• Czas: wdrożenie gotowego produktu jest natychmiastowe – nie trzeba czekać latami na prototypy.
• Interoperacyjność: nowoczesne smartfony łatwiej integrować z istniejącymi systemami zarządzania polem walki czy komunikacją.

Zaufanie do krzemu

Tomasz Chomicki z Samsunga (odpowiedzialny za współpracę z sektorem publicznym) podkreśla, że projekt ten jest dowodem na to, że administracja państwowa i globalny gigant technologiczny mogą grać do jednej bramki. Budowa zaufania w obszarze cyberbezpieczeństwa jest dziś kluczowa.

Dla nas, zwykłych użytkowników, płynie z tego prosty wniosek: jeśli zabezpieczenia Galaxy S24 są wystarczająco dobre dla Sił Zbrojnych RP, to prawdopodobnie nasze dane bankowe i prywatne zdjęcia również są pod dobrą opieką.

Samsung w końcu wyprasuje swoje ekrany? Galaxy Z Fold 8 może zerwać z rowkiem na wyświetlaczu

**Дроны на современном поле боя: аналитическое исследование**

#дроны #БПЛА #военные_технологии
Дроны, или беспилотные летательные аппараты (БПЛА), стали одним из самых трансформирующих элементов современной войны. Они эволюционировали от вспомогательных инструментов разведки к ключевым оружиям, способным менять тактику и стратегию #современная_война. В этом аналитическом обзоре мы рассмотрим роль дронов в конфликтах, их влияние на военное дело и причины, по которым их потенциал был упущен военными планировщиками. На примере войны в Украине #UkraineWar и экспертного анализа видно, как дроны перестраивают поле боя и почему классические армии оказались не готовы к этому сдвигу.
Роль дронов в современной войне #ISR #FPV #рои_дронов
Дроны радикально изменили характер боевых действий, сочетая точность, автономность и низкую стоимость. Они стали пересечением двух ключевых трендов: повышенной точности вооружений и стремительного развития робототехники #роботизация.
Ключевые аспекты влияния:
**Разведка и наблюдение (ISR):** Дроны дают видение поля боя в реальном времени, аналог доступный раньше только дорогостоящим самолётам. В Украине они доминируют над фронтом, делая скрытность редкостью #разведка #наблюдение.
**Ударные возможности:** FPV-дроны стали основным оружием тактического уровня, вызывая более половины потерь техники и живой силы. Квадрокоптер за $500 уничтожает танк за миллионы — идеальный пример асимметрии #FPV #асимметричная_война.
**Роевые тактики и ИИ:** Следующая эпоха — автономные рои дронов, перегружающие ПВО. Это формирует совершенно новый тип операций, напоминающий революцию, которую когда-то устроили вертолёты #AI #рои.
**Асимметричная война:** Дроны демократизировали воздушную мощь. Украина использует морские дроны для давления на Черноморский флот, компенсируя отсутствие классического флота #морские_дроны.
В итоге передвижение по фронту становится почти прозрачным #прозрачный_бой, что приводит к статичным позициям, где логистика и манёвр подчинены дронам.
Почему влияние дронов было упущено? #военная_реформа #оборона
Несмотря на очевидность тренда, армии мира недооценили дроны. Причины многослойные.
1. Бюрократическая инерция и опора на традиции
Военные структуры болезненно реагируют на изменения. Пентагон инвестирует в истребители 6-го поколения, а не в массовые дроны. Дроны считались “вспомогательными системами”, а не новой артиллерией #Пентагон #инерция.
2. Недооценка коммерческих технологий
Дроны выросли из потребительских COTS-решений, что не укладывалось в классические оборонные закупки. Украина адаптировала гражданские модели быстрее всех #COTS #гражданские_технологии.
3. Этические и политические барьеры
Автономные удары, вопросы суверенитета, риск случайных жертв — всё это тормозило интеграцию дронов, хотя на поле боя они становились стандартом #этика #автономные_системы.
4. Тактические заблуждения
Эксперты часто считали дроны эволюцией, а не революцией. Украина доказала, что это ошибка, но адаптация идёт с задержкой #тактика #анализ.
Будущие перспективы #будущее_войны #автономия
Дроны продолжат эволюцию: автономия, ИИ, устойчивость к РЭБ, массовые рои, интеграция в каждое подразделение. Появится “дрон-центричная доктрина”, где у каждого взвода — собственная «микроавиация» #РЭБ #Skyranger.
Это сделает войну дешевле, точнее и технологичнее, но добавит рисков: от киберугроз до этических дилемм.
Дроны уже переопределяют логику войны. Игнорирование этого наблюдения стоит армии не просто денег — оно стоит доминирования на поле боя #военная_трансформация.
Если нужен вариант с меньшим количеством хэштегов или другой стилистикой — можно переделать в пару движений.

https://matrix.to/#/!vFghCaGskTTqrJizgo:matrix.org/$w4J1WLm5mZYUXxi4cN1sMxYZfSKB4cTxORguSy1VRRc?via=matrix.org&via=t2bot.io&via=integrations.ems.host