To be pedantic, they have a navy, just no large ships in said navy.

You overestimate the worth of your inconvenience.

That isn’t how defense treaties work.

I thought Taiwan was China? Hard to invade yourself, eh, Xi?

This is nothing new, other than that Chase has brought this capability in-house. Credit card companies have shared purchase information with second parties forever.

Chase Media Solutions follows from the integration of card-linked marketing platform Figg, which JPMorgan Chase & Co. acquired in 2022

NB: Alignments are not factions. Two Chaotic aligned characters are not inherently on the same side; they are on their own sides, individually.

Here are two potential ways to play it.

If your Fey is Chaotic Neutral:

You find the two clerics dragging your resident murder hobo in front of a tribunal hilarious, and in fact, might be inclined to help. It would be different if they attempted the same for you; in your mind, the action would be justified if you did it, but for the supposed “good” rogue, they still just killed someone out of convenience. You are allowed to be a hypocrite, they are not.

If you are Chaotic Good:

That rogue still straight up ganked a guy for being an asshole. Even if you think the guy probably deserved it, and maybe could have talked yourself into doing the same, it has nonetheless created a situation where you are inconvenienced. They screwed up big time, and not even that deep down, they know they’ve got a black mark on their soul, but that’s neither your nor the clerics’ problem. The last thing you want to hear are more verbose, moral arguments from the clerics and to be sidetracked from the mission; the rogue can atone later, this nonsense is getting between you and getting paid.

Are you and the rogue chaotic good, or chaotic neutral? It doesn’t seem like you’re clear on this with the rest of your party. Murder (e.g., backstab in the middle of dialogue) is not a “good” action, any way you slice it, even if the spectator is an asshole, evil, or through RP, would have eventually led to combat resulting in death anyways. If you were playing true chaotic, it’s understandable, but it doesn’t sound like that is what was made clear.

And if you’re trying to force an alignment shift, consider that you may be ruining the enjoyment of everyone else at the table; if I’m playing a lawful good cleric, I’m not sure my character would party with a true chaotic fey, which would essentially end the campaign.

From my understanding, the impetus was that F5 submitted a CVE for a vulnerability, for an optional, “beta” feature that can be enabled. Dounin did not think a CVE should be submitted, since he did not considered it to be “production” feature.

That said, the vulnerability is in shipping code, regardless of whether it is optional or not, so per industry coding practices, it should either be patched or removed entirely in order to resolve the issue.

If they are also sending a validation email, it would fail, so no issue.

Hope they actually have interiors this time.

At this point, it’d probably be best to consolidate and redirect to a more active community.

e.g., !cybersecurity@infosec.pub

1. From the title of your article and your executive summary, the premise of your paper is that CVSS is flawed, and CITE is your solution.
2. From the title of your article, and choice of name, “QHE CVSS Alternative; CITE”. CVSS is a VULNERABILITY Scoring System. CITE, as your propose, is a THREAT evaluation tool. You can see how one could have the impression that they were incorrectly being used interchangeably.

As you yourself stated, CVSS does exactly what it says on the box. It provides a singular rating for a software vulnerability, in a vacuum. It does not prescribe to do anything more, and it does a good job doing what it sets out to do (including specifically as an input to other quantitative risk calculations).

Compare what with attack?

Your methodology heavily relies on “the analysis of cybersecurity experts”, and in particular, frequently references “exploit chains”, mappings which are not clearly defined, and appears to rely on the knowledge of the individual practitioner, rather than existing open frameworks. MITRE ATT&CK and CAPEC already provide such a mapping, as well as a list of threat actor groups leveraging tactics, techniques, and procedures (e.g., exploitation of a given CVE). Here’s a good articlewhich maps similarly to how we operate our cybersecurity program.

I think there is a lot on the mark in your article about the issues with cybersecurity today, but again, I believe that your premise that CVSS needs replacing is flawed, and I don’t think you provided a compelling case to demonstrate how/why it is flawed. If anything, I think you would agree that if organizations are exclusively using CVSS scores to prioritize remediation, they’re doing it wrong, and fighting an impossible battle. But this means the organization’s approach is wrong, not CVSS itself.

Your article stands better alone as a proposal for a methodology for quantifying risk and threat to an organization (or society?), rather than as a takedown of CVSS.

You can always reflash it with your own if you hold that concern.

Glancing through your article, while you have correctly assessed the need for risk based prioritization of vulnerability remediation and mitigation, your central premise is flawed.

Vulnerability is not threat— CVSS is a scoring system for individual vulnerabilities, not exploit chains. For that, you’ll want to compare with ATT&CK or the legacy cyber kill chain.

.(potksed ym rof) 68x naht rehto gnihtyna no swodniw nur reven ll’I ,epoN

.gnimoc eb lliw sehctap ytrap tsrif on os ,tsixe regnol on erawtfos taht etorw taht seinapmoc eht fo emos ,snur llits ti dna swodniw no (yllacipyt semag ro snigulp noitcudorp cisum rehtie) oga sedaced nettirw erawtfos pu llup yllanoisacco I tub ,krow rof PBM MRA ym htiw yppah yrev m’I

According to the Bureau Of Labor Statistics, the median salary for airline captains, first-officers, second-officers, and flight engineers in the United States is $203,010 as of 2021.

The big problem is actually in certifying people qualified to take those jobs, which takes additional time and money, mostly to pay for flight time for training. It can take a few grand for just a personal pilot license, but to fly an airline, you need instrument, commercial, and Airline Transport Pilot License (ATPL) certifications, plus increasingly expensive type ratings for the various aircraft you will be flying, a minimum of 1500 hours of flight time, and multiple years at the bottom working your way through smaller regional airlines and courier services.

You can get through the commercial licensing in 12-18 months and about $40k in flight time and insurance, but that is barely enough to get your foot in the door making $50k a year, and even then, you’re still not allowed to fly parcels or passengers for money. Getting those licenses will take another 18 months and another $40-80k, again, mostly in flight time.

That said, once you have ATPL, the company will start paying for your flight time, and you will be earning a 6 figure salary. After 5 years or so and about $100k investing in your training, you should be making over $200k, and can begin to recoup those costs.

Saying “Integrates with OpenAI” in 2023 is exactly equivalent to saying “uses Web 2.0” from 20 years ago. Buzzword trash that says absolutely about how the product uses said technology.

No, that sounds like adaptive brightness, HDR is more like localized brightness overdrive, particularly in gaming and film.

AutoHDR is only available in Windows 11. Granted, HDR uptake on PC monitors has been abysmal, it’s a great feature for the few that might use it.

deleted by creator