Back to Basics in Information Security

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Complexity heralds return of ‘back to basics’ approach in 2019 for information security professionals according to Infosecurity Europe poll and more than half (55%) of respondents say they plan to ‘go back to basics’ while 45% reveal they will invest in more technology

It appears that many organizations will begin the New Year and the new financial year by reviewing their security infrastructure and taking a ‘back to basics’ approach to information security. This is according to the latest in a series of social media polls conducted by Europe’s number one information security event, Infosecurity Europe 2019.

Asked what their ‘security mantra’ is for 2019, more than half, that is to say 55%, of respondents say they plan to ‘go back to basics’ while 45% reveal they will invest in more technology. According to Gartner, worldwide spending on information security products and services is forecast to grow 8.7 per cent to $124 billion in 2019.

When it comes to complexity, two-thirds believe that securing devices and personal data will become more (rather than less) complicated over the next 12 months. With Forrester predicting that 85 per cent of businesses will implement or plan to implement IoT solutions in 2019, this level of complexity is only set to increase with more connected devices and systems coming online.

However, many organizations will be looking to reduce complexity in their security architecture this year by maximizing what they already have in place. According to Infosecurity Europe’s poll, 60 per cent of respondents say that maximizing existing technologies is more important than using fewer vendors (40%).

If they'd really be honest about this then most of it would go back to paper and the filing cabinet as has, to a great extent with highly sensitive information, the Russian FSB and other of their security agencies have done.

It is easy to steal hundreds of thousands and more of electronic data with a simple click, a USB stick, and a little transfer time, and at times, via hacks, no direct physical access to the machines is actually needed. Stealing some locked filing cabinets, on the other hand, is a different task altogether and might require a truck or two. They, generally, do not fit into the palm of the hand.

Data theft is but one issue, however. They other, as far as digital infrastructure is concerned, is unauthorized access with the aim of manipulating data, erasing data, or even disrupting whatever operations the systems run, including power distribution, air traffic control, etc.

We have become, and this is not the first time that I am stating this, far too reliant on computers and especially the IoT (Internet of things). There was a time we were concerned that our homes, especially those of us where that was a concern, might be bugged. Today we invite the bugs right into our homes and offices. Do you really know what Alexa and Siri are listening to? Who or what your web-cam may be watching? You Internet-connected monitor in your child's room may be hijacked and the images being viewed remotely. Even your remote-controlled alarm system at home and business premises is hackable.

Let's get truly “back to basics” in data security and digital security and keep a much tighter check on what information we hold on potentially hackable systems. Let's remember all digital systems are hackable, it is only a matter of time, and that time is not written in days or hours even but can be minutes to but seconds.

© 2019

Which Plants Should I Prune in January?

Check out which garden favourites will benefit from a trim this month

January is a great time to prune plants, because you can see their framework, which makes the job a lot easier. Read on to find out just a few of the varieties that will benefit from a prune in their dormant period, then, before you start snipping, make sure your tools are clean and sharp.

Circular Electronics Day aims to extend the lifespan of electronics

Press Release

Today’s extensive consumption of electronics lead to alarming amounts of waste and the release of substances hazardous to human health and the environment. Finite natural resources are extracted from the ground at a fast rate and reserves are running low. By prolonging product life, individuals and organizations can contribute to a more sustainable future.

On January 24, Circular Electronics Day takes place for the second time. More than twelve organizations internationally stand behind the initiative which aims to increase awareness of why electronic products should be given a longer life through repairs, upgrades and reuse.

50 million metric tons of electronic waste is being generated per year worldwide. E-waste contains valuable metals as well as hazardous substances that are often released into the environment s and affect human health. Even more waste is generated when the products are manufactured — to make a notebook computer, 1,200 kilograms of waste is produced, for example from the mining and metals industries. The environmental problems are a result of today’s linear economy where raw materials are extracted to manufacture products which often have a short lifespan before they are discarded.

“We need to make the transition to the circular economy where products and materials are handled in a responsible way. The aim is to maximize product lifetime and handle discarded products as valuable resources, used to manufacture new products”, says Andreas Rehn, project manager of criteria development at TCO Development, the organization behind sustainability certification for IT products, TCO Certified.

The organizers of the initiative encourage both individuals and organizations to contribute to a more sustainable use of electronics by sharing tips and inspiring others to reuse products with the hashtag #CircularElectronicsDay.

Five easy steps that can extend the lifespan of electronics
  • Buy your product second hand. By asking for used products or products that are designed for reuse, both individuals and organizations can contribute.
  • Consider if it is possible to repair or sell your product. By erasing old data, refurbishing and upgrading it, you can give it a longer life.
  • If you must buy a new product, choose one that is certified according to a sustainability certification compliant with ISO 14024. Criteria must then be comprehensive, relevant and cover the product’s full life cycle and compliance with the criteria must be verified by an independent part.
  • Purchase a high-performance product. It enables you to keep it for a longer period of time.
  • Electronics contain valuable resources and shouldn’t be treated as waste. If it’s not possible to reuse or sell your old products, hand them in to a recycling facility or another collection point where the materials are taken care of. Many retailers accept that you leave your old products with them for recycling.
About Circular Electronics Day
The aim of Circular Electronics Day is to encourage the reuse of electronics. Standing behind the initiative are Blocket, Chalmers Industriteknik, Closing the Loop, European Environmental Bureau, iFixit, Elgiganten, El-kretsen, Inrego, IVL Svenska Miljöinstitutet, Lenovo, Recipo, and TCO Development.

Source: press-at-tcodevelopment.com

INTRODUCING “NEW WAVE”–Press Release

INTRODUCING “NEW WAVE”:
WOOL AND THE GANG IS LAUNCHING A BRAND NEW ECO YARN MADE FROM RECYCLED PLASTIC
Wool and the Gang is excited to share it's latest fibre innovation: New Wave. Our new conscious yarn for the new wave knitter.

47% Recycled Plastic Bottles
53% Cotton
100% Making Change

The global plastic problem has been widely reported and brought into consumer consciousness over the past few years, and we have started to see some industries respond.

Finding new ways to turn what could be waste into beautiful yarns has always been part of the Wool and the Gang mission. New Wave is our way of doing our bit for the planet, offering conscious crafters the opportunity to help reduce plastic waste while making their next project. The Gang cares deeply about provenance and collaborates with the best producers to source their yarns.

New Wave is made with a cotton casing which is filled with a fibre made from recycled plastic bottles. Each 100g ball contains the equivalent of 3 recycled bottles. It is a soft and squishy breathable yarn, which has excellent stitch definition, and can also be machine washed.

Launching with the yarn is a collection of 9 new kits and 2 free patterns, inspired by fisherman's tales. Now it's your turn to get creative, and our New Wave is begging for a little off-shore inspiration. Try a chunky fisherman's jumper a la Steve McQueen, a Team Zissou-style beanie or a slouchy cardigan, lightweight enough to transcend the seasons.

Jade Harwood, Founder of Wool and the Gang, was shocked by the vast amount of fast, disposable fashion and the waste that this produced during her time at Central St. Martin's. She is passionate about sustainable design and connecting communities to create change for future generations to bring back values, skills, and community.

Jade says of the New Wave launch: “Finding a way to use recycled plastic in a yarn that is both really good to knit with and doing its bit for the planet has been a mission of mine since I started Wool and the Gang. Together with our Gang, we are finding ways to use our passion for knitting with small steps to help protect our planet.”

Bring back the edge

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)


The, what I call, trench edge was a standard feature around flower and shrub beds and borders in municipal formal gardens, parks and also in the formal gardens at general homes.

In the former two cases it has been largely done away with due to, it is claimed, labor time and thus labor costs but this has been to the detriment of the aesthetics of the gardens and parks.

An “unmade”, that is to say an unplanted, bed can be, theoretically, have a trench edge cut by using a machine but the already planted up bed requires manual edging by means of edging knife and spade.

With a trench edge even a bend left fallow for a season, for instance, as long as it is kept free of weeds and raked, looks attractive and not like just a bare part of ground (in a lawn).

Creating this edge “by hand” is somewhat a laborious job but it is, nevertheless, worth is for sure. The time that is takes, obviously, depends on the size of the bed.

© 2019

Sharing bar soap cannot make you sick

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

A communal bar of soap will not make you sickSharing a bar soap cannot make you sick and it is way better for the environment than is liquid soap. Bar soap, contrary to current public belief, does not spread germs, is way more environmentally friendly, and way cheaper

Liquid hand soaps have replaced bar soaps largely because of unfounded fears that bar soap is “covered in germs.” Study after study, however, has shown this is not the case.

If we all switched back to bar soaps and shampoos, we could make a significant dent in plastic waste.

If you walk into the average American household and you will, most likely, find at least five plastic bottles of hand soap, body wash and shampoo.

Let's give an educated guess and say that these soaps and shampoos are replaced every three months, it seems fair to guess the average American household goes through at least 20 plastic soap and shampoo bottles a year.

Multiply that by 126 million American households and that are 2.5 billion plastic bottles per year, most of which end up in a landfill.

The only problem is, many people believe that sharing bar soap can transmit infection and we have, in the last ten or so years, been basically been indoctrinated to believe that by advertising.

There is a tendency to think that, since everyone is using the same bar of soap, and who knows where their hands might have been, the soap can somehow pass around infections. But, let's face it, that tendency did not exist a couple of decades back.

Germs do not stick to soap

A recent health column in the New York Times explains that this beoief of germs sticking to a bar of soap is simply not the case.

Study after study has shown that bar soap is not a suitable environment for germs to live.

The most famous study on the matter was published in 1965. Scientists conducted a series of experiments in which they contaminated their hands with about five billion bacteria, such as Staph and E. coli, and then washed their hands with a bar of soap.

When a second person used the bar of soap shortly after, the germs were not found on their hands.

The researchers concluded that the level of bacteria that may occur on bar soap, even under extreme usage conditions (heavy usage, poorly designed non-drainable soap dishes, etc.) does not constitute a health hazard.

A second major study in 1988 inoculated bars of soap with pathogenic bacteria to see if it could be transmitted to soap users, but test subjects had no traces of the bacteria on their hands after washing.

Subsequent studies have continued to show the same results, while proving the ability of simple bar soap to fight serious infections, such as Ebola.

Save money

Not only does bar soap spare the environment billions of plastic bottles, it saves you lots of money. You can also use it to replace shampoo and conditioner. You don't need those two. Hand soap and body wash are no different.

If you want it in liquid form then use liquid dish soap, such as Fairy or supermarket own equivalent. I have been doing so for years. In fact I used to have a serious dandruff issue and tried all shampoos and none made a difference until dish soap. Dish soap, whether Fairy or supermarket own, also removed oil and grease even when used in cool water.

So, time to counter the con and go for bar soap and, if you wish, liquid dish soap. It saves money and lots of plastic bottles. You only need a little when using liquid dish soap for shower gel or shampoo and even less when washing hands.

© 2019

The story about the well

well-w-bucketAccording to a legend from the 19th century, one day the truth and the lie meet. The lie says to the truth: "Today is a wonderful day"! The truth looks to the sky and sighs, because the day was really beautiful. So they spend a lot of time together and finally come past a well.

The lie says to the truth: "The water is very beautiful, let us take a bath together!" The truth, once again skeptical, tests the water and discovers that it is really beautiful. They undress and start bathing.

Suddenly the lie jumps out of the water, puts on the truth's clothes and runs away. The angry truth comes out of the well and runs everywhere to find the lie to get her clothes back.

The world that now sees the truth naked turns away, with contempt and anger.

The poor truth returns to the well and disappears forever in it hidden there.

Ever since then the lie travels around the world clothed as the truth that meets the needs of society, because the world has no desire to face the naked truth.

<<>>

Die Sache mit der Quelle“

Laut einer Legende aus dem 19. Jahrhundert treffen sich eines Tages die Wahrheit und die Lüge. Die Lüge sagt zur Wahrheit: "Heute ist ein wunderbarer Tag"! Die Wahrheit sieht in den Himmel und seufzt, denn der Tag war wirklich schön. So verbringen sie viel Zeit zusammen und kommen letztendlich an einem Brunnen vorbei.

Die Lüge sagt zur Wahrheit: " Das Wasser ist sehr schön, lass uns gemeinsam ein Bad nehmen!" Die Wahrheit, wieder einmal skeptisch, testet das Wasser und entdeckt, dass es wirklich sehr schön ist. Sie ziehen sich aus und fangen an zu baden.

Plötzlich springt die Lüge aus dem Wasser, zieht die Kleider der Wahrheit an und rennt weg. Die wütende Wahrheit kommt aus dem Brunnen und rennt überall hin, um die Lüge zu finden und ihre Kleider zurück zu bekommen.

Die Welt, die die Wahrheit nun nackt sieht, wendet ihren Blick weg, mit Verachtung und Wut.

Die arme Wahrheit kehrt in den Brunnen zurück und verschwindet für immer versteckt darin.

Seitdem reist die Lüge um die Welt, gekleidet wie die Wahrheit, die den Bedürfnissen der Gesellschaft gerecht wird, weil die Welt auf keinen Fall den Wunsch hat, der nackten Wahrheit zu begegnen.

Recycling is a fraud, a sham, a scam

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Recycling is a fraud, a sham, a scamRecycling is a fraud, a sham, a scam, perpetrated by big business on the citizens and municipalities to make us all feel good about single use packaging. It won't save the planet.

We blame ourselves, or consumers are getting blamed, that's you and me, by government, for not recycling more plastics, and yet our efforts are like “hammering a nail to halt a falling skyscraper.” It is time we got to the root of the problem.

“People need to get better at recycling” is a comment we often hear as soon as the topic of (plastic) waste comes up. It is a misleading assumption, however, to think that tossing more items in the recycling bin and fewer in the trash can make that much of a difference in dealing with the catastrophic level of plastic contamination that our planet currently faces. In fact, it is actually pretty much pointless. And the same goes for other single-use, or perceived single-use, items of packaging, even for glass jars. Aside from the fact that the latter can be reused in so many ways and do not have to end up as recyclables.

We need to rethink the way that we deal with trash because individual consumer cannot solve this problem as individual consumers are not the problem. We have taken it on as our problem because of some very astute, corporate-driven psychological misdirection in the form of campaigns like Keep America Beautiful and other such “initiatives”, created by industry.

Keep America Beautiful, Keep Our Country Tidy, Don't Be A Litterbug, and others were all, in one way or another created, brought to life or sponsored, by industry in an attempt to place the problem of litter, waste and trash on the shoulders of the consumer rather than keeping it on their own and dealing with it.

Keep America Beautiful was founded by major beverage companies and tobacco giant Philip Morris in the 1950s as a way to encourage environmental stewardship in the public. Later it joined forces with the Ad Council, at which point, "one of their first and most lasting impacts was bringing 'litterbug' into the American lexicon." This was followed by the 'Crying Indian' public service announcement and the more recent 'I Want To Be Recycled' campaign.

We can safely assume that campaigns of a similar nature in other countries were and are sponsored by the same entities, be it the programs like “Keep Our Country Beautiful” (UK), ot others of a similar nature.

While these PSAs appear admirable, they are little more than corporate greenwashing. For decades Keep America Beautiful has actively campaigned against beverage laws that would mandate refillable containers and bottle deposits. Why? Because these would hurt the profits of the companies that founded and support Keep America Beautiful. Meanwhile, the organization has been tremendously successful at transferring the blame for plastic pollution onto consumers, rather than forcing the industry to shoulder responsibility.

The greatest success of Keep America Beautiful has been to shift the onus of environmental responsibility onto the public while simultaneously becoming a trusted name in the environmental movement. This psychological misdirect has built public support for a legal framework that punishes individual litterers with hefty fines or jail time, while imposing almost no responsibility on plastic manufacturers for the numerous environmental, economic and health hazards imposed by their products.

The burden, whether as regards to plastics or other waste, was placed on the should of the consumer, and the same, today, happens also as regards to food waste. The majority of food that is wasted has never even made it to the consumer.

If we are serious about tackling plastic pollution, then corporations' actions are where we should start. They are the real litterbugs in this situation. The focus should be on the source of the plastic, not its near-impossible disposal.

This also goes for any packaging and also for food waste. It needs to start at the source and not at the consumer. When it comes to food waste, as mentioned already, the majority of waste occurs before it ever gets to the shop let alone on the consumer side. When the market buyers refuse vegetables and fruit because it does not fit certain criteria and the farmer is ordered to destroy the crop. That is where the waste starts.

With plastic and packaging it starts at the manufacturers of products who use too much packaging.

But, it would appear that we, the consumers, allowed ourselves to accept individual responsibility for a problem we have little control over. In fact, a problem over which we have almost not control.

I know we all want to feel that we can do something to make a difference and, indeed, we can, but it starts well before we think “recycling”, or at least it should. We can refuse, where possible, to buy things in plastic bottles – though in certain cases it gets more and more difficult. We can refuse to buy bottled water altogether for in most places the tap water is at least as good as to water in those bottles – which often is, by the way, from municipal sources, in other words, it is tap water, just bottled tap water.

I am not saying don't separate your recyclables and put them out for the municipalities to collect, only that that, in itself, is not going to make much of a difference, especially not considering that much of what you are going to put out ends up in landfill again because either the price that can be achieved for the recyclables is too low to make dealing with them viable or, as with China refusing to take the West's garbage, many countries do not know what to do with the stuff. Processing it at home, obviously, wouldn't do – in the eyes of the powers-that-be – as at home there are higher environmental protection standards and thus it would cost a lot of money to do so. So, if they can't dump it on third (world) countries they just dump it in holes in the ground.

We need to start well before recycling but often we have little to no control over that department other than buying products elsewhere where there is no over-packaging but, alas, some cannot afford to do that. Nor is the suggestion to leave all the packaging at the checkout a brilliant idea because for one it often is not possible and also, in some cases, should you have to return anything the packaging, to some extent, such as a box in which some item came, has to go back as well with the item to be returned.

So where does that leave us, as the consumer? It leaves us as the reuse, repurpose, upcycle and such stage. True, you can't do that with everything and how many glass jars (and other items) can you really reuse. Fair enough, I seem to be able to make use of an awful lot of glass jars for storage purposes but not everyone can. I also tend to make things from plastic milk jugs and such for the garden and for other uses. In addition to that many of those things could even be upcyled by craftspeople for sale, but, alas, few seem to think along those lines.

Where it all has to start, however, is with industry and also with design (do you hear me #designers). Designers come in to design packaging either to be compostable, or with a second use automatically obvious. This has been done, and is still been done, with mustard, and similar glass “jars” and containers, such as in France where they have the automatic reuse potential as drinking glasses, such as the ones used commonly for vin de pays in the homes, and even bars.

This should also be possible with other packaging, including plastic packaging, thus making us think as to whether we want to throw the item away in the first place or whether we do not, maybe, have a personal use for it. It can be done because it has been done before. We just need to remember, dearest designers, and adapt some of the things from the past when it was done to the present. Not rocket science but then you have studied design, not rocket science.

For us as consumers, yes, we can do our bit but the recycling bin, please remember, should always be the last consideration.

© 2018

Nettle fiber, nettle cloth

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

nettleIn ancient times stinging nettle was used to make fiber and cloth similar to canvas and linen. In fact all three processes involve retting.

It would appear that, while many talk about bringing hemp back into cultivation, nettles are not looked at as to whether they might have the same properties.

The good thing would be that one wouldn’t have to cultivate nettles; they just grow, and that almost everywhere and anywhere without any input from us. Not even the need to water them.

Already, or maybe just because, in ancient times, including in Britain, stinging nettles were used to make fiber and cloth, including clothes. But then came hemp and flax (or the other way round) and nettle fell out of favor. But why? It is readily available, does not need sowing or planting, looks after itself, basically, all by itself.

The only thing I can think of, besides the fact that nettles are not as easy to handle, due to their stings, is that, probably, nettles cannot be processed mechanically, as can hemp and flax. But that is only a guess by me. Also, and that may be more the reason, nettles do not grow in neat rows on field but more in the wild, on marginal land, and more often on land that has had some human disturbance.

We, as gardeners, groundsmen and farmers continuously wage a battle against nettles. Should we not rather, instead, acknowledge their potential and make use of them, including for the production of fiber and cloth? I think we should. Instead of fighting a losing battle against the nettles we should make use of them. Aside from providing fiber the leaves of the stinging nettle are also edible and also make a great herbal tea.

Hemp, even the so-called commercial hemp, needs certain favorable growing conditions and watering and while it maybe, though who knows, superior to nettles they, the nettles, will grow and will grow tall, without any input by us. They need no watering and no other care. They just grow and don't they just grow, and that (almost) everywhere. And, most importantly, nettles have been used for fiber and cloth before in the very old days.

Considering this would it not be an idea whose time has come to actually try and use this resource. I am sure that with today's technology it could be worked commercially to a much larger extent than ever before.

© 2018

The Book of Trees – Book Review

Review by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The Book of Trees
by Piotr Socha  (Author), Wojciech Grajkowski (Author)
Published by Thames and Hudson (Big Books) (13 Sept. 2018)
Hardcover: 80 pages
Size: 15 x 2.2 x 21 cm
ISBN-13: 978-0500651698

The Book of Trees

Why are trees so important? How many types are there? How do they benefit the environment and wildlife?

This book, by the award-winning author Piotr Socha, answers these questions and more, tracking the history of trees from the time of the dinosaurs to the current day.

A very nice and informative, and beautifully color-illustrated book, that should especially be interesting for younger readers.

The one thing that is, unfortunately, missing as far as the uses of trees and wood are concerned is wood for kitchen utensils and much more. But then there is only so much one can get into an 80-page book, even a large format one as this.

A well written – and well translated – book with an easy text that should appeal to any reader, but one that is also easy enough to be understood by younger ones and with great double-page illustrations.

A very nice and informative book.

© 2018