<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
h3
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 3 Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:13.5pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
font-weight:bold;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.Heading3Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 3 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 3";
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
font-weight:bold;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>WOW what a GREAT article!<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2479677">http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2479677</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Do check out the summary:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span style='font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#222222;text-transform:uppercase'>SUMMING UP<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;line-height:11.25pt;background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333'>Risk is a consequence of dependence. Because of shared dependence, aggregate societal dependence on the Internet is not estimable. If dependencies are not estimable, then they will be underestimated. If they are underestimated, then they will not be made secure over the long run, only over the short. As the risks become increasingly unlikely to appear, the interval between events will grow longer. As the latency between events grows, the assumption that safety has been achieved will also grow, fueling increased dependence in what is now a positive feedback loop…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;line-height:11.25pt;background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;line-height:11.25pt;background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333'>Spike comment: Any phenomenon described in terms of feedback loops will resonate with all controls engineers everywhere. {8-] What Geer is describing sure as heck looks to me like simultaneously suppressing negative feedback and creating positive feedback, a sure path to eventual instability and catastrophic failure. Check out the rest of the summary:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;line-height:11.25pt;background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;line-height:11.25pt;background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333'> …If the critical infrastructures are those physical and cyber-based systems essential to the minimum operations of the economy and government, and if leading cyber-security operational management says risk is growing steadily, then do we divert more of our collective power to forcing security improvements that will be sharply diseconomic, or do we preserve fallbacks of various sorts in anticipation of events that seem more likely to happen as time passes?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;line-height:11.25pt;background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333'>Does "use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without" have any meaning for us? Is centralizing authority the answer, or is avoiding further dependence the better strategy? Can we imagine starting over in any real sense, or is balkanization not just for nations but for critical sectors as well? Is the creative destruction that is free enterprise now to be focused on remaking what are normally the steadying flywheels of American society, by which I mean government and other capital-intensive industries? Do we celebrate the individual who still prefers to fix things he or she already has, or are those individuals to be herded into national health information networks, Smart Grids, and cars that drive themselves?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>