Agregátor RSS

Nahlížení do katastru už opět nevyžaduje Identitu občana. • ČÚZK nasadil novou a hravější formu captcha testu. • Jeho řešení je ale často velmi komplikované.

Six years ago, Microsoft pledged it would be carbon negative by 2030. It’s a worthy goal, and for several years the company was on track to meeting it.

Then generative AI came along and the world changed. Electric power demand from data centers will more than double between 2025 and 2030, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). “The US economy is set to consume more electricity in 2030 for processing data than for manufacturing all energy-intensive goods combined, including aluminum, steel, cement and chemicals,” the agency projects.

All this new electricity generation means much more carbon will be put into the atmosphere, exacerbating climate change. 

What does this mean for Microsoft’s pledge to be carbon negative within four years now? Just two months ago, the company claimed it was on track and had recently passed a major milestone in getting there by becoming carbon neutral. Detractors say nothing could be further from the truth — that it’s just smoke and mirrors, and the company has become a serious polluter and engine for accelerated climate change.

Who’s right? To find out, we’ll look at Microsoft’s claims, lay out what its opponents say, and finally, compare the company’s promises to what it’s actually done.

Microsoft’s rosy view

Microsoft claims not just that it’s on track to becoming a carbon-neutral company by 2030, but that 2025 marked an important turning point on the journey. The headline of the company’s blog post about it in February says it all: “A milestone achievement in our journey to carbon negative.”

From just that headline, you’d think the company was boasting it had reduced its carbon emissions drastically. That’s not the case. Microsoft wrote the post in such an oblique way that it’s tough to know just what it’s claiming. Specifically, the company claimed to have met “our aim to match 100% of our annual global electricity consumption with renewable energy.”

That’s a roundabout way of describing carbon offsets — paying other companies to generate renewable energy that don’t release carbon. In that way, Microsoft can say it’s offsetting its own carbon emissions. Eventually, it claims, by using offsets it will accomplish its goal of removing more carbon from the atmosphere than it’s putting into it by 2030.

Is Microsoft greenwashing?

Critics say Microsoft’s carbon emissions are skyrocketing, and carbon offsets are little more than greenwashing. The Stand.earth Research Group, which does investigative research about climate change, warns that a single new recently announced Microsoft AI data center in West Virginia will “unleash a 44% increase in the company’s annual emissions.” 

The group also says that when the facility reaches its full generating capacity in 2031, “Microsoft and co-located partners will emit 25.55 million metric tons of CO₂ per year, as much as putting nearly 6 million cars on the road.”

Keep in mind, that’s just a single facility. 

A year ago, Sustainability Magazine warned that even though Microsoft had made substantial investments in renewable energy and conservation, the company’s total carbon emissions had increased by more than 24%. Things have only gotten worse since then.

Many environmentalists don’t believe carbon offsets make up for the carbon emissions a company creates — they call all offsets greenwashing. David Keith, who is head of the Climate Systems Engineering initiative at the University of Chicago and lead author of a report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), put it bluntly: “I think all this voluntary stuff and companies claiming to be green is basically greenwashing crap.” 

The upshot

So who’s right? If Microsoft buys enough offsets by 2030, will the company really be carbon negative?

There’s an easy way to find out — look at what Microsoft President and Vice Chair Brad Smith promised in his 2020 blog post, “Microsoft will be carbon negative by 2030.” In the post, he noted that merely buying offsets isn’t enough; Microsoft needs to completely switch to renewable power for the vast majority of its direct energy use, buying offsets only to make up for its much smaller indirect energy use, such as employee travel or the electricity its customers use when using Microsoft products.

Here’s what he promised: “By 2025, we will shift to 100% supply of renewable energy, meaning that we will have power purchase agreements for green energy contracted for 100% of carbon emitting electricity consumed by all our data centers, buildings, and campuses.”

That hasn’t happened. 

The company’s carbon emissions from its oil- and gas-powered data centers skyrocketed in the last few years, and they’re getting worse. By the company’s own definition, it is not now carbon neutral, won’t be carbon negative by 2030, and isn’t likely to get there — ever. 

Namísto koupení hardwaru nebo softwaru začíná být čím dál tím běžnější si jej předplatit nebo pronajmout. Proč to může být dobrý nápad a proč nikoli?

Čínští vědci vytvořili krystal generující krátkovlnné ultrafialové záření • Objev umožňuje budoucí sestrojení extrémně přesných thoriových jaderných hodin • Technologie může zajistit spolehlivou navigaci vojenských ponorek bez satelitního signálu

Redakce Hardware Unboxed připravila retrospektivní test všech šesti- a osmijádrových procesorů Ryzen X3D, tedy s V-cache. Nejrychlejší oproti nejnižšímu nabízí prakticky o 2/3 vyšší herní potenciál…

Nominations for the 2027 Best Places to Work in IT program are now open! Click HERE to nominate an organization today.

See our Best Places to Work in IT 2026 special report for the complete list of honorees, major trends from the most recent survey, and much more.

About the Best Places to Work in IT program

Computerworld conducts an annual survey to identify the best places to work for IT professionals. We invite readers, PR professionals and other interested parties to nominate companies they consider great employers for IT workers. You may nominate your own company. We then ask those nominated companies that meet our basic criteria to participate in our survey.

Once again, we are excited to extend this program, which has a 33-year history in the United States, to companies worldwide.

The employers in the Best Places list are evaluated by company size: Large companies have 5,000 or more employees; midsize have between 1,001 and 4,999 employees; and small companies employ from 100 to 1,000.

To be eligible, companies must have a minimum of 5 IT employees and a minimum of 100 total employees. We consider IT employees to be those IT workers who provide technology support and services to their own company — or to multiple companies through their work at an IT service provider. Workers who would *not* be included are administrative support staff for the IT department, staff who work in communications or PR for the technology department, IT contractors, or those staff whose primary role is in product development for outside sales.

Best Places to Work in IT is a global program. We ask that companies submit no more than one survey within any one country. If your company operates in multiple countries and you would like to submit a survey for your location only, please note this in the company name field (e.g., “Foundry North America” or “Foundry Germany”). If no location is specified in the company name, we will assume that the entry represents all locations worldwide.

In most cases, we prefer to have the parent company, rather than subsidiaries or affiliates, apply for the Best Places to Work in IT list. However, a subsidiary or affiliate may be eligible, providing that it stands out as a separate entity from the parent company, with separate business functions, IT leadership and so on. A subsidiary may also be eligible to apply separately if its parent company is a holding company. In those cases, the parent company and subsidiary may be able to apply separately. We encourage companies to complete the nomination form or contact us at [email protected], and our Best Places research team will evaluate the submissions on a case-by-case basis.

Questions about the Best Places to Work in IT program can be emailed to [email protected].

Frequently asked questions Survey requirements and eligibility Does my company have to be nominated to complete the survey?

No. Companies may participate even if they were not nominated. In lieu of a nomination, please send an email to [email protected] with the name and contact information (including email address) of the individual who should receive the company survey and other information; we’ll take care of the rest.

Does the Best Places to Work in IT list include public companies only?

No. The survey includes private as well as public companies.

What criteria must my company meet to participate?

To be considered for our Best Places to Work in IT list:

• Companies must have a minimum of 5 IT employees.
• Companies must have a minimum of 100 total employees worldwide.
• In most cases, we prefer to have the parent company, rather than subsidiaries or affiliates, apply for the Best Places to Work in IT list. However, a subsidiary or affiliate may be eligible, providing that it stands out as a separate entity from the parent company, with separate business functions, IT leadership and so on. A subsidiary may also be eligible to apply separately if its parent company is a holding company. In those cases, the parent company and subsidiary may be able to apply separately. We encourage companies to complete the nomination form or contact us at [email protected], and our Best Places research team will evaluate the submissions on a case-by-case basis.

Who should complete the survey?

An individual familiar with employment statistics, benefits, policies and programs of your IT department and your company should complete the survey. This could be a human resources representative, a CIO or corporate PR representative — or a team of all the above.

Survey contents and procedures What does the company survey ask?

Our online survey includes questions about companies’ benefits, training and development, IT salary changes, percent of IT employees promoted, IT turnover rates, and the percentage of women employees in management in IT departments. In addition, we will collect information about company culture, workplace modernization, and company growth.

Which employees are considered “IT workers” in this survey?

Answers to the survey should be based on those IT workers who provide technology support and services to their own company — or to multiple companies through their work at an IT service provider. Workers who wouldn’t be included are administrative support staff for the IT department, staff who work in communications or PR for the technology department, IT contractors, or those staff whose primary role is in product development for outside sales.

What happens if I leave a question blank on the survey?

You can’t leave a question blank if it is required. Many of the questions on the survey are required; the survey can’t be processed if they aren’t answered. Please answer to the best of your ability for questions with lists or options included. If any open-ended/text based questions aren’t applicable to your company, please indicate “NA” for “not applicable.” If there is a question you can’t answer fully given the format of the survey, you may briefly explain your answers in an addendum field that follows each survey section.

Companies that withhold information used to rank the finalists will have points deducted from their ranking. Answers that are left blank or have unexplained N/As will be assumed to be 0 (zero).

What information will be shared publicly?

Computerworld tries to avoid printing information that a company may consider competitive. The following information may appear publicly:

• Company name
• Location
• Industry
• Website
• Total number of employees

 All other information will be used only in aggregate format or for ranking purposes, unless a featured organization explicitly grants permission.

Can I save my survey and come back to it at a later date?

Yes. You will be able to save your partially completed survey and can save a partially completed survey as many times as necessary. Please save your unique URL to re-enter the survey. When you return to the survey, you will be able to review/modify questions that you have already answered. However, we will continue to provide a printer-friendly version of the survey, and we recommend that you complete this survey, then enter your answers online.

How should I send my company’s information to Computerworld?

We accept company information from the online survey only. Please enter all data as accurately as possible. Provide company name, location, web address and other information, as you would like it to appear in print.

Can I get a copy of the survey to review before I go to the online survey and submit my company’s information?

Yes. A printer-friendly version of the 2027 Best Places company survey can be downloaded for reference. We encourage participants to complete the printer-friendly version offline before filling out the online survey.

Best Places to Work in IT 2027 Company SurveyDownload Will Computerworld provide us with a copy of our submitted survey?

Upon request, Computerworld will email you a PDF of your company’s survey responses.

Is there an employee portion to the survey?

There is no longer an employee survey portion to the survey. Computerworld decided to make this change in the 2023 program to streamline the process for global participation and to enable companies with smaller IT departments to participate. In lieu of the employee survey portion of the program, Computerworld will be inviting a panel of judges consisting of industry experts to evaluate entries and confirm this year’s honorees.

List publication and notification When will the list of honorees be published?

The Best Places to Work in IT honorees will be announced in December 2026 on Computerworld.com.

When can I find out if my company is on the list?

Computerworld will notify companies that will be honored as a 2027 Best Place to Work in IT several weeks in advance of publication. Computerworld will provide honorees with an online press kit including a sample press release and other promotional information.

Is there a timeline to which I can refer for survey action items?

Below is the 2027 Best Places to Work in IT timeline.

April 15, 2026Nominations open for the 2026 Best Places to Work in IT. Nominated companies receive an email with a unique link to the Best Places company survey from Computerworld by the end of April. Thereafter, company surveys will be sent on a rolling basis.July 15, 2026DEADLINE: Completed Best Places company survey is due to Computerworld.October 2026
Nominees are notified regarding their status as Best Places to Work in IT honorees.December 2026List of Best Places to Work in IT honorees is available online. What if I have a question that was not answered in this FAQ?

Please email your questions to the following address: [email protected].

In the subject line, please include your company name and be as descriptive as possible in the subject line as to the nature of your inquiry.

Globalstar, a mobile satellite services (MSS) operator in which Apple has a 20% stake, on Tuesday announced a merger agreement with Amazon, which, pending regulatory approval, could soon bring direct to device services (D2D) services to Leo, the latter’s low Earth orbit satellite network.

The deal, worth an estimated $11.6 billion, is an indication that the so-called new space race, designed to integrate satellite communications into smart phones, is certainly not slowing down.

In addition to the merger, the two companies stated in a release that Amazon Leo (formerly known as Project Kuiper), which is scheduled to launch this year, will power satellite services for iPhone and Apple Watch, including Apple’s Emergency SOS satellite service.

As part of the agreement, the release said, “Amazon will acquire Globalstar’s existing satellite operations, infrastructure and assets, including MSS spectrum licenses with global authorizations.” Amazon also said it will deploy its own “next-generation D2D satellite system” in 2028.

Licensed spectrum seen as ‘key to the deal’

Roger Entner, analyst and founder of Recon Analytics, said of the deal, “Amazon just bought itself a big relationship with Apple, first and foremost. Globalstar is such an integral part of Apple on a global basis. This lays the foundation for when Leo comes online to expand and deepen that relationship.”

On a global basis, he said, that is ideal for all the iPhone customers around the world, and in addition, the acquisition represents a powerful counter move against Starlink, and its mobile, direct to device initiatives.

It is, added Entner, a smart move by Amazon, and with Apple being a major shareholder in Globalstar, the deal did not happen without its approval. “I see winners all around here, and it [also] puts a little bit of a damper on SpaceX and its IPO.”

Scott Bickley, advisory fellow at Info-Tech Research Group, said, “Amazon is acquiring Globalstar primarily for its licensed spectrum, which is one of the hardest assets to secure in telecom, and rarely comes to market from the FCC.”

Globalstar, he pointed out, “has valuable L-band and S-band licenses, which are well-suited for direct to device connectivity and allow regular smartphones to connect to satellites without specialized hardware. That alone can compress Amazon’s timeline by several years.”

Bickley said the deal “also brings existing satellite operations, regulatory relationships, and experience, but this doesn’t materially close the gap with SpaceX. Starlink operates at a completely different scale, with full vertical integration, including its own launch capabilities.”

Anshel Sag, principal analyst at Moor Insights & Strategy, described the merger announcement as something he has been “tracking for quite some time. This helps Amazon add more infrastructure and spectrum for satellite communications to Amazon Leo, and adds arguably one of the biggest customers in the industry, Apple. This also confirms the rumors that have been swirling for the last few months about Globalstar’s acquisition.”

Globalstar, he added,  is a “really interesting company, because Apple owns 20% of it through over $1 billion in investments over the last few years. The CEO, [Paul E. Jacobs] is also Qualcomm’s former CEO and the son of its founder. [He] came on board when Globalstar made a strategic investment in XCOM Global, a company working on XR and 5G technologies.”

Merger provides Apple with a healthy ROI

Globalstar is, said Sag, also in the process of modernizing its satellite constellation with Apple’s help, and prior to the acquisition, it was going to dedicate 85% of that new capacity to Apple.

With the acquisition, Sag noted, “Amazon is not only getting an industry brand name, but also arguably the world’s biggest customer, which has already signed a new agreement with Amazon to work together, likely in an even larger capacity with the combination of Globalstar and Amazon Leo’s assets.”

The $11.6 billion purchase price, said Sag,  also “gives Apple a great return on its investment, while beefing up its capabilities, and means that iPhones will work on both Amazon’s Leo network and SpaceX’s Starlink service.”

And while he does not believe that satellite will replace terrestrial networks in most cases, “air travel has proven to be one of the best use cases outside of the occasional rural user. Amazon’s Leo service also seems to prioritize enterprises and the AWS tie-in, which I believe will be a much better path to profitability and scale than selling directly to consumers.”

This acquisition, said Sag, “also appears to be on track for FCC approval, based on Brendan Carr’s statements about the desire for industry leadership in the United States. 6G also seems like it will heavily incorporate satellite communications into the standard, so I think this kind of consolidation might be good, but it does reduce competition to a certain degree.”

If that occurs, he pointed out, the deal will make Amazon Leo an even more capable competitor to SpaceX and could be seen as validation of SpaceX’s strategy, but it could also impact SpaceX’s upcoming IPO valuation.

Ultimately, said Sag, “consumers and businesses will want choice when it comes to satellite connectivity, whether it’s for broadband, IoT, or direct to device consumer connectivity. I suspect we’ll see more companies sign with Amazon Leo as its capabilities and spectrum expand. I also believe this might increase the need for more spectrum auctions, which I believe SpaceX has already been pushing for.”

And, said Info-Tech’s Bickley, Amazon is “betting on direct to device at scale, and if that works, the addressable market extends well beyond traditional satellite broadband. Globalstar’s relationship with Apple adds a potential entry point into that ecosystem.”

The challenge is execution, he said. Amazon is still constrained by third-party launch providers, and now has to integrate a legacy satellite network into Kuiper. Meanwhile, Starlink already has well over 10K satellites, is already profitable, and is continuously expanding its footprint.

Apple has not yet responded to a request for comment about the fate of its stake in Globalstar, but, as Entner pointed out, “20% of Globalstar is not 20% of Amazon.”

OpenAI on Tuesday unveiled GPT-5.4-Cyber, a variant of its latest flagship model, GPT‑5.4, that's specifically optimized for defensive cybersecurity use cases, days after rival Anthropic unveiled its own frontier model, Mythos. "The progressive use of AI accelerates defenders – those responsible for keeping systems, data, and users safe – enabling them to find and fix problems Ravie Lakshmananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/[email protected]

IBM has agreed to settle a complaint from the US Justice Department around its initiatives to diversify its workforce and to encourage hiring of underrepresented groups, contrary to a presidential directive. The federal contractor also agreed to pay the government roughly $17 million.

The pressure from the Trump administration to eliminate workforce diversification efforts, typically known as DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs, has persuaded many companies, including Meta, Google, Amazon, Salesforce, Intel, OpenAI, Tesla and Zoom, to publicly back away from those diversification efforts. A few companies, including Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia and Oracle, have held firm in favor of DEI, for the most part. 

The government’s official position states that age, race, sexual preference, and gender should have zero impact on hiring decisions. Diversification proponents counter that workforce composition will stay stagnant unless explicit efforts are made to diversify.

Focus of settlement

The Justice Department settlement focused mostly on IBM’s role as a government contractor.

The government filing said IBM made “false claims” and “false statements” to the government regarding hiring practices in connection with IBM’s government contract work.

“As a federal contractor, IBM was required to comply with anti-discrimination requirements as set forth in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” the settlement said, adding that IBM “discriminated against employees during employment and applicants for employment because of race, color, national origin, or sex, and failed to treat employees during employment without regard to race, color, national origin, or sex.”

Beyond hiring practices, the government also opposed hiring goals that encouraged diversity, including “developing race and sex demographic goals for business units and taking race, color, national origin, or sex into account when making employment decisions to achieve progress towards those demographic goals” and using those same criteria to offer “certain training, partnerships, mentoring, leadership development programs, educational opportunities or resources, and/or similar opportunities only to certain employees.”

The agreement also said that the deal “is neither an admission of liability by IBM nor a concession by the United States that its claims are not well founded” and added that IBM agreed to the settlement “to avoid the delay, uncertainty, inconvenience and expense of protracted litigation.”

Acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a statement saying, “racial discrimination is illegal, and government contractors cannot evade the law by repackaging it as DEI.”

IBM did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Companies can work around biases

Bryan Howard, the CEO of recruiting strategy consulting firm Peoplyst, said he would encourage enterprises to simply move their workforce diversification efforts earlier in the recruitment process. 

“There’s a big difference between candidate pool and the selection process,” Howard said, suggesting that there are no federal rules limiting outreach choices. If, for example, a company wanted to increase workforce representation for a particular group, then the job notice should be focused on universities and other places where that group is well represented.

“Expand your pool and do not contract it. Fish in the ponds where those people are,” Howard said. “Increase diversity by simply recruiting from diverse sources.”

Howard also said the government position leverages last year’s US Supreme Court decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, where the court held that reverse discrimination is illegal. 

Complicating diversification efforts today are two popular recruiting/hiring tools pushed by HR: Using genAI to filter a massive number of applicants and only present a small handful to the hiring managers to choose from; and referral programs in which employees are offered cash incentives if they recommend job candidates who are eventually hired.

AI’s bias is to seek job candidates whose profiles most closely resemble that of the current workforce. In other words, AI wants to learn everything it can about who the company has hired before, to help it determine the attributes to look for. 

Referral programs, Howard said, also tend to attract people with the same characteristics as the existing workforce. Even though those referral hires tend to stay with the company longer, “if you have a population that is already skewed and that is the population recruiting, the existing bias will likely continue.”

Settlement could hurt recruitment efforts

Consultant Brian Levine, executive director of FormerGov, said it is difficult to interpret the settlement as anything other than opposing DEI efforts. 

The US Justice Department, where Levine once worked as a federal prosecutor, ”has issued a multi-million dollar penalty for company policy that seemed to be intended to encourage diversity,” he said. “As with Anthropic, in this new world, sometimes organizations may be forced to choose between ‘the law’ as it is currently being interpreted by some, and a good faith effort to positively influence society, or at least to minimize societal harm.”

Levine said some enterprises may try to overcompensate to keep the current administration happy.

“Fearing financial penalties, some companies that work with the federal government will now choose to ensure their DEI program is fully dismantled,” Levine said. “Other companies may choose to cease working with the federal government and/or may choose to keep, or even double down, on their DEI program. If Anthropic is any indication, these latter companies may ultimately be rewarded in the market.”

Flavio Villanustre, CISO for the LexisNexis Risk Solutions Group, added that this settlement might end up hurting tech recruitment efforts. 

“I think that this will force organizations to reframe their DEI programs to not upset the DOJ, which could have an impact on hiring of individuals in certain classes and could result in overall less diversity,” Villanustre said. “Diversity is an important part of building resilient, successful organizations, so this could have a broader impact than just the one at hiring time.”

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.

In 2026, enterprise developers are building and deploying the first generation of powerful, increasingly autonomous AI agents at incredible speed. Now comes the hard part: working out how to secure them.

Vendors in the space are facing multiple challenges. To begin with, traditional identity and access management (IAM) tools were never designed to secure anything as complex as agentic AI. In addition, the number of agents, both those sanctioned by the enterprise and the undocumented ‘shadow’ agents created by a new generation of powerful tools that barely existed a year ago, is increasing at unprecedented speed. And now it has started to dawn on organizations that this risks leaving yawning governance and security gaps whose weaknesses could one day return to haunt their creators.

While a growing list of companies, including large cloud platforms such as Okta, Ping Identity, and Microsoft’s Entra ID, is vying to fill the vacuum, a smaller competitor, Sweden’s Curity, argues that agents can’t be secured using traditional IAM. Instead, it is offering a different approach to the problem: This week, it announced Access Intelligence, an extension to its existing API identity and access management (IAM) platform, Identity Server.

The problem it addresses is that traditional IAM tools assume that applications are being accessed by human users or machine identities, governed by a one-time authentication process. But agents, which assume long chains of actions conducted at incredible speed, don’t work like this. Instead, access becomes ephemeral, complex, and non-deterministic, which is to say, hugely unpredictable. Lock them down too much and they stop working; let them run free, and weak security follows in their wake.

Runtime enforcement

Curity’s approach is to treat agents as a special type of application. Like applications, agents call APIs, MCP servers, and each other, and are credentialed using OAuth tokens. Through a feature called Token Intelligence, Curity extends the role of OAuth tokens to not simply permit access, but to carry information on the agent’s purpose and intent. In Curity’s scheme, an agent can only access resources based on that purpose.

Instead of using static, pre-granted permissions, agent access is granted at runtime, on-the-fly. Each requested action generates a separate token that describes the access it needs. When an agent starts a new task, it needs a new token specifying a new set of permissions. If necessary, human authorization can be required when an agent is trying to perform a high-risk action such as transferring funds.

“Curity has always been application-centric,” said Cofounder and CTO Jacob Ideskog. “Our focus has always been on how we broker access.”

Multiple approaches to agent security

Today, agent security falls into one of several camps, which include increasingly inadequate inline approaches such as API gateways and web application firewalls (WAFs), and out-of-band analysis systems that infer intent by analyzing agent behavior against a baseline.

Curity’s Access Intelligence, by contrast, is a self-hosted microservice that acts as a glorified IAM layer through which every agent request must pass. “Because we let an agent do something now doesn’t mean we should be allowing it to do this a minute later,” Ideskog explained.

Access Intelligence also uses Identity Server’s centralized token validation to ensure that developers can fire up agents or APIs without registering them. If they lack this validation, agents are isolated from real-world actions.

Nothing does the whole job

The appearance of systems such as Access Intelligence is good news for enterprises. It indicates that vendors are starting to address the problem of agent security, often by extending existing API security platforms. But that still leaves open the question of which approach to take.

Ideskog believes it would be a mistake to see the different approaches as mutually exclusive. Curity’s Access Intelligence can be used in combination with other layers of agent security, he emphasized. In short, no one solution can do the whole job.

“Up to this point, the IAM industry has focused on the identity part. But the real question is the access. Enterprises are asking their privilege access management (PAM) vendors how they’re going to deal with this [agent security] and I don’t think the PAM vendors have good answers yet,” he said.

This article originally appeared on CSOonline.

V prosinci 2012 byla z linuxového jádra odstraněna podpora procesorů 386. Včera započalo odstraňování podpory procesorů 486.

IuRe (Iuridicum Remedium) vyhlásila Ceny Velkého bratra za rok 2025. Slídily roku jsou automobilka Volkswagen, Meta a česká Ministerstva vnitra a průmyslu a obchodu. Autorem Výroku Velkého bratra je dánský ministr spravedlnosti zpochybňující právo na šifrovanou komunikaci. Naopak Pozitivní cenu získali studenti Masarykovy univerzity za odpor proti nucení do používaní aplikace ISIC.

Microsoft has introduced new Windows protections to defend against phishing attacks that abuse Remote Desktop connection (.rdp) files, adding warnings and disabling risky shared resources by default. [...]

Společné jmění neřeší jen společný majetek, ale i společné riziko. Jak funguje, nad čím přemýšlet a jak jinak majetkové poměry v manželství ošetřit?

Pingora je framework napsaný v jazyce Rust, který slouží v Cloudflare jako reverzní proxy. Byl uvolněn pod svobodnou licencí, takže jej může použít každý. Povíme si o typických scénářích použití.

Zanalyzujeme výkon procesů pomocí trasování, zautomatizujeme vypínání serverů i virtuálních strojů při výpadku proudu, budeme monitorovat síťový provoz aplikací a izolujeme nedůvěryhodný kód v bezpečném sandboxu.

Core Ultra 9 s jen 6 velkými jádry a Core Ultra 7 s pouze 4 velkými jádry jsou anomálií. Takové Core Ultra 9 by totiž bylo pomalejší než některé modely Core Ultra 5. Může však jít o GPU…

Co když temná hmota není z tohoto vesmíru? Astrofyzik Enrique Gaztañaga tvrdí, že by to mohly být černé díry z předešlého vesmíru, který se „odrazil“ do toho našeho. Je to hodně extravagantní možnost, ale méně ztřeštěné nápady už docházejí. Cyklický vesmír by nakonec nebyl tak špatnou alternativou.

Čínští Unitree Robotics vyvíjejí humanoidního sprintera založeného na robotovi H1. Díky souhře mezi pokročilými senzory a motory se robot o hmotnosti 62 kilogramů přibližuje k rekordu Usaina Bolta. Je prý jenom otázkou času, kdy humanoid prorazí magickou hranici času na stovce pod 10 sekund.