I’ve written and posted to the IANS research portal a new CISO guide.
A client had asked what effects the NIST announcements on August 13, 2024 would have (FIPS 203, 204 and 205) on preparing for Quantum Decryption Threats.
This paper explains the impacts of quantum decryption, how to prepare for post-quantum and how to best mitigate attacks. Hope you find it useful.
An uptick in reports of Tesla crashing head-on into wrong-way drivers may indicate a serious vulnerability in its AI.
At least two tragic cases (Sept 10 and 18) are followed now by one a few days later. News reports say the huge wide open multi-lane bridge was mostly empty except for one car going the wrong-way. Somehow Tesla AI couldn’t figure out how to see and avoid this lone compact car driving towards it.
At 2:02 a.m., CHP received a call regarding a white Honda driving in the wrong direction westbound on Interstate 80 near Treasure Island. A few minutes later, the Honda crashed into a Tesla on the Alameda/San Francisco county line near east of Main Tower.
The tell here is 2am on the Bay Bridge just east of Main Tower — wide open empty lanes that are extremely well lit by the brand new bridge design. Notably the Tesla driver likely was asleep or otherwise wasn’t paying attention and is lucky to be alive, unlike recent head-on Tesla crash victims in Michigan and Alabama who were killed using on-ramps.
In other words, if all three cases prove to be Tesla AI mishandling the oncoming traffic, then the company is literally getting people killed just to discover (what we have reported clearly since at least 2016) that its software isn’t ready yet for public roads.
A man, eager to jump into the rapidly deflating Tesla market, threw away $10K on a salvaged unit. To revive the heavily damaged vehicle, he needed to guess the former owner’s four-digit PIN. After 158 attempts, he finally succeeded. Yes, 158 tries, and Tesla’s system did nothing to stop him. This isn’t a fluke—Tesla’s console security has long been known to be weak.
Transmitting at 100 messages / second, I tested PINs 0000 through 9999 in 100 seconds. Average PIN discovery time was thus approximately 50 seconds at this rate.
But it gets worse. Apparently, pressing the brake pedal and tapping the “Navigate” search bar simultaneously exposes the PIN on-screen. This isn’t just a vulnerability—it’s a glaring safety failure, considering how easily the car’s systems can be breached.
And if the issues with PIN security weren’t bad enough, breaking into the car’s computer revealed a treasure trove of personal data from the previous owner, including video footage of an unintended acceleration crash—one of the notorious problems that has significantly tarnished Tesla’s reputation and market value.
The video shows the woman, presumably the former owner, opening the driver’s door and getting behind the wheel. However, she has no time to close the door before the car starts driving and accelerating. The footage shows the car crossing two lanes, striking a plastic bollard, driving straight onto the sidewalk, and almost running over a pedestrian. The Model 3 stops right after it slams into an electrical box. The incident left the whole street without an internet connection, and the female driver in shock after the ride against her will. Luckily, she wasn’t hurt, and no other vehicle was involved in the incident. The pedestrian her car passed inches away from was the one who helped her out of the Tesla..
To be fair, the pedestrian was standing behind a wall, though that’s hardly protection from the “Kool AI Man” known for punching through. Some are quick to blame the driver, suggesting she “accidentally” put the car into Drive and hit the accelerator. This isn’t just inaccurate—it’s lazy.
…the female driver might have accidentally put the car in Drive and stepped on the accelerator the moment she got on board instead of pressing the brake pedal. The car started off with the driver’s door open, taking her by surprise and mowing down everything that came its way. She panicked due to the sudden acceleration…
That article’s language reeks of unnecessary gender bias. There’s no need to describe her reaction as “panic”—any driver would struggle to control an over-tuned acceleration system that activates without warning. Instead of blaming the driver, the real question is why Tesla’s engineering team allows such a dangerous scenario in the first place. A car that can shift into drive and accelerate with the door open? That’s a disaster waiting to happen.
This isn’t an isolated issue either. Tesla’s history of unintended acceleration and erratic behaviors isn’t new. Another incident involved a driver reversing at high speed into a pond, tragically ending their life. These are the results of fundamental design flaws—a failure to implement safety protocols that recognize and prevent obvious risks.
So, how can Tesla justify selling such a flawed product for $10K—even as a salvage? Given their track record since 2016, it’s clear the brand’s reputation and value are plummeting, driven by poorly thought-out engineering decisions and safety failures. Tesla isn’t just poorly designed—it’s on a fast track to being worthless.
Related: the parking brake doesn’t work on the new Cybertruck.
One of the remarkable things about Admiral Nelson’s extraordinary successes against Napoleon’s French Navy (arguably the “Big Tech” of the late 1700s) is how a British admiral repeatedly used the same or similar tactics to great effect. He wasn’t so much surprising his enemies as teaching them the same lesson over and over, because they were so overconfident as to be bad at learning.
A key characteristic of military leadership under Napoleon—where the self-proclaimed “emperor” continually eliminated competent officers and replaced them with subordinates demonstrably loyal to him—made the French more vulnerable to Nelson’s hallmark strategic attacks.
For example, in both the Battle of the Nile and Trafalgar, the French (and Spanish) relied on extremely large ships at the center of their line that badly absorbed the brunt of Nelson’s favorite tactic: concentrated and localized fire.
Adding insult to injury, the oversized ships suffered from reduced maneuverability compared to their British attackers. Nelson’s strategy of breaking the line was made even more effective, his targets sitting like ducks.
To put it simply, when Nelson’s 14 ships approached a line of 14 enemy ships of far greater size, he would pierce their line and put 14 of his more agile and experienced craft (firing at a rate of 3 to 2) against only 7 of the enemy. His basic pick-apart and target attack math is trivial to understand, which is why and how his men could press on in battle so independently. In the Nile case, the French foolishly only manned one side of their ships (on the false assumption they were sheltered to lee by the shore) such that Nelson’s two-sided assault became especially effective.
Perhaps most notable was the collapse of coordination and communication within the French fleets. Once their line was broken and subjected to concentrated fire, Nelson maintained a relentless, unified theory of localized assault, while the French struggled to devise any effective counter-strategy other than to fade away. Perhaps ironically, Napoleon used the same tactics on land against the Italians and Austrians yet lacked any competence or translation to sea.
The absolute defeat of French naval forces in both the Nile and Trafalgar was lopsided, swift, and devastating to the soft underbelly of Napoleon.
It’s a lesson that resonates today, where even the largest AI platforms, under attack by aggressive and nimble adversaries—like with Napoleon’s easily routed naval juggernauts—are seemingly setup and operated to invite catastrophic breaches.
Big Tech in a race to create the biggest AI platforms possible and stuff their leadership with adherents to a CEO recalls the fate of the gargantuan L’Orient in 1798, blown apart off the coast of Egypt, sinking France’s entire “unsinkable” campaign fortune.
And lest anyone forget, Nelson’s swift lopsided victories at both the Nile and Trafalgar were supported by an exceptional depth of talent.
Vice-Admiral Cuthbert Collingwood, a name almost nobody remembers yet who earned THREE Naval gold medals, perhaps deserves even more credit for applying the aggressive line-breaking localized fire tactics than Nelson himself at Trafalgar.
Are you now saying Collingwho? Here are some fun history facts about the underappreciated “Salt Junk and Sixpenny” (cheap food and booze) Collingwood who rose out of poverty to become one of the most decorated Admirals in history: Denied his first gold medal on a technicality, he protested and was awarded it retroactively after earning his second. Though excluded from a role in the Nile rout, he led the charge at Trafalgar and is credited with preserving the entire British fleet during both the battle and a subsequent horrific storm. Allegedly, even after suffering the loss of their fleet, the Spanish respected his executive actions so much that his leadership helped them overthrow the French. While Nelson inspired his fleet with strategic brilliance and daring tactics, Collingwood was a hard-core system administrator who excelled in operations—Nelson wisely deployed his vice-admiral as a man capable of fighting harder and better than any fleet three times his size.
Collingwood was a tough, resourceful individual who rose from humble, rough conditions to achieve the highest awards and greatness despite his modest background. He was much more modest than an attention-seeking Nelson, preferring to focus on smooth operations and combat discipline rather than seeking fame or fortunes. He was even criticized for not being more aggressive about hunting foreign treasure and bounty in combat. His steady, reliable command did not seek the spotlight given he felt success was best measured as victory in combat—hence why his amazing historic contributions, though significant, are often unknown.
So who will historians look back upon and discuss as the Collingwood of our day, the quiet hero who routed the Napoleon(s) of Big Tech AI?
