Conficker worm hasn't gone away, Akamai says - Network World
Variants of the Conficker worm were still active and spreading during the third quarter, accounting for much of attack traffic on the Internet, according to Akamai Technologies.
"Although mainstream and industry media coverage of the Conficker worm and its variants has dropped significantly since peaking in the second quarter, it is clear from this data that the worm (and its variants) is apparently still quite active, searching out new systems to infect," Akamai said in its State of the Internet report for the third quarter of 2009, released Thursday.
During the third quarter, 78 percent of Internet attacks observed by Akamai targeted port 445, up from 68 percent during the previous quarter. Port 445, which is used by Microsoft Directory Services, is the same port that Conficker targets, aiming to exploit a buffer overflow vulnerability in Windows and infect the targeted computer.
Most attacks originated from Russia and Brazil, which replaced China and the U.S., as the top two sources of attack traffic. Russia and Brazil accounted for 13 percent and 8.6 percent of attack traffic, respectively, Akamai said. The U.S., which came in at No. 3, accounted for 6.9 percent of attack traffic and No. 4 China accounted for 6.5 percent, it said.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
What makes a good Leader?
What makes you a good leader? Click on this link......
Don't worry, you don't have to have your own horse but you will need to be sponsored!
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Reward Real Success Immediately: Positive Re-enforcement
It’s a management maxim that managers should freely issue praise where praise is due. Unfortunately, most business environments seem more focused on punishing failure and attributing blame.
Do not stray from the path, just yet. There is solid neuroscience behind the idea of recognising and acknowledging success, according to research led by neuroscientist Earl Miller of MIT and published in Neuron.
Miller and his team have created a unique snapshot of the learning process that shows us how single cells change their responses, in real time, as a result of information about what is the right action and what is the wrong one.
“We have shown that brain cells keep track of whether recent behaviours were successful or not,” Miller said. Furthermore, when a behaviour was successful, cells became more finely tuned to what the animal was learning. After a failure, there was little or no change in the brain – nor was there any improvement in behaviour.
The study sheds light on the neural mechanisms linking environmental feedback to neural plasticity – the brain’s marvellous ability to change and adapt in response to experience.
The experiments used our nearest and most interesting relatives, the monkeys. They were given a simple task of looking at computer images and by trial and error, they learned which way they were supposed to look depending on the picture. Correct decisions were rewarded and therefore an effect was caused by the correct behaviour. Wrong decisions were not, thus the behaviour was 'ineffective' or 'unaffecting.'
“If the monkey just got a correct answer, a signal lingered in its brain that said, ‘You did the right thing.’ Right after a correct answer, neurons processed information more sharply and effectively, and the monkey was more likely to get the next answer correct as well,” Miller said, “But after an error there was no improvement. In other words, only after successes, not failures, did brain processing and the monkeys’ behaviour improve.”
There’s one catch – the time period for this enhanced feedback mechanism appears to be very short, mere seconds after the moment of success. So, praise or other rewards need to happen in real time to exploit this particular neural mechanism.
With much of today’s work occurring in front of a computer screen, technology can also be employed to recognise when a success event has occurred and providing immediate positive feedback.
Regardless, managers should ensure that they do provide both real-time and subsequent re-enforcement of successful actions. In addition to the recent MIT research, there’s plenty of literature that shows that appropriately recognising and rewarding employee success has a positive impact on the workplace.
Do not stray from the path, just yet. There is solid neuroscience behind the idea of recognising and acknowledging success, according to research led by neuroscientist Earl Miller of MIT and published in Neuron.
Miller and his team have created a unique snapshot of the learning process that shows us how single cells change their responses, in real time, as a result of information about what is the right action and what is the wrong one.
“We have shown that brain cells keep track of whether recent behaviours were successful or not,” Miller said. Furthermore, when a behaviour was successful, cells became more finely tuned to what the animal was learning. After a failure, there was little or no change in the brain – nor was there any improvement in behaviour.
The study sheds light on the neural mechanisms linking environmental feedback to neural plasticity – the brain’s marvellous ability to change and adapt in response to experience.
The experiments used our nearest and most interesting relatives, the monkeys. They were given a simple task of looking at computer images and by trial and error, they learned which way they were supposed to look depending on the picture. Correct decisions were rewarded and therefore an effect was caused by the correct behaviour. Wrong decisions were not, thus the behaviour was 'ineffective' or 'unaffecting.'
“If the monkey just got a correct answer, a signal lingered in its brain that said, ‘You did the right thing.’ Right after a correct answer, neurons processed information more sharply and effectively, and the monkey was more likely to get the next answer correct as well,” Miller said, “But after an error there was no improvement. In other words, only after successes, not failures, did brain processing and the monkeys’ behaviour improve.”
There’s one catch – the time period for this enhanced feedback mechanism appears to be very short, mere seconds after the moment of success. So, praise or other rewards need to happen in real time to exploit this particular neural mechanism.
With much of today’s work occurring in front of a computer screen, technology can also be employed to recognise when a success event has occurred and providing immediate positive feedback.
Regardless, managers should ensure that they do provide both real-time and subsequent re-enforcement of successful actions. In addition to the recent MIT research, there’s plenty of literature that shows that appropriately recognising and rewarding employee success has a positive impact on the workplace.
Asking favours: One can lead to more
The nature of collaborative and cooperative behaviour in business is that we need to persuade or motivate other people to do things. These are generally people we do not know, thus, adding to the difficulty.
Imagine you are a sales person who wants to close a big deal but first the sales clerk needs to persuade computer support to modify her computer, slightly.
Intitially, our first instinct in difficult situations is avoidance. Rather than being direct we avoid asking for too many favours. We don't want to turn them against us, do we?
After all, the only thing worse than being asked for a favour is being asked for multiple favours, right? Unfortunately, the obvious and logical conclusion is wrong.
Behavioural research now shows us that sometimes asking for one small favour first, can greatly increase the probability of success with subsequent favours. This may sound counterintuitive but it is true.
During a recent research activity, a researcher asked passers-by for complicated directions. Not surprisingly, not all subjects bothered to help. The second approach was different. Some subjects were asked first for an extremely small favour: the researcher inquired as to the time of day.
Virtually all of the passers-by checked their watch and provided the time. Subjects that complied with the small request were much more likely to respond positively to the request for complicated diretions.
The psychology seemed to be a sort of subconscious feeling that having granted one request, it would be inconsistent not to grant a somewhat bigger one.
Imagine you are a sales person who wants to close a big deal but first the sales clerk needs to persuade computer support to modify her computer, slightly.
Intitially, our first instinct in difficult situations is avoidance. Rather than being direct we avoid asking for too many favours. We don't want to turn them against us, do we?
After all, the only thing worse than being asked for a favour is being asked for multiple favours, right? Unfortunately, the obvious and logical conclusion is wrong.
Behavioural research now shows us that sometimes asking for one small favour first, can greatly increase the probability of success with subsequent favours. This may sound counterintuitive but it is true.
During a recent research activity, a researcher asked passers-by for complicated directions. Not surprisingly, not all subjects bothered to help. The second approach was different. Some subjects were asked first for an extremely small favour: the researcher inquired as to the time of day.
Virtually all of the passers-by checked their watch and provided the time. Subjects that complied with the small request were much more likely to respond positively to the request for complicated diretions.
The psychology seemed to be a sort of subconscious feeling that having granted one request, it would be inconsistent not to grant a somewhat bigger one.
Only Hire People Who Learn from Mistakes
Harness the power of learning from mistakes. Some of the great high achievers in this world give credit to their relentless focus on small mistakes.
Recently, researchers at Columbia University divided student subjects into two groups, “grade hungry” and “knowledge hungry” and then tested them with general knowledge questions.
The researchers provided immediate feedback as to whether the subject was right or wrong, and showed them the correct answer. The brain activity of the subjects was monitored throughout, using EEG caps.
The differences in the way the subjects handled the feedback was striking:
Recently, researchers at Columbia University divided student subjects into two groups, “grade hungry” and “knowledge hungry” and then tested them with general knowledge questions.
The researchers provided immediate feedback as to whether the subject was right or wrong, and showed them the correct answer. The brain activity of the subjects was monitored throughout, using EEG caps.
The differences in the way the subjects handled the feedback was striking:
- The Knowledge-Hungry paid attention (but not quite as obsessively) to whether they were right or wrong, and they paid significantly more attention to the correct answers. They took advantage of the chance to learn. This contrast was most dramatic when each group got an answer wrong.
- The Knowledge-Hungry activated deep memory regions, indicating they were storing these new facts away for later.
- The Grade-Hungry did not activate the memory regions as deeply, suggesting a far more cursory interest; instead, their brains seemed to feel threatened by learning they’d gotten an answer wrong.
- The Grade-Hungry brains showed a far more emotional, fearful response. They clearly did not like being wrong, and they didn’t care about the acquisition of knowledge along the way.
When both groups of students were later 'surprised' by a retest, using only the questions they’d gotten wrong the first time around, the Knowledge-Hungry group did far better than the Grade-Hungry group. Clearly, they had 'learned' the new knowledge and had not only retained it, but were also able to recall it at will.
So, from a neuromanagement viewpoint, it would make a lot of sense to hire people capable of learning from their mistakes. Hiring the equivalent of the “grade hungry” students will yield employees who are motivated but who, over time, may not improve their performance nearly as much as individuals who internalise lessons learned, when things don’t work perfectly.
The question now is how do you screen candidates for this trait; the ability to learn from their mistakes?
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Bullying and the Blame Game is not Management
Bullying and Blaming is not Management - New Scientist
BULLYING and abusive managers take note: every time you put on a disgraceful show of verbally attacking staff in the office, you are demonstrating your inability to manage people.
Simply witnessing your behaviour, i.e. blaming others in a degrading and unconstructive manner, is enough to set up a 'blame culture' that will go through your team like a plague.
Communication and co-operation breaks down because no-one will tell the difficult truths. No-one wants to take responsibility for decision making so, decisions will be left unmade. Procrastination will be the new watchword, which in turn causes delays in projects and stifles achievement, innovation and initiative.
People will become defensive and barriers will be built between members who need to openly collaborate. People will favour avoidance and delay as a self preserving strategy over confrontation and fast resolution.
Nathanael Fast report
"We already know that people are more likely to blame others when they themselves have been blamed - a 'kick-the-dog' knock on effect," says Nathanael Fast of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.
According to his latest results, a blame attitude spreads to people who have had to witness a public dressing-down. Setting up a defensive avoidance mentality in the team.
True Leaders
Managers who want to be considered true leaders, must strive to prevent such a culture from spreading. Pointing fingers and accusing other people is a primitve and uncivilised behaviour that cannot be tolerated.
Arnold Schwarzenegger
In one experiment, his team asked one group of volunteers to watch footage of California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger blaming others for a failed strategy and another to view him accepting personal responsibility for it.
When asked to write about a failure of their own afterwards, those in the first group were 30 per cent more likely to blame this failure on others than those in the second
In a further, similar experiment, blame was less contagious if people wrote down values they held dear before they saw others blamed. Fast says this may have reminded them of why they made certain choices, reducing the need to defend themselves by blaming others.
Good People Management
Bullying and looking for someone to blame for all the negative occurences, is just bad management, plain and simple. You, as a manager, are responsible for the actions of all the people who work for you, their results and their conduct.
If they're making mistakes, provide better training. If the quality of the work is questionable, check th erequirements, the tools and the skills mix in your team. Give them the tools to succeed.
Coach and mentor them into performing better and stop passing the buck. Beat yourself up before you beat anyone else. After all, you are the one in charge, right?
For more information on the report check out the references: (Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.10.007).
BULLYING and abusive managers take note: every time you put on a disgraceful show of verbally attacking staff in the office, you are demonstrating your inability to manage people.Simply witnessing your behaviour, i.e. blaming others in a degrading and unconstructive manner, is enough to set up a 'blame culture' that will go through your team like a plague.
Communication and co-operation breaks down because no-one will tell the difficult truths. No-one wants to take responsibility for decision making so, decisions will be left unmade. Procrastination will be the new watchword, which in turn causes delays in projects and stifles achievement, innovation and initiative.
People will become defensive and barriers will be built between members who need to openly collaborate. People will favour avoidance and delay as a self preserving strategy over confrontation and fast resolution.
Nathanael Fast report
"We already know that people are more likely to blame others when they themselves have been blamed - a 'kick-the-dog' knock on effect," says Nathanael Fast of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.
According to his latest results, a blame attitude spreads to people who have had to witness a public dressing-down. Setting up a defensive avoidance mentality in the team.
True Leaders
Managers who want to be considered true leaders, must strive to prevent such a culture from spreading. Pointing fingers and accusing other people is a primitve and uncivilised behaviour that cannot be tolerated.
Arnold Schwarzenegger
In one experiment, his team asked one group of volunteers to watch footage of California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger blaming others for a failed strategy and another to view him accepting personal responsibility for it.
When asked to write about a failure of their own afterwards, those in the first group were 30 per cent more likely to blame this failure on others than those in the second
In a further, similar experiment, blame was less contagious if people wrote down values they held dear before they saw others blamed. Fast says this may have reminded them of why they made certain choices, reducing the need to defend themselves by blaming others.
Good People Management
Bullying and looking for someone to blame for all the negative occurences, is just bad management, plain and simple. You, as a manager, are responsible for the actions of all the people who work for you, their results and their conduct.
If they're making mistakes, provide better training. If the quality of the work is questionable, check th erequirements, the tools and the skills mix in your team. Give them the tools to succeed.
Coach and mentor them into performing better and stop passing the buck. Beat yourself up before you beat anyone else. After all, you are the one in charge, right?
For more information on the report check out the references: (Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.10.007).
Monday, January 11, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
