I have edited the Reporter dbfields.cfg file to enable the ‘cs_uri_path’ as a filterable option and can now see it as an option in the Reporter GUI, but when looking in the Reports section on Management Center, the filter is not present. Is there anyway it can be enabled or synced to Management Center so the filters match what is shown on the Reporter?
Hi All, we have two Scheduled Reports created by one of our admins. The two reports are using a filter, basically filtering Workstations and Servers into 2 reports. The filter is based on the clients Group location in SEPM.
What we havenoticed is that when the reports is sent to the distribution list of admins (admins email addresses listed in the send to field), the filter is not applying, in that all clients (Workstations and Servers) are appearing in the reports, so there is not separation of workstations and servers. We basically get 2 identical reports.
Also we have noticed that when anyone other that the admin that created the report the 2 reports filters shows as default, not the name of the filter that the creator of the report name the filter.
Has anyone else experienced this issue and have you found a solution or is it a known bug that Symantec need to resolve?
SEPM Version 14.0 RU1 MP1
In some cases, the Cloud Connector may fail to update and may be unable to exit maintenance mode. Due to this, other Cloud Connectors will be unable to perform regular maintenance and update when necessary. This will eventually lead to the connectors getting into an outdated state. Connectors marked as outdated will no longer be able handle service requests, ultimately resulting in service outages.
If the Cloud Connector goes into maintenance mode but then fails to update, the Resource Location and individual connector machine will be marked with an error and a notification will be sent to the Administrator.
Resource Location View:
Cloud Connector View:
Possible causes of this include:
- Conflicting software has been installed on the Cloud Connector machine, preventing proper update.
- Unexpected error has occurred during maintenance.
Is the iPhone X feature of FaceID supported in XenMobile?
Yes, FaceID authentication is supported with XenMobile. iPhone X FaceID uses the same APIs as the Touch ID feature in other iOS devices.
Will there be merge of both functions (Touch ID and FaceID), since it depends on the iPhone, which feature is used?
Since iPhone X FaceID uses the same APIs as the Touch ID feature in other iOS devices. So for iPhone X you will be prompted to use FaceID, and for other iOS devices you will be prompted to use TouchID. Since it depends on the iPhone, which feature is used (for Example iPhone 7 – TouchID, iPhone X – FaceID)
How will Secure Hub utilize the Face ID feature?
For the first time when Face ID is setup and we access Secure Hub, we are prompted if we want to use Face ID instead of PIN. If you select Yes, you can use Face ID for offline authentication every time instead of the PIN.
Will end users ever need to enter their PIN instead of the FaceID?
End users will still have to enter PIN whenever online authentication through NetScaler Gateway is required. This is required in the following instances:
- The user’s session has expired.
- The user reboots the device.
- Secure Hub is not currently running and the user launches it or an MDX app.
Will disabling or blocking camera create any issue with FaceID recognition?
FaceID uses a different API than the regular Camera APIs. It uses the same API for TouchID. The block camera policy will not block FaceID.
Commercial UAVs – considerably smaller and cheaper than military versions – have become widespread in industrialized societies. Their applications range from agriculture to the filming of sporting events. However, violent non-state actors have quickly learned how to adapt this technology to their advantage.
Sporting or music events could well be an optimal target, one that terrorists have repeatedly struck, or attempted to do so. The rationale behind terrorists’ interest in targeting sporting events is straightforward: they are mass events attended by large crowds in restricted spaces, and they attract a lot of media attention. Besides these soft targets also attacks on electrical grids, water supplies, chemical plants, nuclear facilities and last but not least: airports represent a further target. Countermeasures like geofencing, cyber warfare and drone-hunting eagles called “counter UAV technologies (C-UAV)” should decrease the likelihood of UAVs successfully approaching an airport or any other target.
Market Forecast‘s newest forecast report, Global Counter UAV (C-UAV) Systems Market Forecast to 2026, shows that a successful drone attack will create an immediate opportunity for companies selling counter UAV technology products and services. But only those companies that prepare for such an event will be able to take advantage of this business opportunity. Others will not have enough time to react before those sales go to their competitors.
Read more on MarketForecast.com
Follow the full story here: https://przen.com/pr/33238384
Source: Market Forecast
By Joseph Erunke
ABUJA-AS it has begun production of indigenous operational Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, UAVs, the Nigerian Air Force said yesterday that it has trained a total of 20 of its officers both in India and the United States of America on how to handle them.
The officers were trained on software development and cyber security ahead of its recently launched Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, UAV which it tagged ‘Tsaigumi.’
The Chief of Air Staff, Air Marshal Sadique Abubakar, who disclosed this during his opening remarks at a workshop organised for personnel of the Nigerian Air Force Communication Branch at the Air Force Headquarters, Abuja, said 12 personnel were trained as software developers in the US while eight others were trained in India on cyber security respectively.
According to him, “this became necessary to ensure effective service delivery with the ever-expanding Information and Communication Technology world.”
Abubakar, while adding that there were plans by his administration to train more personnel in the areas, said it all aimed at enabling the Nigerian Air Force “build capacity in embedded systems and micro controllers-components of the auto pilot for the locally developed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, UAVs.
He also said in line with one of the key drivers of his vision on human capacity development, the service had” embarked on several trainings for its personnel in software development, cyber security, communications, imagery analysis and maintenance of our navigational aids facilities.”
According to him, several local trainings had alsoy been conducted.
Hear him:”A total of 12 officers have been trained in the USA as software developers and eight others trained in India on cyber security and there are plans to train more.
“These would enable the NAF build capacity in embedded systems and micro controllers-components of the auto pilot for the locally developed UAVs.
“This became necessary to ensure effective service delivery with the ever-expanding lnformation and Communication Technology world.”
The Air Force chief, while noting that the workshop, being the first since the establishment of the Nigerian Air Force Communication Branch, was very important to the service as a fighting force, regretted what he called a graduate decline in expertise, skills and professionalism of the branch.
He attributed the regrettable development to the disengagement from service of the service highly trained personnel.
“Over the years, we have noticed a gradual decline in expertise, skills and professionalism of the branch personnel especially with the disengagement from service of our highly trained personnel.”
While noting that sophisticated equipment were in use today besides the technological advancement which he said, was quite rapid, he charged the Nigerian Air Force personnel to as a matter of necessity “be abreast with current developments if they are to remain relevant.”
“Modern warfare is technologically driven, hence the giant strides of the NAF towards infusing technology in its operations. In particular, the employment of information and communications technology is a strategic tool to enhance our operational and administrative processes, “he said.
Air Marshal Abubakar said the Nigerian Air Force had expanded communications with introduction of urban communications system and trained personnel on the basic maintenance of the cameras on its Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance, lSR platform.
” Navigational aids personnel are also being trained on airfield equipment system maintenance. These measures will save enormous foreign exchange needed to effect repairs abroad, “he further said.
Talk of drones that can hack air-gapped or isolated systems or devices has been going on for awhile.
Now, there is action, in the form of a 2018 patent request with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
The patent request is titled “METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR A SMALL UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM FOR DELIVERING ELECTRONIC WARFARE AND CYBER EFFECTS.”
Electronic warfare and cyber effects? Now that will get your attention, won’t it?
I just finished reviewing the patent request, and the drone sounds and looks like a flying wing-type design that can silently travel up to 150 mph when needed, but also reduce to a “loiter speed” near a target for at least 30 minutes.
The scenario listed is one where Surface to Air Missiles threaten U.S. Air operations during a battle. The unmanned drone would silently fly its way to a site where a Surface to Air Missile is setup, and potentially jam its signal or deliver a harmful cyber payload.
Will the drone have enough juice in its hydrogen battery to get back to where it was launched? It is designed to crash to the ground as a clean machine.
Says the patent request: “One benefit of this type of EW (electronic warfare) payload is its ability to self-sanitize after use, which allows it to delete data, codes, and other information at the end of flight. Accordingly, after a mission has been completed, the SUAS 10 may be crashed into a ground surface without fear of an enemy gaining data carried by the EW payload.”
This sounds like great technology if it’s on your side. But how long before hackers figure out something similar that can fly over open environments like refineries or dams?
The answer to that question is still up in the air.
On January 5, something happened in Syria that will remain as a first in the history of warfare. Though it was not widely covered by the world media, it may prove to be a game changer. The website of Global Risk Insights reported that the Russian forces stationed in Syria suffered a case of swarm attack by drones. Despite the fact that the UAVs were rather crude, it was certainly a new development. What happened?
Two Russian military bases in Syria — one in Hmeymin and a logistic and supply base in Tartus — were targeted by a swarm of 13 GPS-guided drones carrying improvised explosives. While seven drones were shot down by anti-aircraft missiles, six were hacked by a cyberwarfare unit. Upon landing, three drones exploded causing extensive damage to Russian planes; three others were captured by Russian forces.
Quoting experts Global Risk Insights said, “Despite the attack itself not necessarily being spectacular by terrorist standards, this event heralds a near future where technologies like swarm drones will be increasingly employed by violent nonstate actors and terrorist organisations.”
The cost of a drone was estimated at 1,000 euros (Rs 75,000). In a recent issue on “The Future of War”, The Economist observed: “In the 19th century the speedy victory of the Prussian army over France in 1870 convinced European general staffs that rapid mobilisation by rail, quick-firing artillery and a focus on attack would make wars short and decisive.”
In the 1930s, strategists started believing that “aerial bombardment of cities would prove devastating enough to prompt almost immediate capitulation”. Then in 1990-91, America demonstrated during the first Gulf war what “a combination of its precision-guided munitions, new intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance methods, space-based communications and stealth technology could achieve.”
Then September 11 took place and wars “took a different course”. The Economist’s report argued: “Potentially the biggest change to the way wars are fought will come from deploying lots of robots simultaneously.” It quoted Paul Scharre, an autonomous-weapons expert at Center for a New American Security, who has pioneered the concept of swarming: “Collectively, swarms of robotic systems have the potential for even more dramatic, disruptive change to military operations. Swarms can bring greater mass, co-ordination, intelligence and speed.”
There is no doubt that drones could leave the infantry jobless in a few decades from now. Does India realise this?
In October 2017, The South China Morning Post mentioned: “high-altitude spy drones could help China dominate ‘near space’ — a region of the Earth’s atmosphere that is at the heart of a modern-day space race.” Near space, which starts some 20km above sea level, has always been considered a “death zone” for drones: “Thin air at this altitude makes it hard to generate lift, while extremely low temperatures mean electronic components like batteries are prone to fail,” explained the Hong Kong newspaper, adding: “However, a new type of Chinese-developed drone that is undergoing testing appears to have overcome such difficulties.” Till then, the Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk was the highest flying drone, having reached an altitude of 19km; that was before a Chinese research facility in Inner Mongolia successfully tested an experimental drone at an altitude of 25km.
Two months later, according to The Drive — researchers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) National University of Defence Technology (NUDT) conducted an experiment involving approximately two dozen of small fixed-wing unmanned aircrafts. Citing an official PLA publication, the website said: “The test consisted of the entire group of drones acting as a swarm to complete a simulated reconnaissance mission. The individual aircraft operated together as a single entity and performed certain unspecified portions of the flight autonomously.”
Shen Lin Cheng, the head of NUDT’s Institute of Artificial Intelligence Sciences, explained: “We have precise short, medium and long-term objectives, which are consistent with those set by the government on the modernisation of the Chinese armed forces by 2020, 2035 and 2050.”
Already in June 2017, the state-owned China Electronics Technology Group Corporation flew some 120 unmanned fixed-wing aircrafts; the entire formation acted either as one entity or in small groups breaking away with separate objectives.
US and China
The US is not left behind. In October 2016, the Department of Defense’s Strategic Capabilities Office tested with its Perdix a miniature air-dropped unmanned aircraft. Two months later, the US Department of Defence issued a communiqué announcing that one of the world’s largest micro-drone swarms had been successfully demonstrated at China Lake, California. Note the name “China Lake”!
The test conducted consisted of 103 Perdix drones launched from three F/A-18 Super Hornets. The micro-drones demonstrated “advanced swarm behaviours” such as collective decision-making, adaptive formation flying, and self-healing. The DoD release added: “The demonstration is one of the first examples of the Pentagon using teams of small, inexpensive, autonomous systems to perform missions once achieved only by large, expensive ones.”
Meanwhile, drones belonging to SF Express, China’s biggest private courier company, have been drafted by the PLA Air Force in Yunnan and Shaanxi provinces, to explore new kinds of logistics support. The South China Morning Post reported: “In the Yunnan drill, a company drone delivered urgently needed spare parts for a damaged radar in a rugged mountainous area in about an hour after the request was made, less than half the time it would have taken to truck in.” Whether it is for the state or non-state actors, the drones are here to stay and will be extensively used in future conflicts. The question is: what is India doing? Incidentally, China has not returned the Indian drone which accidentally fell in the Chumbi Valley.
(Courtesy of Mail Today)
Russia has integrated electronic warfare and offensive and defensive electromagnetic spectrum capabilities into its operations and strategies, in a way not seen from NATO forces in Europe, a leading expert on the Kremlin’s armed forces said Monday.
Roger McDermott, a senior research fellow in war studies at King’s College London, said “the Russians learn by doing” and that they are taking lessons learned in Syria and Ukraine to heart. Citing their recent response to a drone swarm attack on a Russian air base and naval facility in Syria, he said, “all were brought down” by conventional air defense or jamming using electronic warfare tools.
In Ukraine, small electronic warfare units have previously crossed the border to jam the Kiev government’s communications or enhance the fire control of the separatists’ artillery, before pulling back to their own territory shortly after, McDermott said while speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
For the Kremlin, “there is an EMS [electro-magnetic spectrum] narrative” in southeastern Ukraine military operations. “They are gaining operational experience.”
In his recent report on electronic warfare, McDermott noted that Moscow had already begun the integration of its electronic warfare capabilities with conventional military hardware and software when it seized Crimea and Ukraine in 2014. Already in place in each motorized rifle brigade was an EW unit of 150 to 180 non-conscript soldiers engaged in planning and executing missions. In addition, each of the country’s five military districts had an EW element assigned to their headquarters, as do each of the armed forces.
McDermott said the United States and NATO do not have their armed forces organized in that way.
The idea, he said, is to integrate C4ISR [command, control, communications, computers and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance], A2/AD [anti-access/area denial], space, cyber and electronic warfare for offensive and defensive military effect. The Russian military has been at this reform in strategic thinking since 2008.
“What [President Vladimir] Putin did, he gave stability to the Russian armed forces” in funding, and has done so “consistently for the last few years.” This has allowed the armed forces to move promising projects out of research and development “to get these systems up and running.” He specifically mentioned an anti-communications satellite project that includes a strike system as one of the outgrowths of steady financing from the Kremlin.
Michael Kofman, a senior research scientist at CNA who also spoke at the CSIS event, said the Russians are “also investing in capacity and how they can spread it across the force” when it comes to EW, as well as harnessing new capability in force development, thought and future warfare strategy.
A screenshot from a Russian propaganda video of a Black Sea incident between a Su-24 Fencer and USS Donald Cook (DDG-74).
McDermott said the Russians are not 10-feet tall in this arena. He used the buzzing of destroyer USS Donald Cook (DDG-75) by a Sukhoi-24 in the Black Sea in 2014 as an example of exaggerating Russian prowess. Initial news accounts said that, not only did the aircraft come dangerously close to the vessel, but through a new electronic warfare system the Su-24 knocked out the destroyer’s radars and left its Aegis system inoperable.
“That’s mythology that built up,” he said.
Two years later, when the facts became much clearer, the Russian company that builds the electronic warfare system in question said it had never been mounted on a Su-24.
In the same light, McDermott said large military Russian exercises, the Zapad series, shouldn’t be viewed as training for an invasion of the Baltic nations or Poland; instead, it should be seen as what the Russian military would do in the event of NATO meddling in Belarus.
An undated photo of Russian President Vladimir Putin Russian Presidential Press and Information Office Photo
“When they look, they see an unpredictable actor [in NATO with] this appetite to intervene” outside of its area, McDermott said. The Zapad exercises are training to respond to that challenge from the West across the electromagnetic spectrum.
The question for Russian military planners, Kofman said, becomes “how do you achieve superiority” in situations like that. The answer: the Russians are working on asymmetric responses to expected challenges, McDermott added.
Later in the event, McDermott noted that NATO does not conduct any training on that scale, nor does it routinely include EW in its exercises.
“On its periphery, Russia has escalation dominance,” he said.
The Russian military has been testing unmanned ground vehicles over the last few years, including the Nerekhta, the Uran-9, and the Vikhr, as reported by Business Insider.
The Nerekhta, a tracked unmanned ground vehicle, can be equipped with large-caliber machine guns, an AG-30M grenade launcher and anti-tank guided missiles.
The Uran-9 and Vikhr are heavier than the Nerekhta and operate like infantry fighting vehicles. According to the Russian Ministry of Defense, the Nerekhta functioned better than other manned vehicles during training sessions.
In addition, Moscow has made great progress in the development of unmanned aerial vehicles, known to be smaller and cheaper than US drones. According to Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, the country’s unmanned aerial vehicles have flown 16,000 missions in Syria — equivalent to 96,000 hours of flight time.
The chairman of the Federation Council’s Defense and Security Committee, Viktor Bondarev, recently announced that Russia is studying the concept of drone “swarms” — defined as dozens or more drones operating as a single unit.
Noticing Russia’s recent improved electronic-warfare technologies, the US Army has stepped up its development of an electronic-warfare system to be integrated into a Gray Eagle unmanned aircraft system.
The Pentagon’s Integrated Electronic Warfare System will consist of the Electronic Warfare Planning and Management Tool, the Multi-Function Electronic Warfare (MFEW) capability and the Defensive Electronic Attack capability. The MFEW system is a multifunctional cyber, electronic warfare, communications intelligence, electronic intelligence and signal intelligence platform.
According to sources within the Pentagon, the development of autonomous combat drones “could be a game-changer,” cited by Defense One.
But the Kremlin is already a step ahead as, in early November, Bondarev announced that Russia plans to integrate artificial intelligence into military vehicles and combat operations, despite warnings by Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk that AI weaponry may cause a global arms race culminating in a third world war.
“The day is nearing when vehicles will get artificial intelligence. So why not entrust aviation or air defense to them?” Bondarev said.