industrial products and services leader at Deloitte & Touche LLP, who co-authored the study. “It may be surprising for an organization’s board to hear that study results indicate a third of manufacturers have not performed a cyber risk assessment focused on their industrial control systems,” says Trina Huelsman, a Deloitte Risk and Financial Advisory vice chairman and U.S. This will likely include domains such as research and development, manufacturing operations, engineering, legal and human resources, in addition to increased collaboration with third parties on key areas of cyber risk.ĭue to fragmented organizational responsibilities, company boards and executive leadership teams may not receive a complete report of cyber risks beyond classic enterprise networks and business ERP systems, which can include industrial control systems controlling high-risk manufacturing processes and connected product technologies. As this occurs, study results indicate that companies will need to push to define organizational ownership for cyber risks more broadly and collaboratively than they have before. In addition, emerging technologies will continue to evolve beyond the classic ERP space into the shop floor, products and connected global supply chains. Peasley added.ĭespite new investments in innovative manufacturing process and product technologies, the manufacturing industry as a whole is still fragmented in its approach to managing cyber-related risks. “As many manufacturers do not have extensive data classification policies, board members are left with only a vague understanding of the cyber assets that need to be protected, including IP “crown jewels,” says Sean Peasley, a Deloitte Risk and Financial Advisory partner, Deloitte & Touche LLP and Cyber Risk Services Consumer and Industrial Products leader.”Īs a result, board members may be more reluctant to support strategies for taking additional cybersecurity steps as it is not clear what needs to be protected,” Mr. The data is already there on the web page, I'm just showing it.Manufacturers have traditionally taken a “transactional” approach to security, as opposed to viewing data as an asset to be protected. Recent Kills: Weapon, Participants/Group Members (link to battle/gvg board) Top Kills: Weapon, Killer, Participants/Group Members (link to battle/gvg board) Guild/Alliance Page PVP Fame: Kill, Death, K/D for Guild (K/D fame acquired while players were in the guild and not a summary of each individual's fame like guild compare) Recent Deaths: Date, Participants/Group Members (link to battle/gvg board), Link fame to Details Top/Solo Kills: Weapon, Participants/Group Members (link to battle/gvg board) Player Page Player: Death Fame, K/D Ratio, PVE Fame GVG Page and CGVG Page Chart: Added chart to graph the points acquired during the match Each death that has fame subtracts from the alliances total. Even though a player participated in a kill, it does not mean they get fame for it.Īttrition by Death Chart: added a new section that shows total unique players for an alliance (killers, victims, participants, and group members) vs Time. It shows the aggregate for each player's kill participation (damage/heal) and how the fame was distributed. Player's Participation/Fame: added a new section that tallies Battle History for each player. Enhances the Albion Online killboard ( ) using a Tampermonkey/Greasemonkey script (chrome plugin)īattle Page Alliance Summary: added a new section that tallies Battle History for the alliance.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |