What You Need To Work in Cybersecurity: the secret sauce

I see a lot of rules based 'quick fix' learning opportunities in cybersecurity. These are usually boot camp style condensed programs that promise to turn an accounting or science student into a cybersecurity practitioner in a single semester by showing them how to use tools in a formulaic manner. They treat cybersecurity as though it's an office job: we show you the cybersecurity rules and you follow them. You can see how well this is working by the ongoing shortage Canada faces in finding and retaining cybersecurity professionals.

I got into cybersecurity with my students in 2017 when we started chasing CyberTitan, but I brought something with us that is atypical in the world of STEM: a willingness to hack. I don't like the word hack, it has negative connotations to it in English that have been encouraged by the self appointed masters of STEM (the S&M part), but that willingness to iterate and work outside expected outcomes is the secret sauce in cybersecurity that many ignore, and a major reason for why I've taken to it like I have.

'Necessity is the mother of invention' has been the motivating factor in my relationship with technology since the beginning. I moved quickly from off-the-shelf to customized solutions based on experimentation and need. Within six months of owning my first home computer (a VIC20), I'd figured out how to copy software using a sufficiently low noise audio deck. My first x86 PC was purchased but quickly modified as I came to need more memory and processing power. By the mid-90s I was building my own computers at a time when many people didn't own one.

This process was initially powered by curiosity, which many training programs eclipse with a promise to provide the initiative so you don't have to - something that has never appealed to me and a major reason why I didn't start collecting technical certifications until 2001 (I'd been working in IT for a decade at that point). Schools are bad at nurturing enthusiasm for self-exploration too. Many educators feel that it is their job to impart knowledge in a regimented format (that's why we call them disciplines!) and assess student understanding through a system of providing both the questions and the answers to minimize any frustration. Assessment success is often a measure of compliance rather than cultivating enthusiasm and curiosity.  Many in education call this approach rigorous and disciplined - it's how they demonstrate credibility, and a reason why I haven't continued pursuing academia.

Indians have a term for austere innovation: jugaad (non-conventional, frugal innovation) which doesn't have the pejorative connotations of the English 'hack'. Jugaad celebrates common sense with a solutions focused approach to creative problem solving without needless bureaucracy. It emphasizes an applied approach to making technology work that is especially needed in an industry like cybersecurity where practitioners are often facing edge cases that the people who designed the network never thought of (which is why we're having a cyber problem). WIRED recently did an article on a Ukrainian technologist who demonstrated this start-up/rapid response approach in the war with Russia. There is even an event in cyber that is all about extreme edge cases: the dreaded zero day vulnerability. Jugaad will get you much further than any amount of system think during a zero day attack.

Kintsugi has played a part in my motorcycling.

There is also a term in Japanese that takes the derision found in English out of making old things work. I've long enjoyed the concept of 'kintsugi' or 'golden joinery', which is the repairing of old things using gold to embellish the fix rather than trying to hide it. In typical Japanese fashion it raises what is seen as banal work in the West to an artform. A concept that combines jugaad's celebration of a fix beyond rules based approaches with kintsugi's raising of that fix to an artform is where a good candidate for work in cybersecurity should find themselves inspired. When I started in cyber I found my  IT background helped in terms of understanding the mechanics of what was happening, but my kintsugi powered jugaad approach is what has allowed me to thrive.

This 'secret sauce' is often ignored in education and especially in cybersecurity adult retraining. There are some disciplines that tend to attract rules focused types, but that fixation on systemic order blinds them in the edge cases where cybersecurity often operates. Rather than retraining an accountant or rigorously compliant STEM student, I suspect that those exploring subjects like detective work in policing or creatives in the arts would find the skills they've honed more effective, but that doesn't stop everyone from demanding a computer science degree for any job in cyber.

In 2019 after the Terabytches went to CyberTitan nationals we got invited on the local radio station to talk about the experience. The interviewer asked me a good question about our DIY approach to computer tech. I was annoyed at the lack of resources, but he suggested it might be what gave us an edge. He was right, we'd been jugaading and it made us mighty!

There are many jobs in cybersecurity. People who lean toward the jugaad end where they can problem solve without restrictions can find a comfortable fit in operational cybersecurity where they are monitoring real time threats, penetration testing where they are attempting to exploit a client's system to highlight vulnerabilities, or threat intelligence which focuses on gathering reconnaissance data on threat actors. But even in the policy and compliance work, a willingness to consider and understand threats and solutions that are outside the box is a necessity. The need to nurture and respect those out of the box thinkers working in unexpected end of the cyber-workforce is essential for management. Those industries that thrive on status quo compliance are the ones you see being hacked most often because they don't respect the skillset.

This map of cybersecurity domains gives you an idea of the many specializations that the field offers, though I would argue that in all of them (even those up the compliance end) an ability to work from your own initiative and experience rather a rule book is essential.

Sam Sheepdog & Ralph Wolf know the score.

I sometimes describe cybersecurity types as sheepdogs. I think many in law enforcement also fit this description. You can't send a goat to fend of wolves, but having a wolf of your own will do the trick. Early on in my transition from IT into cybersecurity I found myself leaning on IT administrative habits that don't work in cyber, and came to realize that the jobs are very different, though the technology is the same. If you have an IT person running your cybersecurity you're likely to be constantly surprised by the attacks you face because they tend to see systems in an architectural way rather than as an opportunity to be compromised.

It would be easy to say something silly like, 'there are no rules in cybersecurity!' but that's pointlessly reductive. It would also be easy to describe all the people in it as hackers, but this isn't true either, though a mentality that tackles problems from a place of curiosity and jugaad is far better than a rules compliant myopic who can't see beyond the framework they maintain. At the end of all this I firmly believe that you need a bit of the wolf in you if you want to consider a career in cybersecurity. I wish more cybersecurity training and especially adult retraining would emphasize that when looking for candidates rather than demanding STEM grads often missing these skills. If it's a formulaic job that you're looking for, cyber isn't it.

STEM students are often missing skills which "include teamwork, collaboration, leadership, problem-solving, critical thinking, work ethic, persistence, emotional intelligence, organizational skills, creativity, interpersonal communication, and conflict resolution." Adding an 'A" to STEM doesn't fix this, incorporating an iterative, resilient, interrogative, team-based problem solving mindset into STEM subjects would, but that doesn't tend to be how we teach it.

Another piece of Canada's cybersecurity puzzle came into focus from the last post on how our cybereducation system is broken. In response to that, Francois Guay from the Canadian Cybersecurity Network followed up with the observation that the cybersecurity talent pipeline in Canada is also in tatters.

I've been thinking about that post and believe all of the responses from both new cybersecurity practitioners and veterans are valid. It would appear that when you try to fix a talent shortage with rushed retraining based on incorrect assumptions about the skillsets needed in cybersecurity, no one trusts the results. Problems such as absurd requirements for entry level positions like asking for 5 years of experience on a tool that only came out last year or demands for that vaunted yet irrelevant computer science degree continue to strangle entry level workers coming into the field, even though they have hacked (cough) their way through our broken cyber education system to do it.

Not to sound hopelessly jugaad, but the simple solution would be to introduce cybersecurity apprenticeships that give a more diverse set of potential candidates the opportunity to see if cybersecurity is a field of study that suits them. Those with the right combination of fearless curiosity, critical thinking and tenacity might find their way into it instead of continually opening the doors to STEM grads who are good at being told what to do and enjoyed the privilege growing up of being able to handle the enormous homework loads STEM subjects demand as part of their compliance regime. Students with a background in science and technology might be familiar with the medium that cybersecurity operates in, but that doesn't mean they'll be able to handle the stochastic demands that resonate across cybersecurity work. It's better to find those with the right jugaad mentality; technical familiarity will build quickly powered by enthusiastic initiative and tenacious problem solving.

I've always told my students that if they can bring a willingness to explore, experiment and a fearlessness in breaking things in the process of figuring them out, they don't need to sweat the technicalities, I can teach them those by harnessing the curiosity they bring with them. I've had strong technical students struggle in cyber because they lean on formulaic approaches to computing (they are often maths strong coders) that let them do the bare minimum. If your natural talents in mathematics and computer science have blessed you with a compliance based work ethic, cyber with its changeable success criteria isn't for you. Another favourite adage of mine in the classroom is, 'if you're looking for a way to do less, you'll usually find it.' Those that want to work in a framework often do it so that they can delineate where they can stop; in other words it's used as a way to limit their involvement. That's no way to approach cybersecurity. If solving a problem is a nine to five gig for you, go find work elsewhere.

Much of this comes back to the reductive way we have approached digital skills development (when we're not ignoring them entirely). Cyber Education is the hidden, much larger part of the digital skills iceberg.

Cyber Education in Canada is Broken, Here's How to Fix It

I've been sitting on this one for some time. What's below is more like brainstorming than a clear solution, but I feel like it's moving in the right direction...

The Problem: Canada's Cyber-education system is broken - or doesn't exist at all

I've been ruminating on this since virtually attending the "How to protect our children in an increasingly digital and online world" meeting by Economic Development Ontario and the Canadian Trade commission a couple of weeks ago. James Hayes from Cyber Legends is a man on a mission. His keynote was both insightful and frustrating - the main point being that Ontario (and by extension Canada)'s cyber-education ecosystem is broken. I'd go so far as to say that in most places it doesn't exist at all; broken implies that there was something there to begin with.

This observation speaks to a cultural challenge that Canada faces. Other countries are able to leverage a collaborative approach to the asymmetrical global threat cyberattacks pose, but Canada's history and the loose confederation it has produced creates many gaps between levels of government. Those gaps are where cybercriminals operate.

The Problem: cybersecurity, cybersafety and online privacy are barely mentioned in Canadian school curriculum and educators are some of the least digitally experienced professionals able to resolve this skills crisis

In Ontario we've mandated mandatory eLearning for all students, but cybersecurity only just got into the computer studies curriculum in this year's rewrite, and what's there is thin (it immediately devolves into personal online data awareness and ignores the many interesting technical specialities in cybersecurity). This optional course doesn't run in most high schools (it was cancelled locally in mine), so this one mention isn't seen by most students.

Many other provinces don't mention cybersecurity at all even as they all depend on it every day with networked education technology delivering material in every classroom. Cyberskills are now essential skills if we want to keep the learning happening, but aren't treated that way in our education systems. New Brunswick is the exception with a full cyber-learning pathway for students interested in heading into the field professionally. Why does that matter? There is a global shortage of cybersecurity professionals, so Canada's usual approach of immigrating in solutions to its education failings won't work in this case.

James mentioned teacher cyber-illiteracy in his keynote as well.
There are solutions like CyberBytes that offer upskilling...

Our oblivious response to cybersecurity awareness is part of a larger problem in public education. When I first came into teaching in 2003 I was surprised to see the education system rocking early 90s information and communication technology. Throughout my career education has dragged its feet at every opportunity in terms of adopting digital transformation and the benefits it delivers. The result of this decades long drag is that people in education tend to be less digitally literate than the general population, even as they are expected to teach students essential digital skills like cyber awareness. Teachers are precisely who you want to be raising general cyberawareness and the skills needed to safely navigate our online world, but decades of status quo leadership means educators are missing the digital media literacy necessary to do it.

The Problem: we're happy to make online edtech solutions mandatory (usually as a cost cutting measure) but a surprising percentage of the people doing it don't think they should be held legally responsible for its safe delivery

I spoke on a panel about cybersecurity at the Canadian Edtech Summit the week before. The event had an online component so I started a poll aimed at the education administration and technology companies in attendance. Recently the SEC in the US sued a company for their failure to respond to cybersecurity problems that they were very much aware of that resulted in many clients' data being spilled onto the darkweb. This raises an interesting policy question: should school boards and provincial education ministries be held legally responsible for cybersecurity in Canadian classrooms? Canadian educational ministries and their school boards have increasingly adopted cloud based solutions to reduce costs on what used to be locally managed technology integration, but with internet based 'cloud' solutions come cybersecurity responsibilities. This US decision will likely influence our lax cyber responsibility policies in Canada and I was curious what the people implementing these technologies (often poorly) thought of the potential for liability penalties for failing to protect student data (which often also includes staff and family personal data too).

I expected the people delivering online edtech (school boards, ministries, not-for-profits and private edtech companies) to recognize that cybersecurity is very much their responsibility if their technology is vulnerable online, especially if they are going to demand that students use online learning tools. This should be especially obvious when our 'clients' are vulnerable sector children whose safety should be a primary concern.

Most did recognize the importance of taking responsibility for their technology delivery, but I'd love to have a chat with the quarter or so who thought they should be putting student learning online while bearing no legal responsibility for it. One of those people could well be managing your local school board's technology department.

If we've got a problem with the people delivering online edtech understanding that they are responsible for cybersecurity, we need to back the bus up and clarify those responsibilities with policy - legally binding policy.  I recently saw a memo which said data privacy wasn't even a paid job in the school board and is done outside of regular work responsibilities by IT staff, most of whom have no cybersecurity experience. Until we begin taking public sector cybersecurity seriously we will continue to see our public services being disrupted by breaches and system failures.

NIST's cybersecurity framework offers a technical policy approach to cybersecurity that clarifies what organizations need to do to provide viable online security. ISED has a Canadian version called ITSG-33 which is more policy focused.  This isn't an all or nothing thing with a solution for every problem. Any time you put data online you risk being hacked, but by following these best practices you can at least know you've taken reasonable steps towards preventing abuse. What you want to do is get up to Tier Four of the NIST framework where you're proactively defending against threats, but public education in Canada can't get out of Tier Two because "implementation is still piecemeal", and no one has "the proper resources needed to protect themselves." Our cyber failures in Canadian education are the result of poor policy and the resultant lack of funding. I'd hope that we'd follow best practices in protecting student data, but that ship sailed years ago. If that carrot isn't available, then a legal policy stick might be the only thing left that prompts ministries and schools to make student data privacy a priority.

The Problem: Public services in Canada are siloed bureaucracies that are difficult to work with

This isn't just an education problem, it's a
CANADA problem. Canada's history hasn't
produced a culture that can collaborate
against asymmetrical global threats.

During the panel talk at the EdTech summit one of the speakers said, "working with public school boards is very difficult. It can take years just to find the right person to talk to. Even if you can find that person, they'll tell you there are no resources." I talked to Kyle Bokyo, another of the panelists, after the event and we commiserated on this point.

There are not for profits and businesses in Canada who are attempting to provide solutions to Canada's ongoing cyber-education failures, but attempting to engage with any public service in Canada is a a difficult prospect. If you talk to the ministries they hold up their hands and say they only manage the funding and not the implementation of cybersecurity solutions. If you talk to the regional school boards they say that they aren't provided resources to do it.

In Canada's uncoordinated cyber policy landscape I suspect it's easier to play victim even as you assume greater cyber risk pushing user data into the cloud than it is to develop a coordinated response to this very asymmetrical problem. These gaps in responsibility make it easy for the people paid to protect student data to point the finger at each other rather than solve the problem, even as breach after breach occurs.

Canada's failure to
coordinate cyber response
is recognized as an
problem globally.

What I learned through COVID as a classroom teacher is that the people running public education will ask all manner or ridiculousness just to maintain the illusion of a functional system. It's what got them into their offices and they aren't about to jeopardize that. Public education, along with other public services, are insular industries with generational employees and tightly knit networks of political operatives managing them. This might sound like immigrant complaining (and it is), but the best way to get into education 'leadership' is to have had family who did it, or marry into one. The next best way is to be willing to maintain the status quo at all costs. Agility and responsiveness aren't words often applied to this sector.

Cybersecurity in public education is dangerously under-prioritized even as we continue the rush to cloud based edtech solutions in an attempt to save money. On top of that a surprising percentage of the people delivering these solutions don't think they should be held legally responsible for its safe delivery. This deadlock suggests that we need policy that not only enforces best cybersecurity practices in education, but also makes resources for it a requirement rather than a politically motivated shell game.

But the fix needs to go further in education because we also have a responsibility for providing graduates with opportunities to learn the skills they need to survive in a rapidly changing world; something we're not doing as many jurisdictions continue to studiously ignore cyber education and digital skills in general. The key piece to this puzzle is policy that creates a responsive, responsible Canadian cybereducation system. In aligning resources to create cybersecure online learning we might also usher in a new era of relevant, richer digital skills development.

The Solution: A Viable 21st Century Canadian Digital Education Ecosystem

As both James and Kyle mentioned in their talks, technology moves so quickly that large public services are always going to struggle to keep up, but an agile edtech sector could help with that. Startups and small businesses can pivot to keep up with technology emergence in a way that larger organizations struggle with - that's why Google and the rest buy agility rather than trying to produce it in-house. The problem has been Canada's pigeon hole approach which doesn't aim to produce a coherent ecosystem of interrelated programs that provide a comprehensive Canadian shield.

As mentioned previously, the issue of regional school boards and provincial ministries making it difficult for anyone outside of these insular systems from collaborating with them is a key problem. We can't leverage digitally literate industry partners if they have no way to effectively communicate with education delivery systems.

The solution is to connect the federal government with the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada and The Insurance Bureau of Canada and design a centralized approval process that connects Canadian not for profits and industry edtech expertise with provincial ministries and clears the way for access to credible cybereducation materials through direct internal communications channels with education systems. Instead of individual boards doing cyber badly, a national partnership with a wide range of technology specializations and strengths would work together to build solutions at scale while also ensuring that these solutions are prioritized with mandatory funding. This relationship would also prompt meaningful updates to curriculum instead of the current 'in a bubble' approach that produces material well short of what is needed to prepare graduates for our technically challenging future.

I made this graphic after last year's CPI conference
at University of Waterloo, where I first met James,
Cheryl and Cyber Legends.

In such an environment a startup like James' Cyber Legends, or an internationally partnered and long running national competition like CyberTitan would pass NIST levels of cyber-review nationally and then be welcomed into a Canada-wide edtech ecosystem that works through each provincial and territorial education ministry directly into school boards. Any edtech company working outside of this framework would find itself where we all do now: on the outside unable to make any significant change. But those who meet this national standard would be considered trusted internal partners with access to federal funding and direct internal access to provincial education at both the ministry and district levels. No more trying for years to find a person who may (or most likely doesn't) exist in a local school board who is in charge of cybereducation.

This ecosystem would reward collaboration. Members would only be accepted if they are producing complementary resources that create a full range of learning opportunities to all aspects of our increasingly digital world across all subjects, including cybersecurity. This nationally curated resource allows teachers from all corners of the country to develop meaningful digital skills, including the difficult ones to deliver like cybersecurity. This equity of access to resources would end nationally embarrassing PISA results that prevent smaller provincial education systems who lack resources from producing results below the world average.  Members of Canada's edtech program would find funding easier and be able to work with partners who ensure that their programs are successfully integrated and in a constant state of improvement in order to keep up with the impressive rate of technological change we're all dealing with. This would also give those providing federal funding clear guidelines for who they should be supporting.

The stick would come through policy changes that are both legal and regulatory. Any school board (and by association ministry) not making use of these secure, partner provided resources for improving student data protection would find themselves both liable for any breaches, and also uninsured. Educational cybersecurity would no longer be a political blame game. Local implementation would still very much remain the purview of school districts, and ministries would remain very much in charge of funding their province or territory, but with focused federal support many of the associated expenses would be reduced through the centralization of resources. These savings would also be a carrot. With national cyber standards and partnerships that leverage the strengths of all members of Canada's education ecosystem (federal government, private industry, national not for profit, education ministries, and local school boards), Canadian students would enjoy access to more Canadian made digital learning opportunities that raise digital fluency in a meaningful way, and they could do this while also exploring cybersecurity in a way that creates a more secure Canada. Imagine what all these cyber-aware students could do for our national security. It's the only solution we have that scales to meet the problem. Those students go home and raise cyberawareness in their families and communities, reducing the main reason for successful cyberattacks.

We have a habit of regionalizing our approaches to government in Canada, but in the face of wildly asymmetrical threats like cybercrime and (increasingly) international cyber espionage, we need to push back against this culture and build a collaborative defence. In doing so we would also create much richer digital learning opportunities in our schools that would make Canada more secure and competitive in the networked, global economy.

The Solution: collaboration doesn't end locally, regionally or even nationally in Canada

I'm attending The Global Forum for Cyber Excellence's inaugural Global Conference on Cyber Capacity Building in Accra, Ghana at the end of November. 

"It is paramount for all nations to have the expertise, knowledge and skills to strengthen their cyber-resilience"

I'm presenting a research paper a former student and CyberTitan (Louise Turner) and I have written about the disruption quantum computing will cause to cybersecurity encryption in the coming years. Doing this research with Louise has been both eye opening and very intellectually satisfying, but after 20+ years in the classroom I'm still very much a cyber-educator first and a cyber researcher second. It's why I invited one of the next generation of cyber professionals to write the paper with me.

Looking at the program for the conference, the lack of talent and focus on developing cyberskills both in the population and in those interested in pursuing work in the industry isn't a Canada only problem, it's a global one. If we can repair Canada's internal cyber-education system, we can then work with international partners to help them do the same. The cyber battlefield inherently favours the anonymity of hackers damaging our systems with impunity for their own gain, but through collaboration the defenders could become mighty. A cyber-aware population would be foundational for reducing cyberattacks in our public services.

As the GFCE so eloquently puts it: "Nations should work together and support each other with these capabilities, so that no country is left behind in their digital evolution. After all, a chain is only as strong as the weakest link."  Look for the Accra Call: a global action framework that supports countries in strengthening their cyber resilience being announced during the conference.

A.I. Isn't What You Think It Is

 I've been in a series of presentations over the past couple of months where organizations are getting frantic about catching the 'AI Wave'. This urgent need to feel like they aren't missing out on a fad is understandable, but like so many emerging technologies, getting 'into it' won't be effective if you ignore the foundations its built on, and the foundations of AI and the technology itself are... problematic.

You can't have 'generative' AI without massive data sets to train it on. This data is scraped from the internet and then fed into systems that can eventually give users "a statistically likely configuration of words" that look like an answer. That's right, the brilliant answer you just got on a generative AI platform isn't really an answer, it's a cloud computer cluster giving you its best guess based on crowdsourced data. None of that stops people from thinking it's intelligent (it isn't), and being in a panic about missing out.

Putting the fact that AI isn't nearly as smart as the marketing portrays it aside for a moment, large data and the cloud infrastructure that stores and delivers it are a house of cards teetering on the edge of collapse. You can't have AI without climbing to the stop of this wobbly infrastructure. How precarious is it? Data growth worldwide is in an explosive phase of growth (partially driven by the AI fad). Our overloaded storage infrastructure is under pressure because AI uses it much more aggressively that simply storing information. AI demands fast data retrieval and constant interaction making the rise in AI particularly problematic for our stressed storage systems.

We're facing data storage shortages in the next couple of years because of our belief that the cloud is an infinite resource. It isn't, it's an artfully hidden technological sleight of hand. The irony is that our digital storage infrastructure limitations will also end up limiting our current crop of AIs as well.

The staggering environmental costs that underlie our myth of an infinite digital cloud haven't  been mentioned yet, but like many of our other ecological marketing myths (electric vehicles), pushing the messy business of how it works out of sight of the consumer is a great way to market a green future while doing the opposite. Data centres in the US consume over 2% of all electricity in the country. There are benefits to scaling large data centres, but the trend into the foreseeable future is that the cloud will continue consuming more energy out here in the real world. That we're increasingly throwing limited resources at building AI guessing machines tells you something about our priorities.

One of the first posts on Dusty World was about dancing in this datasphere twelve years ago. Back then I'd found a quote by Google CEO Eric Schmidt talking about the coming information revolution:

I'd make a distinction between information and data. One is useful, the other is raw binary numbers and storing the majority of it is a complete waste of time and resources. Sussing out information from data is an ongoing challenge. That doesn't change the fact that the amount of data being generated back then wouldn't even register on the graph below, which looks like a runaway growth curve - you can make good money from all that data.

So, we live in a world that is well into an aggressive phase of digital growth, though very few people understand how any of that works. Even as we compile more content than we have in the entirety of human history to feed the attention economy, we also decide to play a sleight of hand game with machine learning on massive datasets just to see if it'll work.

From an educational perspective, AI is in the wild now and ignoring it will only get you and your students in trouble. If we're going to make functional use of this progenitor of true artificial intelligence, we need to teach the media literacy around it so that people understand what it is, how it works and how best to use it to amplify rather than replace their humanity.

I've seen a lot of people panicking about AI taking their jobs away, but if your work output is a statistically likely configuration of words, then you're not applying much of your vaunted human intellect to the task at hand and probably should be replaced by one of these meh AIs. But if you're one of those humans who actually thinks, even this stunted AI can be a powerful ally. In a fight for intellectual supremacy who would you think would win?

1. just machines
2. just people
3. an empowered hybrid of the two

The move here during this awkward adolescence of artificial intelligence where we're faking it until we make it is to leverage the tool to best effect. If effective use of AI speeds up our ability to gain actionable information in the chaos of data that surrounds us, then we can more quickly move on to the next real steps in technology evolution.

The other day I described AI as we currently define it as a hack to keep classical computing ahead of the data tsunami we're living in. At the time I was surprised by how I described it, but classical computing is reaching the limit of what it can do. For the past few years we've been finding speed in parallel processing such as adding computing cores to CPUs rather than making faster ones. We've also been finding efficiencies in how we manage data such as creating more organized memory caches to better feed our processors. Ultimately, I feel like generative AI in 2023 is another one of these patches. It's a way to make our overwhelming data cloud more functional to us.

This is from a presentation I've been giving that attempts to bring people into a better understanding of the hype. AI (even this meh one) will replace you if you let it, so don't!

Digital technologies aren't going to go anywhere, but they are a 'low resolution' way to compute. There is also the problem of reducing the complexity of reality to ones and zeroes. Mathematical concepts can help us understand relationships, but they will always be inherently reductive; they're never the thing itself but a simplified abstraction of it. Digital reduces the world to ones and zeros, but there is a better way.

When we run out of nanometres like we have with electronics, the next step is a big one, but it's one we're working on globally as a species right now. In the next decade we're gong to figure out how to use the building blocks of nature itself to compute at speeds that classical computers can't imagine. What will this do for our data clogged world? One of my hopes is that it will process much of that data into usable information, information that we can then use to solve this mess we've gotten ourselves into. When you have an answer you no longer need to keep the information leading to it.

I'll weather the current AI hype storm, but if you ask me what I'm really excited about it's artificial intelligence realized on a fault tolerant quantum computer. The future beyond that moves in directions I can't begin to guess, and that is exciting. imminent and absolutely necessary if we're going to prevent a global collapse of human civilization. Some people might get panicky about that, but they're the same ones who think a cloud based statistical guessing machine will replace them.

You Want to Teach WHAT?!? Reconfiguring Technology in Schools to Empower Pedagogy

Cybersecurity is one of the more challenging subjects to try and bring into classrooms, even though every one of them depends on it every day to function; everything from attendance to lesson content happens via networked computers in 2023.

Few people have advanced digital media fluency when it comes to using software and hardware, but that's just the tip of the iceberg with cybersecurity. It also depends on skills from many other technical subjects that don't get much attention in K-12 classrooms, such as software development, networking, information technology, IoT and programming, but not just high level stuff, you also need to be comfortable looking at firmware and low level coding.

Cyber skills aren't just about leveraging these interdisciplinary technologies though, they're also about discovering, understanding and resolving the many points of failure inherent in them. This is something most people feel very uncomfortable doing. For the vast majority of users, when technology goes wrong it's someone else's problem. Even for the people who build and maintain networks, the dark arts of cybersecurity cause great unease.

One of my hobbies is restoring old motorbikes. There is a strange parallel to cybersecurity in this. Many mechanics won't touch old machines because they don't lend themselves to modular parts swap fixes, which is how all modern shops work - technicians don't fix things, they replace them. Diagnosing an old machine takes patience and sensitivity that many mechanics haven't learned in our digital world of part numbers, modular engineering and timed repairs to maximize profit. I've talked about this before in relation to Matt Crawford's books and I think there is a corollary with IT and cybersecurity. Many of the people who build and maintain our systems aren't interested in how they might break, they are only interested in keeping them running as cheaply as possible. That's good for running your enterprise system as long as there are no surprises, but not so good if you want to build something bespoke or prepare for the many nasty surprises out there.

I was thinking about this challenging situation after attempting to convince school board IT departments from coast to coast about the technical requirements of the CyberTitan/CyberPatriot competition. I've been told again and again by people struggling to provide IT support in schools that they won't run VMWare or Cisco's Packet Tracer simulator because they:

1) are viruses (they aren't, though they are a great tool for safely examining them)

2) pose a threat to their systems. They don't - they actually do the opposite, but training people in the arcane cyber arts scares many of the people managing IT in education.

Virtual machines are used in cybersecurity (and network building) to test software and network environments. By examining a virtual machine cyber operators can explore how a machine has been compromised and what they might try to repair it in a safe (virtual) environment. VMWare is one of the biggest players in this field, and cleaned up at last year's cybersecurity awards, yet many board IT departments declared it a hazard. I suspect the hazard is in teaching ICT and cybersecurity best practices, and isn't that a tragedy?

I sympathize with the IT departments I've communicated with. They are responsible for running complex enterprise systems that support hundreds or even thousands of users with varying levels of system access (administrators, office staff, teaching staff, building maintenance, and more). That's more than many IT departments manage in other industries, but educational IT also has to serve tens of thousands of vulnerable sector clients (students), all of whom are coming at them with a staggering array of hardware and software without any real training on it. To make it even worse, most of them will be connecting to these systems using out of date and possibly compromised machines.

An attack surface is a concept that helps cybersecurity types better understand how a bad actor might exploit their network. The software you're using, the hardware it runs on, the network you're logging in from, other software installed on your device, the operating systems you're using, and the systems that connect it all together along with all the cloud based stuff you depend on are all components of a modern attack surface, and the education one is particularly complicated.  

One of the last big network installs I did before I went into teaching was at Glaxosmithkline in the early zeroes. This was a network of hundreds of desktops, hard wired via ethernet into an onsite server that provided all the 'cloud' they needed. The desktops all ran the same operating system and software on identical hardware. No one on this network had internet access, closing down a massive headache in terms of attack surface (internet access in a world experiencing a digital skills crisis is a nightmare!). This kind of simplicity is a distant memory in 2023. With our rush to the cloud, attack surfaces now include all the online managed systems we so gleefully replaced our secure networks with. BYOD and off-site work only pile more complexity on.

Comparing that GSK network to any modern education network is an apples to fruit salad comparison. On any day at dozens of school and administrative sites across a board you've got a nearly infinite number of different devices logging in, from phones with varying software packages (most of which are probably out of date and may well contain malware) to other personal technology (tablets, laptops, etc) all peppering your network with requests that may be school related or (more often) not.

To try and mitigate this complexity inflation, many boards have dumped computers that do onsite computing (like desktops and laptops) in favour of an easier to manage (because it can't do much) chromebooks. These simple machines can't get infected like a fully interactive operating system can, but you're still susceptible to fake browser extensions and compromised websites. This is usually solved by preventing users from customizing their chromebooks with extensions, further reducing what they can do.

With all this in mind, I was struck the other day by the idea that educational IT departments are missing a key component: a department focused on enabling technology empowered pedagogy (the reason we have schools... remember?). Early on in the edtech revolution we had OSAPAC in Ontario, which vetted software and created a provincial bank of safe to use software for learning digital skills in classrooms. With the rush to cloud based systems, OSAPAC evaporated and most school systems fell in with multi-nationals offering 'walled gardens' such as GAFE (Google Apps for Education) or the Microsoft equivalent. As this migration happened, teachers and students lost access to essential digital media literacy opportunities, especially when it comes to advanced digital skills such as 3d modelling, game design or cybersecurity.

A way to combat this skills deflation would be to create local IT support units dedicated to providing teachers with digitally enhanced student learning opportunities instead of starving us of them. I'd go a step further and suggest that the messy enterprise side of things that is such a headache should become the responsibility of the Ministry. Many cost savings and security enhancements could occur from centralizing these systems. It would also mean that students and staff moving between boards would be able to migrate more easily because everyone would be on the same systems. There would also be opportunities to collect provincial data more easily that would support better education policy, not that we like to collect data before making education policies in Ontario.

This does not mean the end of regional school board IT departments. Instead of chasing the tail of impossible enterprise expectations with insufficient funding, they would be provided by a central provincial authority with the secure standards and proper support. Imagine how much we might save if every board in Ontario isn't reinventing the wheel over and over again with varying degrees of success.

Local school board IT departments would be entirely focused on working with their teachers to find the best hardware, software and cloud based learning opportunities based on the needs of the programs they are running. Instead of saying no and reducing technology access to enhanced pedagogical learning opportunities in our classrooms, our local IT departments would become sources of local technical expertise focused on helping public education close an ongoing digital skills crisis.

I'm writing this in a hotel room in the north end of Toronto the night before attending the Ontario Public Sector Cybersecurity conference. I want to believe that the people at this event are taking the challenges of technology enhanced education, including the tremendously difficult task of engaging with cybersecurity learning, seriously in 2023, but I fear it's going to be all cartoons and platitudes. Here's hoping.

Stories of Innovation Are Never About One Person

I've been involved with Cisco's Networking Academy since we joined the CyberTitan national student cybersecurity competition in its inaugural year in 2018. It's the 25th anniversary of Netacad and this summer they asked alumni to tell them stories that arose from their association with the platform. I told the tale of the Terabytches and bringing the first all-female team to CyberTitan national finals along with my own journey of taking my first technical qualification in almost two decades. It was a story of perseverance in the face of prejudice and a love of life long learning.

To my surprise I made the finalists list out of hundreds of applications from across the globe (Netacademy runs in almost every country in dozens of languages - it's a truly global platform). When I read about some of the other finalists I was thrilled just to be included with them.

On August 15th I was driving through the countryside to the University of Waterloo, listening to the awards being announced on spotty cell phone coverage. It cut out just as the innovation architect award was announced and then came back for the next award, so I didn't hear I'd won when it happened.

At CEMC at UWaterloo I took a room full of computer studies teachers through cyber-range activities and while that was going on my wonderful wife and innovation touch-stone, Alanna, announced that I didn't just win the Innovation Architect Award, but also the Shooting Star grand prize which has me in NYC in mid-September for the Global Citizen Festival. 

As part of the prize Cisco gave me a communications package and asked for shoutouts, and there are many. Innovating can often feel like a lonely exercise where most of what you're doing seems to aggravate management, but it's really a collaborative exercise, otherwise you're by yourself in a room doing cool things that no one else knows about. The idea of a lone inventor hidden away working on their own is a fiction.

I could never have built the program I developed without getting my school board onside. There are two people in particular who became supporters and advocates for the unique work we were attempting. Charles Benyair was our SHSM lead and he provided the resources that my school would not to get us in motion, and Sandro Buffone in our IT department made a point of attending my cybersecurity sessions at ECOO so he could understanding what I was trying to do. He then was instrumental in clearing away the technical bureaucracy to let it happen.

Convincing students to take on an international competition in a subject we'd never studied before was a challenge, but Cam, Cal, Nick and Justin were seniors in 2017 and bravely jumped into cybersecurity with me. We learned new concepts and got a handle on things to such a degree that we discovered we were going to the first Canadian national cybersecurity finals in Fredericton. Three of those students had never left the province or been on a plane so you can imagine the impact.

As the teams gathered for a photo I happened to be standing next to Sandra Saric, the vice-president in charge of CyberTitan at the Information & Communication Technology Council (ICTC). As the photo got taken she said under her breath, "where are all the girls?" Out of seventy odd students only a handful were girls. That observation put me on a mission. 

Sandra went back and established a program for encouraging all-female teams to sign up and I went back to my junior computer technology classes (the exacting gender expectations of our rural high school made sure that there were no girls in senior computer tech classes) and cajoled six girls to give it a try. That next year we had three full teams instead of two-thirds of one. I encouraged them to find a name that speaks to their experience and the girls came up with the Terabytches (terabyte with a twist).

Those six pioneers faced derision from our school and when they went to nationals a member of one of the other all-male teams said to one of them, "you're lucky you're pretty, because you suck at this." That year emphasized for me how important it is to give girls their own space away from the often corrosive male culture that forms around technology.

In a radio interview in Ottawa at those finals Rachel said something that stuck with me. "We used this name so that it couldn't be used against us." 2019 was an incredible year for getting my head around diversifying access to technology learning, particularly in the hyper-male dominated field of cybersecurity. But it was also a year of finding allies. Joanne Harris at the school board enabled us to attend nationals by coming along as our female chaperone and I got to meet Diana Barbosa, Sheena Bolton and Hayley Heaslip who ran the competition.

That summer Philippe Landry from Cisco Canada got in touch and asked if I'd be interested in working toward my CCNA Cyber Operations Instructor qualification. My last I.T. certification was CompTIA's Network+ way back in 2002, so this would be my first run at a technical certification in seventeen years, and in a subject I'd only been looking for eighteen months. Claude Roy at FTI in Quebec was my instructor and he was patient and very giving of his time. Over the summer I became familiar with Wireshark and all sorts of other cyber-tools and in September I wrote the exam and became the first K12 teacher in Canada qualified to teach cyber operations - I think I am still the only one five years later. Yes, innovating can sometimes feel a bit lonely.

Attending Cisco Live in the fall of 2019 I was again reminded of just how cloud based (and cybersecurity dependent) things have become. I also attended my first University of Waterloo Cybersecurity & Privacy Institute conference (bringing a bus load of students with me) which opened my eyes to the current state of networked technology where we're barely hanging on. To underline that I had my local OPP detachment asking if I could forensically analyze digital evidence for them because they weren't resourced to do it themselves.

We ground through the pandemic but CyberTitan was one of the few events that never cancelled on us. The diverifying of our teams in 2019 led to a richer and more effective co-ed senior team. Some of the girls wanted to join the best of the boys and that mix of skillsets led to a string of top five finishes including a top defender award. The girls team also continued, missing nationals in 2020 but earning top wildcard spots in the '21 and '22 finals.

In 2022 I discovered that I had been seconded to ICTC for the year to advocate for and support cybersecurity education nationally. In this role I've been in classrooms from Newfoundland to British Columbia and many points in between. I've supported two new provinces in joining the competition and continue to bang my drum for recognition of essential Twenty-First Century digital skills that are so often ignored in our school systems, like cybersecurity.

This spring I joined Katina Papulkas' Dell K-12 Education Innovation Accelerator, Part of that program was an opportunity to mentor with someone in the edtech space and I was lucky enough to be placed with Julie Foss, who helped me re-contextualize myself in my first role out of the classroom in two decades.The experience empowered me to apply for the Cisco award. Had I remained lost at sea in terms of understanding how to do what matters in my new role, I would never have done it.

Innovation is often lonely work. It can antagonize status quo types who are intent on maintaining a system that put them in charge, but innovation is also thrilling and can empower those not privileged by that status quo. If you're serious about diversity, equity and inclusion, innovators aren't people you want to be labelling as troublemakers, they're simply committed to finding a better way.

The other nice things about innovation is that you meet the most interesting people. From Ella in UBC to Kyle at Inspiretech, Louise at QAI and Eric George at the CPI, I've had the opportunity to meet some fascinating people who don't status quo anything.

Cisco, both as a company and as individual employees, have been wonderful enablers of innovation, providing me with resources in a subject that everyone uses all day every day in every classroom, but almost no one teaches. Being acknowledged as an innovator by such a forward thinking organization makes me think that I'm on the right track, even if it annoys some of the powers that be.

We face an ongoing shortage in cybersecurity skills and society faces a global digital skills crisis that is grinding on into its second decade. Women remain underrepresented in high paying STEM fields and especially in cybersecurity. Status quo thinking got us here, it's time to innovate our way out of it. Thanks to Cisco for supporting that by acknowledging our work.