Latest Contents of 000-892 in test prep questions bank

killexams.com 000-892 Exam PDF holds Complete Pool of legit Questions and Answers and 000-892 test prep checked, up-to-dated and certified including references and explanations (where pertinent). Our main concern is to collect the Questions and Answers is not just to pass the exam at first try yet Really Improve Your Knowledge and experience about the 000-892 exam points.

Exam Code: 000-892 Practice test 2022 by Killexams.com team
IBM Tivoli NetView V7.1.4 Implementation
IBM test Questions
Killexams : IBM test Questions - BingNews http://www.bing.com:80/news/search?q=IBM+Exam+Questions&cc=us&format=RSS Search results Killexams : IBM test Questions - BingNews http://www.bing.com:80/news/search?q=IBM+Exam+Questions&cc=us&format=RSS https://killexams.com/exam_list/IBM Killexams : IBM, MIT AI tool generates questions to help clinicians using EHRs

IBM and Massachusetts Institute of Technology data scientists teamed up to create an artificial intelligence tool that generates questions to help healthcare professionals use EHRs more effectively and efficiently, according to their paper published June 6.

Working with 10 medical experts and using more than 100 patient discharge summaries, researchers at IBM and MIT compiled more than 2,000 questions and 1,000 triggers of questions that physicians may ask when looking at a patient's EHR. They categorized each question or trigger written by the medical experts into groups such as symptom/sign, demographics and test results, making it easier for physicians to navigate through the questions. 

The team then trained a data model to do this organically. For instance, if an EHR notes that a patient had a mass in their neck, one question generated may be about its size or color, in the category of symptoms. 

They found that their model produced a high-quality question 62.5 percent of the time in response to a prompt, but only if given more context. Without the context, the question generation quality declined. 

"Our results demonstrate that existing machine learning systems, including large-scale neural networks, struggle with the tasks we propose. We encourage the community to Improve on our baseline models," the researchers wrote. They also opened their machine learning tool to the public for continued work.

Wed, 20 Jul 2022 09:48:00 -0500 en-gb text/html https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/ehrs/ibm-mit-ai-tool-generates-questions-to-help-clinicians-using-ehrs.html
Killexams : Joining The RISC-V Ranks: IBM’s Power ISA To Become Free

IBM’s Power processor architecture is probably best known today as those humongous chips that power everything from massive mainframes and supercomputers to slightly less massive mainframes and servers. Originally developed in the 1980s, Power CPUs have been a reliable presence in the market for decades, forming the backbone of systems like IBM’s RS/6000 and AS/400 and later line of Power series.

Now IBM is making the Power ISA free to use after first opening up access to the ISA with the OpenPower Foundation. Amidst the fully free and open RISC-V ISA making headway into the computing market, and ARM feeling pressured to loosen up its licensing, it seems they figured that it’s best to join the party early. Without much of a threat to its existing business customers who are unlikely to whip up their own Power CPUs in a back office and not get IBM’s support that’s part of the business deal, it seems mostly aimed at increasing Power’s and with it IBM’s foothold in the overall market.

The Power ISA started out as the POWER ISA, before it evolved into the PowerPC ISA, co-developed with Motorola  and Apple and made famous by Apple’s use of the G3 through G5 series of PowerPC CPUs. The PowerPC ISA eventually got turned into today’s Power ISA. As a result it shares many commonalities with both POWER and PowerPC, being its de facto successor.

In addition, IBM is also opening its OpenCAPI accelerator and OpenCAPI Memory Interface variant that will be part of the upcoming Power9′ CPU. These technologies are aimed at reducing the number of interconnections required to link CPUs together, ranging from NVLink, to Infinity Fabric and countless more, not to mention memory, where OMI memory could offer interesting possibilities.

Would you use Power in your projects? Let us know in the comments.

Fri, 05 Aug 2022 12:00:00 -0500 Maya Posch en-US text/html https://hackaday.com/2019/08/23/joining-the-risc-v-ranks-ibms-power-isa-to-become-free/
Killexams : The autism advantage - why businesses are hiring autistic people

Autism is known as a spectrum disorder because every autistic person is different, with unique strengths and challenges.

Varney says many autistic people experienced education as a system that focused on these challenges, which can include social difficulties and anxiety.

Many autistic children found education focused on their deficits rather than their strengths.Credit:Rodger Cummins

He is pleased this is changing, with exact reforms embracing autistic students’ strengths.

But the unemployment rate of autistic people remains disturbingly high. ABS data from 2018 shows 34.1 per cent of autistic people are unemployed – three times higher than that of people with any type of disability and almost eight times that of those without a disability.

“A lot of the time people hear that someone’s autistic and they assume incompetence,” says Varney, who was this week appointed the chair of the Victorian Disability Advisory Council.

“But we have unique strengths, specifically hyper focus, great creativity, and we can think outside the box, which is a great asset in workplaces.”

In Israel, the defence force has a specialist intelligence unit made up exclusively of autistic soldiers, whose skills are deployed in analysing, interpreting and understanding satellite images and maps.

Locally, organisations that actively recruit autistic talent include software giant SAP, Westpac, IBM, ANZ, the Australian Tax Office, Telstra, NAB and PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Chris Pedron is a junior data analyst at Australian Spatial Analytics, a social enterprise that says on its website “neurodiversity is our advantage – our team is simply faster and more precise at data processing”.

He was hired after an informal chat. (Australian Spatial Analytics also often provides interview questions 48 hours in advance.)

Pedron says the traditional recruitment process can work against autistic people because there are a lot of unwritten social cues, such as body language, which he doesn’t always pick up on.

Australian Spatial Analytics founder Geoff Smith (right) with data analyst Chris Pedron.Credit:Glenn Hunt

“If I’m going in and I’m acting a bit physically standoffish, I’ve got my arms crossed or something, it’s not that I’m not wanting to be there, it’s just that new social interaction is something that causes anxiety.”

Pedron also finds eye contact uncomfortable and has had to train himself over the years to concentrate on a point on someone’s face.

Australian Spatial Analytics addresses a skills shortage by delivering a range of data services that were traditionally outsourced offshore.

Projects include digital farm maps for the grazing industry, technical documentation for large infrastructure and map creation for land administration.

Pedron has always found it easy to map things out in his head. “A lot of the work done here at ASA is geospatial so having autistic people with a very visual mindset is very much an advantage for this particular job.”

Pedron listens to music on headphones in the office, which helps him concentrate, and stops him from being distracted. He says the simpler and clearer the instructions, the easier it is for him to understand. “The less I have to read between the lines to understand what is required of me the better.”

Australian Spatial Analytics is one of three jobs-focused social enterprises launched by Queensland charity White Box Enterprises.

It has grown from three to 80 employees in 18 months and – thanks to philanthropist Naomi Milgrom, who has provided office space in Cremorne – has this year expanded to Melbourne, enabling Australian Spatial Analytics to create 50 roles for Victorians by the end of the year.

Chief executive Geoff Smith hopes they are at the front of a wave of employers recognising that hiring autistic people can make good business sense.

In 2017, IBM launched a campaign to hire more neurodiverse people.Credit:AP

“Rather than focus on the deficits of the person, focus on the strengths. A quarter of National Disability Insurance Scheme plans name autism as the primary disability, so society has no choice – there’s going to be such a huge number of people who are young and looking for jobs who are autistic. There is a skills shortage as it is, so you need to look at neurodiverse talent.”

In 2017, IBM launched a campaign to hire more neurodiverse (a term that covers a range of conditions including autism, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, or ADHD, and dyslexia) candidates.

The initiative was in part inspired by software and data quality engineering services firm Ultranauts, who boasted at an event “they ate IBM’s lunch at testing by using an all-autistic staff”.

The following year Belinda Sheehan, a senior managing consultant at IBM, was tasked with rolling out a pilot at its client innovation centre in Ballarat.

“IBM is very big on inclusivity,” says Sheehan. “And if we don’t have diversity of thought, we won’t have innovation. So those two things go hand in hand.”

Eight things workplaces can do for autistic employees

  • Recruit differently. Send applicants interview questions in advance or use work trials and practical assessments
  • Offer flexible hours
  • Provide noise cancelling headphones and quiet spaces
  • Give clear and direct instructions and feedback 
  • Have mentors or a buddy system
  • Don’t make assumptions about autistic people
  • Provide managers with autism training
  • Partner with autism employment experts

Sheehan worked with Specialisterne Australia, a social enterprise that assists businesses in recruiting and supporting autistic people, to find talent using a non-traditional recruitment process that included a week-long task.

Candidates were asked to work together to find a way for a record shop to connect with customers when the bricks and mortar store was closed due to COVID.

Ten employees were eventually selected. They started in July 2019 and work in roles across IBM, including data analysis, testing, user experience design, data engineering, automation, blockchain and software development. Another eight employees were hired in July 2021.

Sheehan says clients have been delighted with their ideas. “The UX [user experience] designer, for example, comes in with such a different lens. Particularly as we go to artificial intelligence, you need those different thinkers.”

One client said if they had to describe the most valuable contribution to the project in two words it would be “ludicrous speed”. Another said: “automation genius.”

IBM has sought to make the office more inclusive by creating calming, low sensory spaces.

It has formed a business resource group for neurodiverse employees and their allies, with four squads focusing on recruitment, awareness, career advancement and policies and procedures.

And it has hired a neurodiversity coach to work with individuals and managers.

Sheehan says that challenges have included some employees getting frustrated because they did not have enough work.

“These individuals want to come to work and get the work done – they are not going off for a coffee and chatting.”

Increased productivity is a good problem to have, Sheehan says, but as a manager, she needs to come up with ways they can enhance their skills in their downtime.

There have also been difficulties around different communication styles, with staff finding some autistic employees a bit blunt.

Loading

Sheehan encourages all staff to do a neurodiversity 101 training course run by IBM.

“Something may be perceived as rude, but we have to turn that into a positive. It’s good to have someone who is direct, at least we all know what that person is thinking.”

Chris Varney is delighted to see neurodiversity programs in some industries but points out that every autistic person has different interests and abilities.

Some are non-verbal, for example, and not all have the stereotypical autism skills that make them excel at data analysis.

“We’ve seen a big recognition that autistic people are an asset to banks and IT firms, but there’s a lot more work to be done,” Varney says.

“We need to see jobs for a diverse range of autistic people.”

The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.

Fri, 05 Aug 2022 07:00:00 -0500 en text/html https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/the-autism-advantage-why-businesses-are-hiring-autistic-people-20220804-p5b767.html
Killexams : IBM Report: Data Breach Costs Reach All-Time High

For the twelfth year in a row, healthcare saw the costliest breaches among all industries with the average cost reaching $10.1 million per breach.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — IBM (NYSE: IBM) Security released the annual Cost of a Data Breach Report, revealing costlier and higher-impact data breaches than ever before, with the global average cost of a data breach reaching an all-time high of $4.35 million for studied organizations. With breach costs increasing nearly 13% over the last two years of the report, the findings suggest these incidents may also be contributing to rising costs of goods and services. In fact, 60% of studied organizations raised their product or services prices due to the breach, when the cost of goods is already soaring worldwide amid inflation and supply chain issues.

The perpetuality of cyberattacks is also shedding light on the “haunting effect” data breaches are having on businesses, with the IBM report finding 83% of studied organizations have experienced more than one data breach in their lifetime. Another factor rising over time is the after-effects of breaches on these organizations, which linger long after they occur, as nearly 50% of breach costs are incurred more than a year after the breach.

The 2022 Cost of a Data Breach Report is based on in-depth analysis of real-world data breaches experienced by 550 organizations globally between March 2021 and March 2022. The research, which was sponsored and analyzed by IBM Security, was conducted by the Ponemon Institute.

Some of the key findings in the 2022 IBM report include:

  • Critical Infrastructure Lags in Zero Trust – Almost 80% of critical infrastructure organizations studied don’t adopt zero trust strategies, seeing average breach costs rise to $5.4 million – a $1.17 million increase compared to those that do. All while 28% of breaches amongst these organizations were ransomware or destructive attacks.
  • It Doesn’t Pay to Pay – Ransomware victims in the study that opted to pay threat actors’ ransom demands saw only $610,000 less in average breach costs compared to those that chose not to pay – not including the cost of the ransom. Factoring in the high cost of ransom payments, the financial toll may rise even higher, suggesting that simply paying the ransom may not be an effective strategy.
  • Security Immaturity in Clouds – Forty-three percent of studied organizations are in the early stages or have not started applying security practices across their cloud environments, observing over $660,000 on average in higher breach costs than studied organizations with mature security across their cloud environments.
  • Security AI and Automation Leads as Multi-Million Dollar Cost Saver – Participating organizations fully deploying security AI and automation incurred $3.05 million less on average in breach costs compared to studied organizations that have not deployed the technology – the biggest cost saver observed in the study.

“Businesses need to put their security defenses on the offense and beat attackers to the punch. It’s time to stop the adversary from achieving their objectives and start to minimize the impact of attacks. The more businesses try to perfect their perimeter instead of investing in detection and response, the more breaches can fuel cost of living increases.” said Charles Henderson, Global Head of IBM Security X-Force. “This report shows that the right strategies coupled with the right technologies can help make all the difference when businesses are attacked.”

Over-trusting Critical Infrastructure Organizations

Concerns over critical infrastructure targeting appear to be increasing globally over the past year, with many governments’ cybersecurity agencies urging vigilance against disruptive attacks. In fact, IBM’s report reveals that ransomware and destructive attacks represented 28% of breaches amongst critical infrastructure organizations studied, highlighting how threat actors are seeking to fracture the global supply chains that rely on these organizations. This includes financial services, industrial, transportation and healthcare companies amongst others.

Despite the call for caution, and a year after the Biden Administration issued a cybersecurity executive order that centers around the importance of adopting a zero trust approach to strengthen the nation’s cybersecurity, only 21% of critical infrastructure organizations studied adopt a zero trust security model, according to the report. Add to that, 17% of breaches at critical infrastructure organizations were caused due to a business partner being initially compromised, highlighting the security risks that over-trusting environments pose.

Businesses that Pay the Ransom Aren’t Getting a “Bargain”

According to the 2022 IBM report, businesses that paid threat actors’ ransom demands saw $610,000 less in average breach costs compared to those that chose not to pay – not including the ransom amount paid. However, when accounting for the average ransom payment, which according to Sophos reached $812,000 in 2021, businesses that opt to pay the ransom could net higher total costs – all while inadvertently funding future ransomware attacks with capital that could be allocated to remediation and recovery efforts and looking at potential federal offenses.

The persistence of ransomware, despite significant global efforts to impede it, is fueled by the industrialization of cybercrime. IBM Security X-Force discovered the duration of studied enterprise ransomware attacks shows a drop of 94% over the past three years – from over two months to just under four days. These exponentially shorter attack lifecycles can prompt higher impact attacks, as cybersecurity incident responders are left with very short windows of opportunity to detect and contain attacks. With “time to ransom” dropping to a matter of hours, it’s essential that businesses prioritize rigorous testing of incident response (IR) playbooks ahead of time. But the report states that as many as 37% of organizations studied that have incident response plans don’t test them regularly.

Hybrid Cloud Advantage

The report also showcased hybrid cloud environments as the most prevalent (45%) infrastructure amongst organizations studied. Averaging $3.8 million in breach costs, businesses that adopted a hybrid cloud model observed lower breach costs compared to businesses with a solely public or private cloud model, which experienced $5.02 million and $4.24 million on average respectively. In fact, hybrid cloud adopters studied were able to identify and contain data breaches 15 days faster on average than the global average of 277 days for participants.

The report highlights that 45% of studied breaches occurred in the cloud, emphasizing the importance of cloud security. However, a significant 43% of reporting organizations stated they are just in the early stages or have not started implementing security practices to protect their cloud environments, observing higher breach costs2. Businesses studied that did not implement security practices across their cloud environments required an average 108 more days to identify and contain a data breach than those consistently applying security practices across all their domains.

Additional findings in the 2022 IBM report include:

  • Phishing Becomes Costliest Breach Cause – While compromised credentials continued to reign as the most common cause of a breach (19%), phishing was the second (16%) and the costliest cause, leading to $4.91 million in average breach costs for responding organizations.
  • Healthcare Breach Costs Hit Double Digits for First Time Ever– For the 12th year in a row, healthcare participants saw the costliest breaches amongst industries with average breach costs in healthcare increasing by nearly $1 million to reach a record high of $10.1 million.
  • Insufficient Security Staffing – Sixty-two percent of studied organizations stated they are not sufficiently staffed to meet their security needs, averaging $550,000 more in breach costs than those that state they are sufficiently staffed.

To obtain a copy of the 2022 Cost of a Data Breach Report, visit https://www.ibm.com/security/data-breach.

Fri, 29 Jul 2022 02:16:00 -0500 CS Staff en text/html https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/research/ibm-report-data-breach-costs-reach-all-time-high/
Killexams : How England aced their four spectacular Test chases this summer

This article is about the four Tests that were played earlier this English summer. A lot has been written about these amazing matches and how England took a sledgehammer to the conventional Test framework in them. This article is an analytical overview of these games, using measures that I have built over the years.

Let me first provide an overview of the four Tests in a tabular form. People will not have forgotten the numbers, but it is good to have a recap, to jog the memory.

At Lord's, New Zealand won the toss, batted first, and regretted that decision 30 minutes later. They slid to 7 for 3 and 45 for 7, and then recovered somewhat to 132. Not that England did any better, starting well to get to 59 without loss, but losing their way a finishing up with a lead of barely nine runs. Two innings were completed before the first drinks break on the second day. New Zealand recovered after an initial wobble in their second innings to post an impressive 285 and a tough target. England stumbled a few times but won by five wickets, with Joe Root anchoring the chase. England secured a TPP (Team Performance Points, out of 100) margin of 57.2 to New Zealand's 42.8 in the match. The scoring rate was, surprisingly, well above three for the Test.

In the second Test, England, determined to bat last, asked New Zealand to bat, and after 11 hours of hard grind, were staring at an imposing total of over 550. However, they took this as a challenge to be met, and posted a total of 539 themselves. The scoring rate of around four meant that nearly two days' play was available. Batting consistently well, New Zealand set a tough target of nearly 300 in five hours. England switched modes, imagined that there was a white ball being bowled, and got to it in exactly 50 overs. This time, the TPP margin was 58.1 vs 41.9.

At Headingley, New Zealand won the toss, batted, and made the par score of 329, batting circumspectly. It was the first time in the series that the scoring rate of three per over had not been not breached. Despite falling to 21 for 4 and 55 for 6, England, through Jonny Bairstow and Jamie Overton, eventually took a lead of 31. New Zealand posted a competitive second-innings total and set yet another tough target. England then switched to white-ball-mode again and made light of the target, winning by seven wickets. England's scoring rate in the Test was an amazing 5.4. The easy win made the TPP comparison a more emphatic 63.9 to New Zealand's 36.1.

Then came a change of opposition, at Edgbaston, but it was business as usual. India, asked to bat, put up an above-average 400-plus score. For the first time in the summer, there was a substantial first-innings lead, as England trailed by 132. No one really pushed on for a big score in India's second innings, though, and they finished on 245. However, that still meant England were set a huge target of 378. Buoyed by three successful chases of near-300 targets, England got to the mark with hours and wickets to spare, scoring at nearly five runs per over. It was a virtual replica of the previous Test, and England won by a TPP margin of 63.5 vs 36.5.

England scored at above five per over in three innings, went past four in six of the innings, and had an overall scoring rate of an impressive 4.6 in these four matches. Their tactics were clear: Let the other team bat and score whatever they can; we will try and match their first-innings score, and if we end up in deficit, it does not matter. We have the bowlers to dismiss them for a reasonable score. And, somewhere on the fourth or fifth day, we have, what Vithushan Ehantharajah called beautifully, the Number. And we will chase. It does not matter if we lose early wickets. We will motor on.

The amazing thing is that this strategy has worked, and how. It can be said that England have thrown down the gauntlet to the other teams, with their tactics and batting, daring them to counter them. And the two teams who came visiting earlier this summer failed.

Now we move on to the details. I will look at the first three innings of each match overall, and at the fourth innings in depth. I will be using a measure that I have developed, called WIP (Win-Percentage). This is the chance of a win for the batting team expressed as a percentage. I determine this at the beginning of each of the four innings. In addition, I determine the value at the fall of each wicket in the third and fourth innings. The methodology is explained below.

First Innings: This is calculated at the beginning of the match, and is based on the relative team strengths. For these four matches, since the three teams were matched very closely, I have pegged the WIP at 50%. If, say, Bangladesh had been the visiting team, this would have been different.

Second Innings: This depends on the first-innings score. The par score is the average first innings for the current period (2011-2022), which is 361. A first-innings score of 361 will have the WIP value at 50%. A higher score will make this below 50 and a lower score will move this to above 50. All values are subject to limits between 5% and 95%.

Third Innings: This depends on whether the team batting third has a lead or is behind, and the margin of the deficit. In general, the greater the lead, the higher the WIP value for the team leading, and vice versa. In addition, a team following on will have their WIP pegged at 5%.

Fourth Innings: This depends on the target that the team has been set. I determine a Base-RpW (Runs per Wicket) value using the formula "0.2*RpW-1+0.3*RpW-2+0.5*RpW-3" for a normal no-follow-on sequence. A brief explanation: 20% of the other team's first-innings RpW, 30% of own team's first innings RpW (because this reflects how this team batted first) and 50% of the most exact RpW (since this will be a clear indicator of how the pitch is behaving). The importance of the last-mentioned RpW will be obvious in matches like the first and second Tests in this article: 132 and 141 improving to 285, and 553 and 539 dropping to 284; the two scores in the 280s take on different hues in different contexts.

Then I determine how many wickets will be needed to reach the fourth-innings target. A requirement of below one wicket gets a WIP of 95%, around nine wickets gets a WIP of 50%, and 20-plus wickets gets a WIP of 5%. The rest are extrapolated between 5% and 95%.

WIPs during third and fourth innings at fall of wickets: A similar method is used. At the fall of, say, the first wicket, the runs required to reach the target are evaluated with the Base RpW and the fact that only nine wickets are available. At the fall of the second wicket, eight wickets, and so on.

With this introduction, let us move on to the snapshots of each Test, based on WIP values.

When England dismissed New Zealand for 132, their winning chances hit 81%. Then their own poor batting show got them down to 52%. New Zealand's good second-innings showing and the substantial target they set meant that England's chances stood at 35% at the start of the fourth innings. This was based on a Base-RpW of 21.1; the very low RpWs for the two first innings were partly compensated for by the good third-innings value. Over 13 wickets were needed to reach the target. The fall of the first wicket at 31 did not do much damage and the WIP stayed stable. The fall of the second wicket at 32 knocked the WIP down to 28%. After the third wicket it went down to 23% and at 69 for 4, to 19% - the lowest in the chase. The Root-Stokes stand took the score to 159 for 5 and the WIP improved to 44%, still below 50 - which makes sense since only the late-order batters were left. The stand between Root and Ben Foakes stand took them to the win. The high scoring rate meant that there were still 76 overs left to be played.

The second Test ended similarly but the trajectory of the WIP was strikingly different. The imposing New Zealand total of 553 set England's WIP at 24%. England's brave response got it back up to 48%, almost restoring parity. New Zealand's par response in the third innings led to an above average Base-RpW of 41.4, indicating that the chase was on. The relatively low target (in the context of the scores in the match) meant that England started the fourth innings at a rather comfortable 63%. This did not drop much as a few wickets fell mainly because the pitch was still very good. At 93 for 4, the WIP reached its lowest value in that innings, 58%. Then it went up to 91% and a rather comfortable win ensued. There were 22 overs still left in the game despite the high match aggregate of 1675 runs.

The Headingley Test has scores that were almost in the middle of those in the first two Tests. New Zealand's slightly below-par first-innings total of 329 gave England the edge at 54%. That was only slightly improved when England secured a small lead. The third-innings score in the vicinity of the two first-innings scores kept the England WIP around the 55% mark. The Base-RpW was at a par value of 33.7. One could say that this Test was dominated by par values. The loss of two England wickets at 17 and 51 in the chase only dampened their chances a little, and the loss of the third wicket was only a blip. There were 74 overs left in this match at the end, and it was the most comfortable win England had the whole summer.

India's first-innings total at Edgbaston was well above par and put England on the back foot at 43%. The substantial deficit of 132 pushed England further down to 29% at the halfway stage. England recovered somewhat thanks to their very good bowling show, dismissing India for 245. The Base-RpW was just below 30 and this meant that England started the fourth innings way below the midpoint: a WIP of 35% was a fair reflection of England's chances. The hundred partnership for the first wicket in the chase moved them up to 48%, but it was still anybody's game. The loss of two quick wickets then pushed England down to 34%.Then came the 250-plus stand that took England to the win. Again, like with two of the other three games, there were at least 70 overs left.

Now for a look at the key England partnerships in their chasing innings.

At Lord's, Joe Root and Ben Stokes effected a sedate stabilising partnership of 90, at a run rate of only three. But significantly, this moved England's win percent from 19 to 44. Then Root and Foakes, in a much faster partnership of 120 runs, scored at 4.13 and took England to a win. Root was the dominant batter in this partnership.

At Trent Bridge there was only one partnership of note - of 179 runs in 20 overs between Bairstow and Stokes, as good as any that a top T20 team can offer.

At Headingley, Ollie Pope and Root added 134 in quick time at nearly five runs per over, moving the win percent from 54% to 75%. Then Bairstow walked in and, in the company of Root, added 111 runs in less than 15 overs - an RpO of 7.65, slow only by the standards set in Nottingham.

Finally, at Edgbaston, in that huge chase, Alex Lees and Zak Crawley added 107 for the first wicket at nearly five runs per over. After the fall of a few wickets, Root and Bairstow took only 42 overs to hammer the Indian attack for 269 runs. When they came in, England were tottering at 34%.

There were seven important partnerships in these four innings. Most of these were put on at well above 4.5 runs per over. Root was part of five of these match-winning stands, while Bairstow was involved in three. In the first three innings of the season, when Bairstow did not click, it was Root who held firm. Stokes was involved in two. It is relevant that three of these successful chases had two partnerships each, indicating that these were team efforts.

Now let us move on to the numbers of the England players. I have considered the four Tests together as a super series.

Root and Bairstow were the two leading England batters - by a mile. Root scored over 550 runs at an average exceeding 110, while Bairstow scored over 600 runs at 102. It is not often that two batters have dominated a series like this. In addition, Bairstow scored at a strike rate of just over 100. This combination of 100-plus in both measures is like Halley's Comet - the rarest of rare events. The other batters scored below 300 runs at sub-50 averages. Stokes scored at a good clip. Pope had two good days. But it is clear that these were only supporting actors. Of the eight hundreds scored by England in these four Tests, Root and Bairstow made seven.

For New Zealand, Daryl Mitchell scored 538 runs at an average of 107.6, and Tom Blundell 383 runs at 76.7. Two noteworthy performances in losing causes. Rishabh Pant scored over 200 runs in the only Test played by India.

Matthew Potts took the most wickets in his first season in Tests - 18 at 26.7. James Anderson, the wily aging fox, took 17 wickets in three Tests at an excellent 18.3. Stuart Broad was expensive, as were Stokes and Jack Leach. Anderson was incisive, taking a wicket every 40 balls. The others finished close on either side of 60. Leach's competent performance was a surprise, although ten of his 14 wickets came in one Test. Broad had, overall, a not-so-great time. But it was clear that this was a series for the English batters, not bowlers. The bowlers performed competently, nothing more.

The England-South Africa series
It is great that South Africa will be visiting England for a three-Test series. But for what happened in the first half of the English summer, this would have been a series of no interest to the English fans, since their WTC qualification hopes are virtually zero. South Africa still have a fighting chance of qualifying. However, the overwhelming success of England in the four Tests has made the forthcoming series one of the most eagerly awaited in exact times. There are many questions to be answered.

- Will England keep chasing the "Number"?
- At some point, will the Stokes-McCullum brand of cricket become the norm?
- What can South Africa do that New Zealand and India could not?
- What will England's reaction be if the blueprint is changed and they need to set targets rather than chase them? How inventive will they be?

The last question is probably the most important one. Everything fell England's way in June and July. They won the toss twice, inserted the other team, saw 500-plus and 400-plus being scored, but still won. They lost the toss twice, saw the other team bat poorly once and competently once, matched the scores, and still won.

Let us look into a crystal ball a little. Let us say that Dean Elgar wins the toss at Lord's on August 17. When all the world is expecting that South Africa will bat, Elgar tells Ben Stokes that he will bowl. England, bolstered by yet another Root hundred, make 400. South Africa huff and puff their way to 380. England start their second innings on the fourth day.

- How do England tackle this in their new adventurous mode?
- How do they bat in the third innings?
- What target do their team go for? Do they offer something for South Africa?
- How many overs does Stokes leave his bowlers?
- Will England think "second new ball plus 20" or do they think different?
- How do England's bowlers, unused recently to defending a target, manage that challenge?
- If the target is 310, and South Africa are 200 for 3, do England try and shut shop?

Fascinating questions indeed. Interesting times ahead. Most serious cricket enthusiasts will be waiting with bated breath.

Talking Cricket Group
Any reader who wishes to join the general-purpose cricket ideas-exchange group of this name that I started last year can email me a request for inclusion, providing their name, place of residence, and what they do.

Email me your comments and I will respond. This email id is to be used only for sending in comments. Please note that readers whose emails are derogatory to the author or any player will be permanently blocked from sending in any feedback in future.

Sat, 06 Aug 2022 14:16:00 -0500 en text/html https://www.espn.co.uk/cricket/story/_/id/34360566/anantha-narayanan-how-england-aced-their-four-spectacular-test-chases-summer
Killexams : IBM Report: Consumers Pay the Price as Data Breach Costs Reach All-Time High

60% of breached businesses raised product prices post-breach; vast majority of critical infrastructure lagging in zero trust adoption; $550,000 in extra costs for insufficiently staffed businesses

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., July 27, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- IBM (NYSE: IBM) Security today released the annual Cost of a Data Breach Report,1 revealing costlier and higher-impact data breaches than ever before, with the global average cost of a data breach reaching an all-time high of $4.35 million for studied organizations. With breach costs increasing nearly 13% over the last two years of the report, the findings suggest these incidents may also be contributing to rising costs of goods and services. In fact, 60% of studied organizations raised their product or services prices due to the breach, when the cost of goods is already soaring worldwide amid inflation and supply chain issues.

60% of breached businesses studied stated they increased the price of their products or services due to the data breach

The perpetuality of cyberattacks is also shedding light on the "haunting effect" data breaches are having on businesses, with the IBM report finding 83% of studied organizations have experienced more than one data breach in their lifetime. Another factor rising over time is the after-effects of breaches on these organizations, which linger long after they occur, as nearly 50% of breach costs are incurred more than a year after the breach.

The 2022 Cost of a Data Breach Report is based on in-depth analysis of real-world data breaches experienced by 550 organizations globally between March 2021 and March 2022. The research, which was sponsored and analyzed by IBM Security, was conducted by the Ponemon Institute.

Some of the key findings in the 2022 IBM report include:

  • Critical Infrastructure Lags in Zero Trust – Almost 80% of critical infrastructure organizations studied don't adopt zero trust strategies, seeing average breach costs rise to $5.4 million – a $1.17 million increase compared to those that do. All while 28% of breaches amongst these organizations were ransomware or destructive attacks.
  • It Doesn't Pay to Pay – Ransomware victims in the study that opted to pay threat actors' ransom demands saw only $610,000 less in average breach costs compared to those that chose not to pay – not including the cost of the ransom. Factoring in the high cost of ransom payments, the financial toll may rise even higher, suggesting that simply paying the ransom may not be an effective strategy.
  • Security Immaturity in Clouds – Forty-three percent of studied organizations are in the early stages or have not started applying security practices across their cloud environments, observing over $660,000 on average in higher breach costs than studied organizations with mature security across their cloud environments.
  • Security AI and Automation Leads as Multi-Million Dollar Cost Saver – Participating organizations fully deploying security AI and automation incurred $3.05 million less on average in breach costs compared to studied organizations that have not deployed the technology – the biggest cost saver observed in the study.

"Businesses need to put their security defenses on the offense and beat attackers to the punch. It's time to stop the adversary from achieving their objectives and start to minimize the impact of attacks. The more businesses try to perfect their perimeter instead of investing in detection and response, the more breaches can fuel cost of living increases." said Charles Henderson, Global Head of IBM Security X-Force. "This report shows that the right strategies coupled with the right technologies can help make all the difference when businesses are attacked."

Over-trusting Critical Infrastructure Organizations
Concerns over critical infrastructure targeting appear to be increasing globally over the past year, with many governments' cybersecurity agencies urging vigilance against disruptive attacks. In fact, IBM's report reveals that ransomware and destructive attacks represented 28% of breaches amongst critical infrastructure organizations studied, highlighting how threat actors are seeking to fracture the global supply chains that rely on these organizations. This includes financial services, industrial, transportation and healthcare companies amongst others.

Despite the call for caution, and a year after the Biden Administration issued a cybersecurity executive order that centers around the importance of adopting a zero trust approach to strengthen the nation's cybersecurity, only 21% of critical infrastructure organizations studied adopt a zero trust security model, according to the report. Add to that, 17% of breaches at critical infrastructure organizations were caused due to a business partner being initially compromised, highlighting the security risks that over-trusting environments pose.

Businesses that Pay the Ransom Aren't Getting a "Bargain"
According to the 2022 IBM report, businesses that paid threat actors' ransom demands saw $610,000 less in average breach costs compared to those that chose not to pay – not including the ransom amount paid. However, when accounting for the average ransom payment, which according to Sophos reached $812,000 in 2021, businesses that opt to pay the ransom could net higher total costs - all while inadvertently funding future ransomware attacks with capital that could be allocated to remediation and recovery efforts and looking at potential federal offenses.

The persistence of ransomware, despite significant global efforts to impede it, is fueled by the industrialization of cybercrime. IBM Security X-Force discovered the duration of studied enterprise ransomware attacks shows a drop of 94% over the past three years – from over two months to just under four days. These exponentially shorter attack lifecycles can prompt higher impact attacks, as cybersecurity incident responders are left with very short windows of opportunity to detect and contain attacks. With "time to ransom" dropping to a matter of hours, it's essential that businesses prioritize rigorous testing of incident response (IR) playbooks ahead of time. But the report states that as many as 37% of organizations studied that have incident response plans don't test them regularly.

Hybrid Cloud Advantage
The report also showcased hybrid cloud environments as the most prevalent (45%) infrastructure amongst organizations studied. Averaging $3.8 million in breach costs, businesses that adopted a hybrid cloud model observed lower breach costs compared to businesses with a solely public or private cloud model, which experienced $5.02 million and $4.24 million on average respectively. In fact, hybrid cloud adopters studied were able to identify and contain data breaches 15 days faster on average than the global average of 277 days for participants.

The report highlights that 45% of studied breaches occurred in the cloud, emphasizing the importance of cloud security. However, a significant 43% of reporting organizations stated they are just in the early stages or have not started implementing security practices to protect their cloud environments, observing higher breach costs2. Businesses studied that did not implement security practices across their cloud environments required an average 108 more days to identify and contain a data breach than those consistently applying security practices across all their domains.

Additional findings in the 2022 IBM report include:

  • Phishing Becomes Costliest Breach Cause – While compromised credentials continued to reign as the most common cause of a breach (19%), phishing was the second (16%) and the costliest cause, leading to $4.91 million in average breach costs for responding organizations.
  • Healthcare Breach Costs Hit Double Digits for First Time Ever– For the 12th year in a row, healthcare participants saw the costliest breaches amongst industries with average breach costs in healthcare increasing by nearly $1 million to reach a record high of $10.1 million.
  • Insufficient Security Staffing – Sixty-two percent of studied organizations stated they are not sufficiently staffed to meet their security needs, averaging $550,000 more in breach costs than those that state they are sufficiently staffed.

Additional Sources

  • To obtain a copy of the 2022 Cost of a Data Breach Report, please visit: https://www.ibm.com/security/data-breach.
  • Read more about the report's top findings in this IBM Security Intelligence blog.
  • Sign up for the 2022 IBM Security Cost of a Data Breach webinar on Wednesday, August 3, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. ET here.
  • Connect with the IBM Security X-Force team for a personalized review of the findings: https://ibm.biz/book-a-consult.

About IBM Security
IBM Security offers one of the most advanced and integrated portfolios of enterprise security products and services. The portfolio, supported by world-renowned IBM Security X-Force® research, enables organizations to effectively manage risk and defend against emerging threats. IBM operates one of the world's broadest security research, development, and delivery organizations, monitors 150 billion+ security events per day in more than 130 countries, and has been granted more than 10,000 security patents worldwide. For more information, please check www.ibm.com/security, follow @IBMSecurity on Twitter or visit the IBM Security Intelligence blog.

Press Contact:

IBM Security Communications
Georgia Prassinos
gprassinos@ibm.com

1 Cost of a Data Breach Report 2022, conducted by Ponemon Institute, sponsored, and analyzed by IBM
2 Average cost of $4.53M, compared to average cost $3.87 million at participating organizations with mature-stage cloud security practices

IBM Corporation logo. (PRNewsfoto/IBM)

Cision View original content to obtain multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ibm-report-consumers-pay-the-price-as-data-breach-costs-reach-all-time-high-301592749.html

SOURCE IBM

Tue, 26 Jul 2022 16:34:00 -0500 en-US text/html https://wgno.com/business/press-releases/cision/20220727NY26218/ibm-report-consumers-pay-the-price-as-data-breach-costs-reach-all-time-high/
Killexams : IBM Report: Consumers Pay the Price as Data Breach Costs Reach All-Time High

60% of breached businesses raised product prices post-breach; vast majority of critical infrastructure lagging in zero trust adoption; $550,000 in extra costs for insufficiently staffed businesses

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., July 27, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- IBM (NYSE: IBM) Security today released the annual Cost of a Data Breach Report,1 revealing costlier and higher-impact data breaches than ever before, with the global average cost of a data breach reaching an all-time high of $4.35 million for studied organizations. With breach costs increasing nearly 13% over the last two years of the report, the findings suggest these incidents may also be contributing to rising costs of goods and services. In fact, 60% of studied organizations raised their product or services prices due to the breach, when the cost of goods is already soaring worldwide amid inflation and supply chain issues.

60% of breached businesses studied stated they increased the price of their products or services due to the data breach

The perpetuality of cyberattacks is also shedding light on the "haunting effect" data breaches are having on businesses, with the IBM report finding 83% of studied organizations have experienced more than one data breach in their lifetime. Another factor rising over time is the after-effects of breaches on these organizations, which linger long after they occur, as nearly 50% of breach costs are incurred more than a year after the breach.

The 2022 Cost of a Data Breach Report is based on in-depth analysis of real-world data breaches experienced by 550 organizations globally between March 2021 and March 2022. The research, which was sponsored and analyzed by IBM Security, was conducted by the Ponemon Institute.

Some of the key findings in the 2022 IBM report include:

  • Critical Infrastructure Lags in Zero Trust – Almost 80% of critical infrastructure organizations studied don't adopt zero trust strategies, seeing average breach costs rise to $5.4 million – a $1.17 million increase compared to those that do. All while 28% of breaches amongst these organizations were ransomware or destructive attacks.

  • It Doesn't Pay to Pay – Ransomware victims in the study that opted to pay threat actors' ransom demands saw only $610,000 less in average breach costs compared to those that chose not to pay – not including the cost of the ransom. Factoring in the high cost of ransom payments, the financial toll may rise even higher, suggesting that simply paying the ransom may not be an effective strategy.

  • Security Immaturity in Clouds – Forty-three percent of studied organizations are in the early stages or have not started applying security practices across their cloud environments, observing over $660,000 on average in higher breach costs than studied organizations with mature security across their cloud environments.

  • Security AI and Automation Leads as Multi-Million Dollar Cost Saver – Participating organizations fully deploying security AI and automation incurred $3.05 million less on average in breach costs compared to studied organizations that have not deployed the technology – the biggest cost saver observed in the study.

"Businesses need to put their security defenses on the offense and beat attackers to the punch. It's time to stop the adversary from achieving their objectives and start to minimize the impact of attacks. The more businesses try to perfect their perimeter instead of investing in detection and response, the more breaches can fuel cost of living increases." said Charles Henderson, Global Head of IBM Security X-Force. "This report shows that the right strategies coupled with the right technologies can help make all the difference when businesses are attacked."

Over-trusting Critical Infrastructure Organizations
Concerns over critical infrastructure targeting appear to be increasing globally over the past year, with many governments' cybersecurity agencies urging vigilance against disruptive attacks. In fact, IBM's report reveals that ransomware and destructive attacks represented 28% of breaches amongst critical infrastructure organizations studied, highlighting how threat actors are seeking to fracture the global supply chains that rely on these organizations. This includes financial services, industrial, transportation and healthcare companies amongst others.

Despite the call for caution, and a year after the Biden Administration issued a cybersecurity executive order that centers around the importance of adopting a zero trust approach to strengthen the nation's cybersecurity, only 21% of critical infrastructure organizations studied adopt a zero trust security model, according to the report. Add to that, 17% of breaches at critical infrastructure organizations were caused due to a business partner being initially compromised, highlighting the security risks that over-trusting environments pose.

Businesses that Pay the Ransom Aren't Getting a "Bargain"
According to the 2022 IBM report, businesses that paid threat actors' ransom demands saw $610,000 less in average breach costs compared to those that chose not to pay – not including the ransom amount paid. However, when accounting for the average ransom payment, which according to Sophos reached $812,000 in 2021, businesses that opt to pay the ransom could net higher total costs - all while inadvertently funding future ransomware attacks with capital that could be allocated to remediation and recovery efforts and looking at potential federal offenses.

The persistence of ransomware, despite significant global efforts to impede it, is fueled by the industrialization of cybercrime. IBM Security X-Force discovered the duration of studied enterprise ransomware attacks shows a drop of 94% over the past three years – from over two months to just under four days. These exponentially shorter attack lifecycles can prompt higher impact attacks, as cybersecurity incident responders are left with very short windows of opportunity to detect and contain attacks. With "time to ransom" dropping to a matter of hours, it's essential that businesses prioritize rigorous testing of incident response (IR) playbooks ahead of time. But the report states that as many as 37% of organizations studied that have incident response plans don't test them regularly.

Hybrid Cloud Advantage
The report also showcased hybrid cloud environments as the most prevalent (45%) infrastructure amongst organizations studied. Averaging $3.8 million in breach costs, businesses that adopted a hybrid cloud model observed lower breach costs compared to businesses with a solely public or private cloud model, which experienced $5.02 million and $4.24 million on average respectively. In fact, hybrid cloud adopters studied were able to identify and contain data breaches 15 days faster on average than the global average of 277 days for participants.

The report highlights that 45% of studied breaches occurred in the cloud, emphasizing the importance of cloud security. However, a significant 43% of reporting organizations stated they are just in the early stages or have not started implementing security practices to protect their cloud environments, observing higher breach costs2. Businesses studied that did not implement security practices across their cloud environments required an average 108 more days to identify and contain a data breach than those consistently applying security practices across all their domains.

Additional findings in the 2022 IBM report include:

  • Phishing Becomes Costliest Breach Cause – While compromised credentials continued to reign as the most common cause of a breach (19%), phishing was the second (16%) and the costliest cause, leading to $4.91 million in average breach costs for responding organizations.

  • Healthcare Breach Costs Hit Double Digits for First Time Ever– For the 12th year in a row, healthcare participants saw the costliest breaches amongst industries with average breach costs in healthcare increasing by nearly $1 million to reach a record high of $10.1 million.

  • Insufficient Security Staffing – Sixty-two percent of studied organizations stated they are not sufficiently staffed to meet their security needs, averaging $550,000 more in breach costs than those that state they are sufficiently staffed.

Additional Sources

  • To obtain a copy of the 2022 Cost of a Data Breach Report, please visit: https://www.ibm.com/security/data-breach.

  • Read more about the report's top findings in this IBM Security Intelligence blog.

  • Sign up for the 2022 IBM Security Cost of a Data Breach webinar on Wednesday, August 3, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. ET here.

  • Connect with the IBM Security X-Force team for a personalized review of the findings: https://ibm.biz/book-a-consult.

About IBM Security
IBM Security offers one of the most advanced and integrated portfolios of enterprise security products and services. The portfolio, supported by world-renowned IBM Security X-Force® research, enables organizations to effectively manage risk and defend against emerging threats. IBM operates one of the world's broadest security research, development, and delivery organizations, monitors 150 billion+ security events per day in more than 130 countries, and has been granted more than 10,000 security patents worldwide. For more information, please check www.ibm.com/security, follow @IBMSecurity on Twitter or visit the IBM Security Intelligence blog.

Press Contact:

IBM Security Communications
Georgia Prassinos
gprassinos@ibm.com

1 Cost of a Data Breach Report 2022, conducted by Ponemon Institute, sponsored, and analyzed by IBM
2 Average cost of $4.53M, compared to average cost $3.87 million at participating organizations with mature-stage cloud security practices

IBM Corporation logo. (PRNewsfoto/IBM)

Cision

View original content to obtain multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ibm-report-consumers-pay-the-price-as-data-breach-costs-reach-all-time-high-301592749.html

SOURCE IBM

Tue, 26 Jul 2022 20:36:00 -0500 en-US text/html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ibm-report-consumers-pay-price-040100294.html
000-892 exam dump and training guide direct download
Training Exams List