This is another reason why it is often very useful to have the security team be a full part of the IT/Engineering organization. Taking advantage of these moments requires the security team to be close to or intertwined with the organization's planning process. This can be simply taking advantage of doing work while “the hood is open” or it can be to better align security controls with the other objectives of the change. When other upgrades are happening or when systems are being reengineered is a good opportunity to address security issues. These are usually times when risk tolerances are reexamined and when previously lower priority efforts can be pushed forward. When an incident, near-miss, or incident at a peer organization has occurred, then people are ripe to prioritize upgrades. But the truly great security teams also use additional tactics to get things done. Many security teams get good at this and often do it with great support from the various management layers. Often the job of the security team is to apply prioritization pressure at these layers through metrics/transparency, top down sponsorship of efforts and significant ongoing escalation. Sometimes these priorities can be in conflict or there may simply not be enough resources: people, money or time to do them all, including the necessary security. Various management roles have significant and parallel priorities from revenue growth, business / product enhancements, wider risk and compliance objectives, expansion, business structural changes, efficiency drives and so on. To be clear, this is not a criticism of the people in those positions and this is not a unique issue to security. However, where things can often go wrong is what might be described as “muddle in the middle” at various layers of management that have to prioritize and drive security enhancements. There is often a sense of pride in defending the organization and its customers or users. There is also often great "buzz at the bottom", that is a great sense throughout the organization among newer employees that security is important and interesting to solve for. This is normally manifested in how much senior leadership (and the Board) assert security as a priority and for most organizations this is often good. We talk a lot about the importance of the "tone at the top". Process will not crash the application's supervision tree.In reality any disconnect between senior leadership and the wider security team is more complex and typically associated with what might be described as: tone at the top and buzz at the bottom vs. The configuration could be stored in application config: # config/.exs config :my_app, MySocketClient, uri : "ws:///socket/websocket", reconnect_after_msec : Īnd in cases where the configuration validation fails, the MySocketClient start_link ( _MODULE_, args, name : _MODULE_ ) end Slipstream def init ( config ) do " ) :ignore end end. """ use Slipstream, restart : :temporary require Logger "backend-service:money-server" def start_link ( args ) do Slipstream. Periodically sends pings and asks the other server for its metrics. A minimalisticĮxample usage might be like so: defmodule MyApp.MySocketClient do """Ī socket client for connecting to that other Phoenix server This approach makes itĮasy to write socket clients that resemble state-machines. GenServer-like modules that define socket clients. The intended use for Slipstream is to write asynchronous, callback-oriented high-level and low-level instrumentation with :telemetry.smart retry strategies for reconnection and rejoining work out-of-the-box.it has an await_* interface for performing actions synchronously.Slipstream is a bit different from existing websocket implementations in that: Slipstream is a websocket client for connection to Phoenix.Channels. Settings View Source Slipstream behaviour (Slipstream v1.0.0)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |