Connect with us

Business

I oversee a lab where engineers try to destroy my life’s work. It’s the only way to prepare for quantum threats

Published

on



The first time I handed over my credit card to a security lab, it came back to me broken. Not physically damaged, but compromised. In less than 10 minutes, the engineers had discovered my PIN.

This happened in the early 1990s, when I was a young engineer starting an internship at one of the companies that helped create the smart card industry. I believed my card was secure. I believed the system worked. But watching strangers casually extract something that was supposed to be secret and protected was a shock. It was also the moment I realized how insecure security actually is, and the devastating impact security breaches could have on individuals, global enterprises, and governments.

Most people assume security is about building something that’s unbreakable. In reality, security is about understanding exactly how something breaks, under what conditions, and how quickly. That is why, today, I run labs where engineers are paid to attack the very chips my company designs. They measure power fluctuations, inject electromagnetic signals, fire lasers, and strip away layers of silicon. Their job is to behave like criminals and hostile nation-states on purpose, because the only honest way to build trust is to try to destroy it first.

To someone outside the security world, this approach sounds counterintuitive. Why spend years designing secure hardware, only to invite people to tear it apart? The answer is straightforward: Trust that has never been tested is not trust. It is assumption. Assumptions fail quietly at first, and they fail at the worst possible moment.

Over the past three decades, I have watched secure chips move from a specialized technology into invisible infrastructure. Early in my career, much of my work focused on payment cards. Convincing banks and payment networks that a chip was safer than a magnetic stripe was not easy. At the time, there were fears about surveillance and tracking. What few people recognized was that these chips were becoming digital passports. They proved identity, authenticated devices, and determined what could and could not be trusted on a network.

Today, secure chips sit quietly inside credit cards, smartphones, cars, medical devices, home routers, industrial systems, and national infrastructure. Most people never notice them, which is often taken as a sign of success. In reality, that invisibility also creates risk. When security disappears from view, it is easy to forget that it must still evolve.

At a basic level, a secure chip does one essential thing. It protects a secret – a cryptographic identity that proves a device is genuine. All other security measures build upon that foundation. When a phone unlocks, when a car communicates with a charging station, when a medical sensor sends data to a hospital, or when a software update is delivered to a device in the field, all of those actions depend on that secret remaining secret.

The challenge is that chips do not simply store secrets. They use them. They calculate, communicate, and respond. The moment a chip does that, it begins to leak information. Not because it is poorly designed, but because physics cannot be negotiated. Power consumption shifts. Electromagnetic emissions change. Timing varies. With the right equipment and enough expertise, those signals can be measured and interpreted.

This is what happens inside our attack labs every day. Engineers listen to chips in much the same way an electricity provider can infer your daily routine from your power usage. They stress-test devices until they behave differently than intended. They introduce faults and observe how the chip responds. From those observations, they learn how an attacker would think, where information escapes, and how defenses must be redesigned.

Quantum computing enters this picture without drama or science fiction. Quantum does not change what attackers are after – they still want the secret. What quantum changes is the speed at which they can get it. Problems that would take classical computers thousands of years can collapse to minutes or seconds once sufficient quantum capability exists. The target remains the same. The timeline disappears.

This is why static security fails. Any system designed to be secure once and then left untouched is already aging toward obsolescence. If a system is never attacked, it will eventually fail, because the world around it does not stand still. Attack techniques evolve and improve. Tools become cheaper, more powerful, and more accessible – especially in the age of Artificial Intelligence. Knowledge about successful attacks spread globally, emboldening others to seek similar successes. 

Many organizations make the same mistake. They assume they will see the threat coming. They wait for visible breaches or public incidents before acting. With quantum, that logic breaks down. The first actors with meaningful quantum capability will not announce it. They will use it quietly. In fact, this is already happening now with Harvest Now-Decrypt Later (HNDL) attacks, where large amounts of encrypted data is collected and stored today for future quantum decryption. By the time attacks become obvious, the damage will already be done.

That reality is why governments and regulators are moving now. Across industries, requirements are emerging that systems must become quantum resilient within defined timelines. This is not driven by theory or hype. It is driven by the simple fact that updating cryptography, hardware, and infrastructure takes years, while exploiting weaknesses can take moments.

When I walk through our labs today, what strikes me most is not the sophistication of the tools, but the discipline of the process. Access is tightly controlled. Engineers are vetted and audited. Every experiment is documented. This is not curiosity-driven hacking. It is structured, repeatable testing designed to surface weaknesses early, while there is still time to fix them. Every successful attack becomes an input for a stronger design.

This is what leaders, system owners, and policymakers need to understand. Security does not fail suddenly. It fails quietly, long before anyone notices. Preparing for quantum threats is not about predicting the exact moment a breakthrough occurs. It is about accepting that once it does, there will be no grace period. The only responsible approach is to assume your systems will be attacked and to make sure that happens under controlled conditions, before someone else decides the timing for you.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Building corporate resilience in a fragmenting world

Published

on



Global businesses are entering an era of destabilization, defined by trade friction, shifting geopolitical alliances, and mounting pressure to redesign supply chains. The old assumptions of seamless globalization are giving way to a fragmented reality where tariffs, sanctions, and export controls can upend operations overnight. Geopolitical uncertainty – from regional conflicts to strategic derisking between major economies – forces companies to rethink sourcing, manufacturing, and market access. Supply chains, once optimized for efficiency, now require carefully planned safeguards against political risk, regulatory volatility, and sudden disruptions. This shift is structural, not temporary. 

As world leaders convene in Davos, CEOs face the realities of this geo-economic fragmentation – where resilience, not efficiency, will define competitiveness.

The new normal: geopolitics and growth are inseparable

As the World Economic Forum commences on January 19  2026, the message for global business is simple: the old playbook is obsolete. Geopolitics and trade have become inseparable, with sanctions, tariffs, and export controls shaping market access as much as consumer demand. In this environment, risk management is not a back-office function; it is a strategic directive at the board level. 

The WEF’s theme “A Spirit of Dialogue” is organized around five imperatives: cooperating in a contested world; unlocking growth; investing in people; deploying innovation responsibly; and building prosperity within planetary boundaries. That framing mirrors what executives already feel in their P&L and risk registers: trade, regulation, technology, and climate have fused into a single operating system for corporate strategy.

Trade is fragmenting, but competition for growth is intensifying

Davos 2026 will center on a singular key question: how to achieve growth in an era defined by fragmentation and shifting rules. 

Recent indicators capture the two-speed reality. The WTO’s 2025 outlook warns of turbulence: tariff spikes and policy uncertainty have darkened the near-term horizon, with scenarios ranging from fractional declines in merchandise trade to only modest recovery. 

Yet, paradoxically, UNCTAD reports global trade values reaching a record $35 trillion in 2025, powered by East Asia and South-South corridors. This is not globalization’s collapse but its reconfiguration. Commerce is adapting, not retreating; shifting toward regional clusters and politically aligned bilateral partners.

McKinsey’s latest analysis reveals the underlying architecture: trade is tilting toward proximity and trust. U.S. flows increasingly favor Mexico and Vietnam; Europe continues to pivot away from Russia; ASEAN, India, and Brazil are weaving cross-bloc ties. These patterns signal that growth remains attainable – but through different lanes and under different rules, where resilience and strategic alignment matter as much as efficiency.

Sanctions and tariffs are converging into one regulatory front dominated by national security

In line with this overarching shift, boards can no longer treat sanctions, export controls, tariffs and trade defense as discrete issues. Regulators themselves are coordinating more closely than at any time in recent memory and this integration blurs traditional boundaries between trade compliance and geopolitical risk management, creating a complex environment where businesses must navigate overlapping restrictions.

2025 – 26 brings tighter U.S. and EU scrutiny on advanced technologies, China moving toward tighter customs and export controls on strategic resources, evolving controls on inbound and outbound investments, and sustained pressure tied to Russia, Iran, and China. At the same time, tariffs have shifted from a secondary tool to a primary driver of trade outcomes – suppressing volumes and forcing companies to front-load shipments or reroute flows, as seen in the first half of 2025 where cross-border trade figures reflected companies front-loading imports ahead of the expected impact of escalating tariffs. A tariff adjustment may trigger sanctions exposure, and vice versa. The result is a unified, high-stakes framework where proactive monitoring and strategic foresight are essential to maintain competitiveness and avoid costly disruptions. 

Supply chains: resilience with measurable value at risk

Additionally, expect 2026 to elevate supply-chain resilience further from a defensive measure to a core growth lever. Resilience now underpins agility, market access, and investor confidence in a world where disruption is structural, not cyclical. As such, industry analysts point to three converging pressures: geopolitical intervention, regulatory complexity – including cross-jurisdictional human rights and due diligence regimes – and climate-driven shocks. Taken together, these trends make resilience a strategic differentiator: companies that invest in adaptive, compliant, and transparent supply chains will not only mitigate risk but unlock sustainable performance gains.

CEOs need a new resilience playbook

Many companies are not yet equipped for integrated legal-operational-geopolitical risks. Here’s a pragmatic, board-level playbook we see high performers adopting:

  • It starts with building the right team and equipping them for a world where traditional silos no longer suffice: resilience requires cross-functional collaboration. The Davos 2026 imperative of investing in people reflects this necessity of equipping teams with cross-disciplinary expertise: Legal teams must grasp geopolitical risk; compliance officers need fluency in sanctions regimes; procurement specialists should be versed in export controls and ESG dynamics; and teams must prepare for cyber threats.  And the C-Suite must have oversight of all of these.
  • Secondly, a culture of operational continuity is the heartbeat of resilience, and it thrives on adaptability. In a world where global shocks and policy rifts can disrupt supply chains, digital systems, and workforce stability, organizations that embed continuity into their culture stand apart. This means considering strategically building delays into critical processes, requiring rigorous risk assessment and the agility to adjust plans quickly through established governance frameworks as conditions shift – whether due to market volatility, geopolitical tensions, or unexpected operational challenges. For leading enterprises, continuity is proactive – one that ensures not only operational stability but also compliance adaptability, and preserves trust, sustains performance, and turns unpredictability into an expected and manageable constant.
  • Thirdly, a robust internal compliance program (ICP) is essential – not as a static checklist, but as a living framework that evolves with geopolitical and regulatory shifts. This means continuous monitoring of sanctions, export controls, and trade restrictions, paired with clear communication channels across legal, procurement, and operations teams. A strong ICP should anticipate risk rather than merely react: scenario planning, early-warning systems, and regular cross-functional briefings help organizations stay ahead of sudden policy changes. Embedding compliance into strategic decision-making ensures that resilience is not an after-thought but a core business capability, and one which is designed to grease, rather than gum up, the wheels of productivity
  • Finally, documentation, though often overlooked, is the cornerstone of accountability.  CEOs should ensure that documentation is not treated as a formality but as a strategic tool: it creates internal accountability, demonstrates diligence to regulators, and serves as the first line of defense in audits or investigations. 

In a fragmented global environment and an era of uncertainty, disciplined preparation is both the most reliable shield and the most effective weapon.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

What hiring someone who served 20 years in prison taught us about loyalty at work

Published

on



Employers across the country are saying the same thing. Loyalty is harder to find. Turnover feels constant. Training costs keep rising. Teams feel less stable than they once did.

What often goes unsaid is the quieter truth behind those complaints.

Many employers are systematically excluding some of the most loyal workers available. Millions of capable job seekers are screened out automatically because they have a criminal record. At the same time, companies insist they cannot find dependable employees. Both of those things cannot be true.

We come to this issue from opposite sides of the same system, and now we sit on the same side of the table.

One of us spent decades as a correctional warden, responsible for staffing safe facilities and trying to send people home better prepared for work and community than when they arrived. The other served decades in the federal prison system on a 213-year sentence stemming from a series of armed robberies committed in his early 20s, and is now an executive at Social Purpose Corrections, working with employers and correctional leaders on workforce development and reentry outcomes.

What we have learned, from very different vantage points, is that the labor shortage many employers describe is often self-inflicted.

Inside prison, we watched men and women show up every day to demanding jobs, complete difficult programs, earn degrees, and hold themselves to high standards in environments that would burn out many free world employees. The talent was there. The discipline was there. The loyalty was there.

What was missing was access.

When people return home, many never make it past automated screening systems. Not because of skill or work ethic, but because of a checkbox. Doors close before conversations begin. Over time, that exclusion does not just limit opportunity for individuals. It limits the workforce for employers.

This is not a feel-good argument. It is supported by evidence.

Research cited by the Society for Human Resource Management has found that employees with criminal records perform as well as, and in some cases better than, their peers. A peer reviewed study published in the IZA Journal of Labor Policy found that in several job categories, employees with criminal records demonstrated longer tenure and lower voluntary turnover than employees without records.

In a labor market defined by churn, loyalty is not sentimental. It is operational.

Employers often explain their hesitation in terms of risk. Risk to culture. Risk to liability. Risk to the brand. Those concerns are understandable. What is less often acknowledged is the cost of constant turnover, understaffed operations, and teams that never stay long enough to fully contribute.

From where we sit now, we see three things’ companies miss when they automatically filter people with records out of the applicant pool.

First, retention upside. People who finally get a real shot after years of closed doors do not treat it casually. They fight to keep it.

Second, culture signal. When a company hires someone who has had to earn trust the hard way, it sends a message to the entire workforce that growth is possible here and that people are not disposable.

Third, problem solving experience. People who have survived and transformed inside prison have spent years managing scarcity, conflict, and high stakes decisions. That is not a liability. It is an asset.

Fair chance hiring is not about lowering standards. It is about applying standards with intention. Background checks still matter. Performance still matters. Accountability still matters. What changes is the assumption that a past conviction permanently defines a person’s value at work.

At Social Purpose Corrections, where we both work today, fair chance hiring is not a slogan. It is a daily operating reality. People are hired with clear expectations, measured outcomes, and accountability, just like anywhere else. That approach has reinforced what the data already suggests. When people are trusted with responsibility, many rise to it.

Across the country, employers are demonstrating the same principle.

Awake Window and Door Co., a manufacturer based in Arizona, built its business from the start as a fair chance employer. More than half of its workforce is formerly incarcerated, and the company has grown while maintaining a stable, committed team. That is not charity. It is a business decision focused on retention.

There is also a broader impact worth acknowledging. Stable employment is widely recognized as one of the strongest predictors of reduced recidivism. When people leaving incarceration find meaningful work, families stabilize, communities are safer, and fewer people return to prison. The same decisions that improve retention can also reduce long term social costs.

For business leaders wondering where to start, the path does not require a leap of faith. It requires disciplined experimentation.

Audit your hiring filters. Remove blanket exclusions that prevent qualified candidates from ever reaching a human decision maker.

Pilot fair chance roles or sites. Start with one function or location. Set clear performance standards. Measure retention and turnover against your baseline.

Partner with organizations that understand this workforce. Do not improvise. Work with groups that can help design policies, support employees, and prepare managers to lead with clarity and accountability.

None of this requires lowering the bar. It requires recognizing that loyalty and potential do not disappear because of a line on an application.

Business leaders pride themselves on seeing opportunity where others see risk. Fair chance hiring remains one of the clearest opportunities left to do exactly that.

Loyalty is not gone. The workforce is not broken.

We are simply hiring past it.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

If you want to be financially independent at a young age, don’t buy a house, serial investor says. Home ownership is just an ‘expensive indulgence’

Published

on



Considering home prices are 50% higher than before the pandemic, mortgage rates remain stubbornly high in the 6% range, and everything feels more expensive thanks to inflation and tariffs, home ownership feels largely out of reach for many younger Americans. 

But one serial investor says that opting for renting instead of home ownership may not be as bad of an idea as some people think, despite it being the quintessential American Dream.

“If your goal is to become financially independent at a young age, you probably don’t want to go buy a house—but it’s a very controversial thing to say,” JL Collins told The Diary of a CEO podcast in an episode published Jan. 12. 

Collins, the best-selling author of Pathfinders and The Simple Path to Wealth, said the reasoning is simple: Buying a home “dramtically inflate[s]” your cost of living. While your mortgage payment and rent payment may be similar on paper, owning a home ends up costing more in the long run and comes with unexpected expenses—often referred to as the “hidden costs” of homeownership, like insurance, repairs, and updates. 

“You have the expenses of maintaining it, paying the taxes on it, blah, blah, blah,” he said. “If you stay in an apartment that is just enough to meet your needs—which, by the way, is what my daughter has done and continues to do—your costs will be lower.”

In fact, a LendingTree study also published this week shows renting is cheaper than owning in every large U.S. metro, with U.S. homeowners paying 36.9% more a month on their mortgage payment than renters. To put that in perspective, the median monthly gross rent was $1,487 in 2024, according to LendingTree, while the median monthly housing costs for homeowners with a mortgage was $2,035. That’s nearly $550 more per month for owning a home, amounting to a difference of more than $6,500 annually.

And that cost difference makes buying a home just another “expensive indulgence,” Collins argued.

“People typically buy the most house they can possibly afford. The industry drives them that way,” Collins said. “You’re going to wind up with a house that’s going to be a burden. You are not buying it from a position of strength. You are stretching to buy it. You are borrowing the most money a bank’s willing to give you.”

To be sure, Collins would know about the costs of home ownership—he’s owned homes for most of his adult life, he said. And on top of a mortgage, homeowners should expect paying for furniture, new appliances, landscaping, taxes, and maintenance. 

“The list is endless,” he said. “Your mortgage is just the starting point.”

Matt Schultz, LendingTree’s chief consumer finance analyst, said in a statement shared with Fortune he understands those figures can be discouraging for people hoping for home ownership.

“Some people are becoming resigned to the fact that they’ll never be able to own a home,” he said. “That sort of decision has massive ramifications, not just for individuals but for the economy as a whole. Unfortunately, however, that doesn’t seem likely to change anytime soon.”

That’s in line with what other housing market experts and economists have predicted about the housing market for this year. While mortgage rates might drop slightly, the hidden costs of home ownership remain—and home prices aren’t going to drop enough to make a significant difference.

According to Realtor.com data shared with Fortune, at least one of three things would need to happen to make buying a house in the U.S. more affordable for the average person: Mortgage rates would need to fall to 2.65%; median household income would need to rise by 56%; or home prices would need to decline by 35%. Each of these scenarios is unlikely to happen.

“We’re in a tough spot,” Max Slyusarchuk, CEO of A&D Mortgage, previously told Fortune.. “The moment you make strides in any of these factors, what happens? More people are in the market buying and selling homes, which in turn increases the demand, which raises prices back up.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.