Risiko Siber Bukan Sekadar Finding: Peperjaan yang Paling Banyak Berpolitik

Bengkel pengurusan risiko Keselamatan Maklumat nampaknya sepertiPeper concatenated diari tentang meeting, tetapi realitanya lebih complicated. Several insiders describe a week built around calendars: plan meetings, decide who must attend, discuss findings, send follow-ups and repeat the process. The glamorous part of the job, scanning networks and hunting vulnerabilities, may be only 10 to 20% of daily work.

The rest is human negotiation. Practitioners sit with system owners, engineering teams, legal advisers and procurement staff. They ask what could fail, how serious the consequence would be, how much it costs and who owns the final decision. The work often ends in a risk register, an evidence trail and the uncomfortable sentence, “We accept this risk.”

Read nextJURANG SIBER: Bolehkah Startup Baharu Menyelamatkan Pasukan Keselamatan?

That sentence can hide a political battle. A former consultant described an in-house culture where teams increased their apparent risk to win budget, headcount or importance. Others were busy trying to weaken a competitor’s reputation. The technical finding becomes currency in an organizational power game, not simply a warning that helps the business choose.

The criticism grows when a new system is launched and nobody maintains it. Product teams move on to the next bright feature, while security staff are left chasing patches and asking for evidence months later. Some responses to auditors are framed so the problem sounds less serious. The result is a profession that can look busy while the underlying risk remains exactly where it was.

That is why one practitioner moved into cyber incident response. The new role is more human, more frightening and, crucially, more technical. Attackers leave traces. Security staff can trace, contain and block, earning thanks for responding when everyone else has made a mistake. Almost half of the work is technical again.

But the counterpoint is not that risk management is pointless. In a mature organization, risk work can clarify ownership, money and consequence before a crisis occurs. A business that understands the tradeoff can make a deliberate decision instead of hiding behind a blanket “no”. In regulated sectors such as finance, healthcare, government and the military, established categories and controls may make the process clearer. Private companies have more appetite for risk, but they need senior support to make any sensible choice.

The contradiction is that the people carrying the technical burden often receive the least credit. A veteran described the work as exhausting, meeting-heavy and thankless. Technical engineers may not see why risk staff are slowing them down. A regulated environment can make the job somewhat more structured, but it does not automatically make it humane.

The second half of this story makes an intentional contrast. While information-security teams argue about who owns a risk, the newest smartphone chips are competing over who handles ray tracing better. Apple A20 Pro is reported to beat Snapdragon 8 Gen 6 Extreme by 38% in the Solar Bay Extreme benchmark, which stresses ray tracing heavily.

Adreno 850 may be quicker in lighter ray-tracing tests and rasterized graphics, but Apple’s stronger ray-tracing acceleration wins when the workload becomes demanding. The speculation is that Apple still lacks hardware BVH traversal, Shader Execution Reordering and hardware-accelerated Micropacity Maps. Matrix Accelerators remain a major advance, but an expensive flagship should, according to the critic, include the latest instruction set, including SME2.

For now, the effect on phones is small. In future games—or when emulating PC ray-tracing titles such as Doom: The Dark Ages—the difference could become important. The message for the podcast is blunt: premium hardware should deliver premium technical progress, and a risk register should produce better decisions rather than better bureaucratic armor.

Dunia Digital’s hosts will dig into both sides of the story on the podcast.