Enterprise Review

[Pricilla Igoe]

DataSecurity Concerns: Our major worry revolves around GPTs that might use external services or APIs, raising the risk of inadvertently exposing sensitive data. Do you have a good process in place to mitigate such risks?

Automated Re-Flagging for Re-Approval: The critical query we have is about updates to approved GPTs. Is there an automated mechanism or process in place in your organization or the enterprise solution that re-flags a GPT for review if it undergoes significant changes, like adding new data connections or APIs? How do you ensure that these updates are compliant with your security and privacy standards?

You vastly overestimate any metrics or standardizations in this regard when it comes to custom GPTs. There is no security standard in place, because GPTs themselves are inherently vulnerable. There is no communication channel between user and builder as to when and if the custom GPT changes in any way. There is no foundation for any some such process to occur.

What are the requirements you have for a regular supplier?

You can easily get most, if not all, of the required documentation from OpenAI. But for each GPT there is no way around contacting the provider and see what type of documents they can come up with, for you to evaluate if this is going to meet the specific requirements. Since this approach could potentially cover your first two questions it may work. At least you have something to communicate why the decision to (not) whitelist a GPT has been met.

If you want to distribute your app, you need to enroll for iOS developer [enterprise] program account. But that was not in my case, I was able to distribute my app to the client using the iOS developer program account.

Is it really mandatory to submit our app to the apple for review to ensure that our app is free of explicit OR else we can use it without review? Why do we need an approval from apple when we are not submitting to app store. The client is telling they just want to get approval then they can sell it within In-House or B2B use.

Because my client asked me to submit our app to apple for just review, but do not want to put on app store. Once they approved, then they will distribute by using ad-hoc distribution profile.

Now, there is a case where your client's request will fail for sure:Assuming (for the sake of explanation) this app is a porn video viewer app, it'd never be approved by the Apple App Store reviewer. And if the enterprise build deploy is contingent upon AppStore approval, even that wouldn't happen (since the client is adamant)

3rd Update: FYI Enterprise Developer account are not easy to obtain. If Apple Developer Center thinks your client is shady, they may have to manage with the regular developer account. The question you are asking has no credible sources for answers because no one would insist on doing something like this.

Is it really mandatory to submit our app to the apple for review to ensure that our app is free of explicit OR else we can use it without review? Why do we need an approval from apple when we are not submitting to app store. The client is telling they just want to get approval then they can sell it within In-House or B2B use.

The enterprise license is a way of making sure that rogue apps do not start making the rounds as they do not need to be installed via itunes, they can just be hosted on a website and downloaded directly from there to the device.

I assume your client may be worried that you aren't going to provide a stable, malware free application and would like apple to authorise & test it first, even though it is not going on to the app store so they have peace of mind that if it's good enough for apple its good enough for them. Or that the MD once heard that Apple HAS to authorise it and they are just jumping through hoops for them.

Companies that are enrolled in the iOS Developer Enterprise Program (currently $299 / year) do not need to submit apps to Apple for approval or distribution. These companies can host and wirelessly distribute their in-house apps without Apple acting as gatekeeper.

It would be (very) unusual for an Enterprise Program member to submit their app to Apple for review because it is unnecessary. And so far as I know there is no option to do this without setting up all the app details in iTunes Connect and pretending you were going to sell the app.

In incident review, some of my notable events have an original event window which helpfully provides raw details of the event that triggered the notable. Other notables don't seem to have this window.

Not every notable event depends on a single original event, which can be displayed in Incident Review. Think about a correlation search like "Excessive Failed Logins", which goes f.e. over a 1 hour time window and alerts if the number of failed logins per user/host is greater than #X. In this case, there is no "one original event" which can be displayed in your incident review that simplly, since multiple events are necessary to trigger the correlation search.

In addition to that (i think), there is a bytes-limit for events that are displayed in the preview. So it might be that you see some events in the IR straight away and other not if the original event is very long.

So I'm expanding on excellent feedback provided by @hgrow for anyone looking to show the "Original Event" in their own correlations. I think some of the fields above are possibly based on an earlier release of ES. Specifically, I think the use of orig_splunk_server was replaced with orig_indexer_guid to work more consistently across index clustering.

The Planning Department is now using an electronic process for all pre-application meetings, permits and application submittals, payments, and reviews. Please create an account or log in to process your application.

There are two tracks that development applications may take for review and approval: administrative review or the public hearing process through the City Planning Commission. Both tracks follow the same pre-application and internal review stages.

From the front, it is possible to see the camera of the Glass 2, and its little display. The camera has close to it a little privacy LED. You can also see the standard titanium frames the glasses are mounted on, which resemble the ones of standard glasses, just without the lenses.

On the right side, you can just see the frame. But since this frame has nothing in it (the Glass is only for the left eye), you can clearly see the internal part of the left frame. On it, it is visible a big GLASS label and the button to turn on the device (that tiny button on the right part of the frames).

From the top, there is nothing special to see, if not for the hinge that lets you detach the true part of Google Glass from the rest of the frame so that you can attach the Google Glass to other frames.

I have been pleasantly surprised because I was convinced they could work only in the penumbra, while actually they also performed well while I was close to my window. This is great news for the use of glasses in bright environments (e.g. surgery rooms).

Glass 2 is incredibly lightweight, and it stays very comfortable on the head. It is like wearing a standard pair of glasses, and I could keep them on while I was doing other stuff, like performing my usual development job, without any issues. Of course wearing whatever type of glasses for a long time is going to cause some discomfort over the nose (who wears glasses knows this pretty well), but in general the comfort was great and I could keep the Glass 2 on for a long time.

You may only have problems if you are someone that already wears glasses, because wearing two pairs of glasses is basically impossible. Luckily, the Glass 2 are made so that to be detachable: you can remove the electronic part of the glasses from the standard metal frames, and install it on another pair of glasses.

But the true comfort problem lies in the display, and in this, the Glass 2 is similar to its previous version. To look at Glass, you have to look at a tiny display that is in front of the left eye: you have to position the display so that to be slightly above the eye, and this way you can read the text on it very well. The issue is that you have to focus the left eye on this tiny display and force your eye to make some effort to read the tiny text in it. In the meanwile, the right eye has no idea what it should do, since it has no display in front of it. This operation of constantly focusing your eye on a tiny square that is distant only a few centimeters from it, makes the user suffer from eye strain after a little time. After I used the glasses for like 15 minutes to try the demos, I remember the muscles of my eyes not feeling that well. Plus, when I removed the glasses, the eye was already used to focusing on the screen very close to it, and so was still trying to make me focus on that focus plane, even if the display was not there anymore. It took me some moments to get used again to the full depth of the environment around me.

3a8082e126