Cyber firm expands at University of Wolverhampton base
The firm said it had chosen to invest in the Wolverhampton site as it was "scaling up" from research and development (R&D) of its Firebreak programme to large-scale manufacturing. Firebreak is designed to ringfence networks away from the internet to make them inaccessible to hackers, the firm said.Stephen Kines, co-founder and chief operating officer of Goldilock said he was thrilled to be expanding."With sophisticated ransomware and AI-powered attacks on a continuous rise, paired with the increasing interconnectedness of systems, Goldilock's technology provides a critical, foundational layer of defence. "The West Midlands offers us an invaluable hub for innovation, providing access to a diverse pool of talented tech professionals and a supportive business environment from which we can continue to grow the business and get our critical product to where it's needed most, as quickly as possible."City of Wolverhampton Council leader, Stephen Simkins, said: "Goldilock's expansion is a testament to the city of Wolverhampton's growing appeal as a destination of choice for ambitious tech firms, with an extensive R&D network, deep pool of specialist talent and proximity to the region's end-to-end manufacturing supply chain."
Follow BBC Wolverhampton & Black Country on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
a day ago
- New Statesman
How Britain lost the status game
Photo by Stefan Rousseau/AFP I've always been a bit puzzled by the 1956 Suez Crisis. The idea of Britain, France and Israel plotting together but being defeated by the honest, righteous Americans does feel, nearly a lifetime later, a little strange. But the most baffling thing about the Suez Crisis is the idea that it was a crisis. It's always described as this a great national humiliation which ruined a prime minister, the sort of watershed to inspire national soul-searching, state-of-the-nation plays and a whole library of books. And yet, compared to the sort of thing which literally every other European country had to deal with at some point in the 20th century, it's nothing. Britain was not invaded or occupied; Britain did not see its population starve. Britain simply learned that it was no longer top dog. That's all. The event and the reaction don't seem to go together. But this, of course, is to see the world from the perspective of today. Now, we all know that Britain cannot just do what it wants – that the US is the far more powerful player. At the start of 1956, though, large chunks of the map were still coloured British pink (or, come to that, French bleu), and the median opinion at home was that this was broadly a good thing. Suez was the moment when the loss of status we now date to 1945 came home. I wonder, in my darker moments, if we're going through something similar now – a less dramatic decline, perhaps, but a potentially more ruinous one. The loss of empire, after all, was mainly an issue for the pride of the political classes. Today's decline in status affects everyone. Consider the number of areas in which the current British government seems utterly helpless before the might of much bigger forces. It's not quite true to say that Rachel Reeves has no room for manoeuvre – breaking a manifesto pledge and raising one of the core taxes remains an option, albeit one that would be painful for government and taxpayer alike. But her borrowing and spending options are constrained by the sense of a bond market both far flightier than it once was, thanks to an increase in short term investors, and less willing, post-Truss, to give Britain the benefit of the doubt. The thing that much of the public would like Reeves to do – spend more, without raising taxes – is a thing it is by no means clear she has the power to do. Over in foreign policy, Keir Starmer has offended sensibilities by making nice with someone entirely unfit to be president of the United States, and whose actions place him a lot closer to the dictators of the 20th century than to Eisenhower or JFK. The problem for Starmer is that saying this out loud would likely result in ruinous tariffs, or the collapse of NATO before an alternative system for the defence of Europe can be prepared, or both. Again, he has no space to do what his voters want him to do. In the same vein, consider the anger about Britain's failure to act to prevent the horrors still unfolding in Gaza. It is not to imply the government has handled things well to suggest that at least part of the problem is that – 69 years on from Suez – the government of Israel doesn't give a fig about what the government of Britain thinks. The things the public wants may be outside the realm of things the government can actually deliver. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Even in less overtly political realms, the British state feels helplessly at the mercy of global forces beyond its control. The domestic TV industry, a huge British export, is in crisis thanks to the streamers. AI will change the world, we're told, and it's very possible that isn't a good thing: and what is Westminster supposed to do about that? And with which faculties? In all these areas and a thousand more, people want their government to do something to change the direction of events, and it is not at all obvious it can. Ever since 2016, British politics has been plagued by a faintly Australian assumption that, if a prime minister is not delivering, you should kick them out and bring in the next one. That is not the worst impulse in a democracy. But what if Britain is so changed that delivery is not possible? Researchers have found that social status affects the immune system of certain types of monkey – that the stress of lower status can, quite literally, kill. It already looks plausible the electorate might roll the dice on Nigel Farage. This is terrifying enough. But when it turns out he can't take back control either, but only trash what's there – what then? [See more: Trump in the wilderness] Related
Channel 4
a day ago
- Channel 4
Ukrainian soldiers teaching Brits drone warfare
Jet propelled drones as fast as cruise missiles. Robot drones which can rescue an injured soldier. Fibre optic drones attached to cables – which can't be jammed. The technology of modern warfare on the frontlines in Ukraine is moving so fast that tactics have to change on a weekly basis. It means Ukrainian soldiers who come to Britain for Nato style training are now teaching the Brits how to fight on today's battlefield.
Reuters
2 days ago
- Reuters
US, NATO developing novel funding mechanism for Ukraine weapons transfers
WASHINGTON, Aug 1 (Reuters) - The United States and NATO are working on a novel approach to supply Ukraine with weapons using funds from NATO countries to pay for the purchase or transfer of U.S. arms, according to three sources familiar with the matter. The renewed transatlantic cooperation on Ukraine comes as U.S. President Donald Trump has expressed frustration with Moscow's ongoing attacks on its neighbor. Trump, who initially took a more conciliatory tone toward Russia as he tried to end the more than three-year war in Ukraine, has threatened to start imposing tariffs and other measures if Moscow shows no progress toward ending the conflict by August 8. The president said last month the U.S. would supply weapons to Ukraine, paid for by European allies, but did not indicate how this would be done. NATO countries, Ukraine, and the United States are developing a new mechanism that will focus on getting U.S. weapons to Ukraine from the Priority Ukraine Requirements List, known under the acronym PURL, the sources said. Ukraine would prioritize the weapons it needs in tranches of roughly $500 million, and NATO allies - coordinated by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte - would then negotiate among themselves who would donate or pay for items on the list. Through this approach, NATO allies hope to provide $10 billion in arms for Ukraine, said a European official, speaking on condition of anonymity. It was unclear over what timeframe they hope to supply the arms. "That is the starting point, and it's an ambitious target that we're working towards. We're currently on that trajectory. We support the ambition. We need that sort of volume," the European official said. NATO declined to comment. The White House, Pentagon, and Ukrainian embassy in Washington did not respond to requests for comment. Russian forces are gradually advancing against Ukraine, and control one-fifth of Ukraine's territory. If a NATO country decides to donate weapons to Ukraine, the mechanism would allow that country to effectively bypass lengthy U.S. arms sales procedures to replenish its own stocks, said one U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity. But the NATO country would have to pay the U.S. up front for the speedier replenishment. The money would be paid into a U.S.-held account, possibly at the U.S. Treasury Department, or to an escrow fund, although the exact structure remains unclear, the official said. NATO countries also have the option of simply paying the United States to send weapons directly to Ukraine. In that case, the payment could be made via NATO or directly to the U.S. Department of Defense, said a second source, speaking on condition of anonymity. This would be in addition to the United States' own effort to identify arms from U.S. stockpiles to send to Ukraine under the Presidential Drawdown Authority, which allows the U.S. president to draw from current weapons stocks to help allies in an emergency. At least one tranche of weapons for Ukraine is currently being negotiated under the new mechanism, two sources said, though it was unclear if any money has yet been transferred. Trump's fellow Republicans in Congress have introduced legislation, known as the PEACE Act, that aims to create a fund at the U.S. Treasury in which allies can deposit money that would pay to replenish U.S. military equipment donated to Ukraine. Ukraine's needs remain consistent with previous months - air defenses, interceptors, systems, rockets, and artillery. The last statement of need from Ukraine came at the July 21 Ramstein conference led by EU allies, including Britain.
