Slashdot Log In
Pentagon Cyber-Command In the Works
Posted by
Soulskill
on Wed Apr 22, 2009 09:07 AM
from the too-many-chiefs dept.
from the too-many-chiefs dept.
An anonymous reader sends word of a new cybersecurity project to defend US networks from attacks and strengthen the government's "offensive capabilities in cyberwarfare." Right now, the most likely candidate to lead the project is the Director of the NSA, Keith Alexander, who was quick to assert that the NSA itself wouldn't try to run the whole show (something they've been criticized for in the past). Quoting the Wall Street Journal:
"Cyber defense is the Department of Homeland Security's responsibility, so the command would be charged with assisting that department's defense efforts. The relationship would be similar to the way Northern Command supports Homeland Security with rescue capabilities in natural disasters. The NSA, where much of the government's cybersecurity expertise is housed, established a similar relationship with Homeland Security through a cybersecurity initiative that the Bush administration began in its final year."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: US Cybersecurity Chief Beckstrom Resigns 117 comments
nodialtone writes with a Reuters report that Rod Beckstrom, director of the National Cybersecurity Center (NCSC), has tendered his resignation, citing clashes between the NCSC and the NSA with regard to who handles the nation's online security efforts. In his resignation letter (PDF), he made the point that "The intelligence culture is very different than a network operations or security culture," and said he wasn't willing to "subjugate the NCSC underneath the NSA." He also complained of budget roadblocks which kept the NCSC from receiving more than five weeks of funding in the past year. Wired has a related story from late February which discusses comments from Admiral Dennis Blair, director of National Intelligence, who thinks cyber security should be the NSA's job to begin with.
Submission: A Pentagon Cyber-Command Is in the Works by Anonymous Coward
[+]
IT: Pentagon Confirms Cyber Command, Under NSA Control 120 comments
eldavojohn writes "The Pentagon's been planning a cyber command for a while now but it's just been confirmed. The Pentagon will set up a Cyber Command outfit most likely around — surprise surprise — Fort George G. Meade in Maryland. From the article, 'The head of the Cyber Command would also be the director of the U.S. National Security Agency, which conducts electronic surveillance and communications interception and is also based at Fort Meade.' The Air Force has been no stranger to digital warfare."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
1995 called... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:1995 called... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Our government is slow and inefficient. In takes it 14-15 years to move from buzzword initiation to actual planning.
That is not a bug, BTW. It's a design feature. The constitution was written by a bunch of rebels who fought with the previous government and won. They were not inclined to want to fight again.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It wants its buzzword back. Please stop using "Cyber-". Thank you.
Would you prefer iCommand?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Would you prefer iCommand?
That's soooo 2000. Nowadays, it would be YouCommand.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Nah. Already outdated. Now it's "YouTweet"
Re: (Score:2)
Would it not be 'TweetCommand'?
On second thought, I am not sure how safe I'd feel being defended by 'TweetCommand'.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. What happens when a bird gives his team of birds a command?
Exactly. ^^
Cyber? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, you'd rather have the jargon-of-the-month than to settle upon a standard term?
Seriously? You'll get over it, bub. In the meantime, I'm very thankful that they're not making up new buzzwords every 6 months.
Re: (Score:1)
But they do seem to make up new buzzwords every 6 months.
I'm not sure exactly who 'they' are, but buzzwords must be coming from somewhere.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, in this case, we're talking about the government. But I think most buzzwords come from marketing people. These are people who are *paid* to come up with buzzwords... and if someone else comes up with a good one, they all jump to use it.
Heaven forbid a company is seen to be behind-the-curve because they use outdated verbiage... surely that means they use outdated tech, right?
Anyway, thinking by typing here... I bet the
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
"Network Operations" is actually used a lot at the actual operational level. It's just the Administrative policy making level (run mostly by people a decade or more 'over the hill')that gets wrapped up in buzzwords. ... NetOpsSecCom maybe?
Also: 'Cybercommand' will probably get more attention than 'Network Operations and Security Command'
Military in charge of cyber security? (Score:1)
Call it whatever you want (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Movies don't think.
Re:Call it whatever you want (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm just glad they're finally taking this sort of shit seriously.
Very humorously ironic post.
The whole cyber command thing bugs me because its so expensive but does so little. I'm sure they'll have a huge command of generals and various other officers giving each other endless powerpoints about "synergisticly proactively defending the cyber battlefield". Trust me, no patches are going to get applied. Mostly a bunch of resume stuffing for the post-military career. Probably a lot of puzzling over how it could be that the more managers they put on the job, the slower the work gets done. Probably a lot of really pompous posing going on too, I'm leet, so leet, its classified and I can't tell you how leet I am, but trust me I'm just the most leet ever. And a lot of "I'm working so hard that you wouldn't believe it, but its all classified so I can't actually tell you what I'm working on" as he returns to his minesweeper game. I guarantee they'll have a vaguely NORAD like NOC 24x7 with dim lights and big screen TVs, with very expensive software to monitor ... their departmental intranet, and maybe they'll have isc.sans.org on refresh every 30 seconds to see whats going on, maybe, but that would probably be too clueful.
All they need to do, is get more admins, more equipment, and tell them to keep up with the times, read slashdot, whatever. The last thing they need is infinitely more commanders and procedures to gum up the works even worse.
Parent
Re:Call it whatever you want (Score:4, Funny)
They're going to have to classify your post. It's way too accurate.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I think a quote from my favourite mini-tv-series "Generation Kill" works well in almost any discussion about "why army X does thing Y like Z when it would be the best to do it like A":
That'll sum it up.
NSA has an inherent conflict of interest. (Score:5, Interesting)
When a group that exploits a communication network system for information is also in charge of its security, what happens when a weakness is found? Do you:
A) Keep the weakness secret so you can exploit it.
B) Publish the fix so your networks are fixed, but also allowing those you may be monitoring to fix as well, and cut off an information source.
Bruce Schneier has a great commentary on this at his blog. [schneier.com]
What ever happened to Trusted PLatform computing? (Score:2)
You might as well say the Army has a conflict of interest since if they have a new weapon they could take over the country.
It's both true and not true. in some countries the army does indeed take over when it wants to. In others it tries to protect it's citizens. Why should the NSA not be expected to do this as well? What is needed is proper oversight.
Now as for How to approach this. I'm utterly puzzled why trusted platform computing (e.g. Palladium) has not take off for government and embedded computin
Re: (Score:2)
What is needed is proper oversight
That's the whole problem. The NSA is already in charge of the entire nation's cyber-security. They just don't want anyone to know about it.
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
What is needed is proper oversight.
That's the whole problem. The NSA has been in charge of cyber-security for the entire nation for years. They junt don't want anyone to know about it.
Re: (Score:2)
The analogy is flawed.
Taking over the country with a weapon requires a violent coup, drawing the opposition of the government and other branches of the military.
Spying on the country without authorization is, by definition, covert, and can be denied or declared a matter of national security.
No it doesn't (Score:2)
The NSA already has full privs on DoD systems.
Re:No it doesn't (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh sure, just make stuff up. If it sounds paranoid enough, maybe some will mod you up. I've been an admin on two different DOD networks now, and in both cases I knew exactly who had full privileged access. In neither case was I even expected to provide our privileged passwords to higher headquarters, much less the NSA. could the NSA have GOTTEN the passwords to our systems? I'm sure, if they went through the proper channels and proved "need to know", but that's hardly the same thing thing as having "full privs on all DOD systems".
Parent
Let's form a committee and ... (Score:1, Funny)
Let's form a committee and draw up a plan. Budget meeting tomorrow!
Other bids (Score:4, Funny)
Homeland Security??? (Score:3, Informative)
The only thing DHS is good at defending is its budget. Their own systems and networks are notoriously mismanaged and vulnerable. You have to go to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to find anything more inept.
The technical talent at NSA is the best in the world. It's their administrative and political leadership that could stand some fumigation.
A few tips for the pentagon (Score:5, Insightful)
In light of the recent hacks of pentagon systems - including China downloading the plans for joint-strike-fighter - shouldn't we focus on strengthening our DEFENSIVE capability first?
I don't see us getting too much useful info from hacking into China/Russia.
Let's focus on keeping them out of our stuff.
Here's a few tips for the DHS/NSA to get them started:
1) Change the password on your router. Everyone knows the default password is "admin." Don't use the word "password" as your password.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/apr/03/politics.usa [guardian.co.uk]
2) Don't run bearshare on computers that contain the plans for the joint strike fighter.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3398730 [democratic...ground.com]
3) If you go on a trip to China, make sure your laptop doesn't have sensitive information on it. If it does, don't leave it in your hotel room.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/30/brownback.china/?iref=hpmostpop [cnn.com]
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2008/05/us-probes-whether-laptop-copied-on-china-trip/ [chinadigitaltimes.net]
4) Download your pr0n at home - don't use work computers because pr0n sites have viruses.
http://seclists.org/politech/2002/Aug/0064.html [seclists.org]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I don't see us getting too much useful info from hacking into China/Russia.
We can go in there and get our information back!
Eagleeye? (Score:2)
Yes, Please (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I like your thinking! In fact, let's develop a brand new bureaucracy that duplicates the efforts of one we already have.
http://www.afcyber.af.mil/
Tom Clancy? (Score:1)
Current system (Score:2)
The pentagon's current security system is the Reactive Embedded Telematic Advanced Relational Data Security system - or R.E.T.A.R.D.S. for short.
http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2009/04/chinese-hackers-nick-joint-strike-fighter-plans.ars [arstechnica.com]
As Great as This Is... (Score:1)
If the Federal Government can issue itself a secret warrant to search my house, you think they're going to give a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally I'd rather see the Pentagon running this than one of the three letter agencies. I don't exactly TRUST the Pentagon (giving one's trust to anything with that many moving parts isn't smart), but I've been around the military long enough in various capacities to feel that IN GENERAL, most military people are legitimately focused on external threats. Not to say that there aren't bad apples everywhere, and certainly the military is as capable of colossal screw-ups as anyone, but at least there is no
Oh good, they're working on SkyNet... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey. Wait a minute.
You just described my project.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You know it's a bad article when the first comment is a troll and all the others whine about the overuse of a word.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, why is it a job for the Air Force, as opposed to the Navy, Army or some other Governmental agency? Offensive cyber-warfare may be a role for the air force, as in blowing up the computers of our adversaries by dropping bombs on them.....
Re:Cyber Security is a job for the Airforce (Score:5, Funny)
Because we don't have a Tube Force?
Parent
Re: (Score:1)
OK, while I agree that cyber- anything has been over used, the Air Force has already stepped forward ahead of the other services to stand up a "Cyber Command". However, USSRATCOM has Cyber warfare and defense in its mission statement. A joint task force is the most likely form of any cyber-related activity, either offensive or defensive. The big problem is, how can you defend against something when it's already inside your walls? The Pentagon's networks have been infiltrated more times than I can count with
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because the Air Force decided to add "cyberspace" into their mission statement to justify asking more money from Congress.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123013440 [af.mil]
Being in the military, its very frustrating knowing a plethora of ways to make your job more secure but lacking the ability to change anything. Most of the branches, instead of pushing the envelope of computing like in the 30s, 40s, and 50s, have removed themselves from the business and contract it out (its not sexy enough and doesn't en
He was trying to troll, but... (Score:2)
Umm, why is it a job for the Air Force, as opposed to the Navy, Army or some other Governmental agency? Offensive cyber-warfare may be a role for the air force, as in blowing up the computers of our adversaries by dropping bombs on them.....
The parent was trying to troll, but the Air Force DID try to hog the "cyber warfare" mission [wired.com], and SecDef Gates slapped them down for it. The Army and Navy protested, and they had a valid point: since all the services rely on computer networks, why should one service have a monopoly on "computer warfare"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Whether the Air Force, NSA, FBI, or whatever agency gains the specific monopoly of offensive cyber warfare in the US is irrelevant. The real question is why the US wants it and the US government wants offensive cyber capabilities for one reason and one reason alone...
China got there first.
Oh, and to 'protect American interests at home and abroad'. Maybe two reasons...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It needs to look like that pyramid thing / eye of God on your money. Heh and the landing pad needs to look like the lower portion of the pyramid.
And make a good whirring sound.