Homeland Security Unveils New Cyber Security Strategy Amid Threats

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security on Tuesday unveiled a new national strategy for addressing the growing number of cyber security risks as it works to assess them and reduce vulnerabilities. From a report: "The cyber threat landscape is shifting in real-time, and we have reached a historic turning point," DHS chief Kirstjen Nielsen said in a statement. "It is clear that our cyber adversaries can now threaten the very fabric of our republic itself." The announcement comes amid concerns about the security of the 2018 U.S. midterm congressional elections and numerous high-profile hacking of U.S. companies.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Kellyanne looks road hard and put away wet.

Re:

[Desler]

Hottie-in-chief! Aside from Kellyanne Conway, there's nobody cuter in the Trump admin.

Wow you must have a low bar for cuteness if you think Mrs. Skeletor is cute.

Re:Kirstjen Nielsen

[HarrySquatter]

I’m sure Michelle Obama is real worried about what an alt-right incel thinks about her.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

you need to get out of your mom's basement more bro

Reminds me of

[raymorris]

Your comment reminds me of this old meme:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals... [pinimg.com]

Anyway, anyone have anything to say about cybersecurity policy?

Re:

[UnknownSoldier]

Yeah, right [thedailybeast.com]

Just unplug shit...

[cayenne8]

...how about starting to just unplug everything that does NOT need to be plugged into the greater internet, eh?

That would be a GREAT start.

They need to after Trump hatefully...

[greenwow]

Enacted the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

The act was passed in a Democrat-majority Senate 93-5. Trump only crosses the aisle when it hurts America.

Re:

[greenwow]

> The whole act was a charade,

If true, then why did the vast majority of both parties vote on moving it to Jerusalem?

Simpler explanation

[Okian Warrior]

The whole act was a charade, Trump was just the only President dumb enough to do something that only manages to achieve a useless outcome.

So you're saying that a Democratically controlled congress and a Democratic president got together and *agreed* to pass a law but not enforce it?

And that subsequent presidents were "in" on it, and agreed to abide by the decision?

In that scenario, how many people would have had to get together and agree to this secret pact?

Or is there a simpler explanation?

(I'm curious to hear your views on the moon landing, the assassination of Kennedy, and what actually took down the 9/11 towers. Care to enlighten us?)

Re:

[greenwow]

But they knew this shouldn't happen. They all voted on the assumption this wouldn't actually happen.

Re:

[jbengt]

So you're saying that a Democratically controlled congress and a Democratic president got together and *agreed* to pass a law but not enforce it?

It was a Republican majority congress at the time (though many Democrats voted for it, too), and it was never signed by the Democratic president (though never vetoed by him, either).

Re: Simpler explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

I assure you, both Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole were 100% Democrat party members.

They passed the law as part of the leftwing time travel agenda to subvert Trump by making him do stupid things he could easily avoid.

Wow

[Okian Warrior]

Just because the Democrats in the House and Senate and the Democrat President previously approved this doesn't mean it is right for Trump to do. Trump has caused a serious cyber security problem for the US.

Wow, that's the first time I've heard *that* one.

Mathematically speaking, from the "game theory" part of mathematics, what is the are the costs of the "serious cyber security problem" that Trump has caused, and which didn't exist prior to moving the embassy, compared with the costs of *not* moving the embassy?

(Hint: Take the current amount of cyber threat, subtract the amount from before moving the embassy, and discount the cost due to economies of scale. IOW, battling 12 threats isn't that much expensive i

Re:

[greenwow]

Just because the Democrats in the House and Senate and the Democrat President previously approved this doesn't mean it is right for Trump to do. Trump has caused a serious cyber security problem for the US.

But we voted against this knowing it wouldn't happen. We never expected a President like Trump to ever be elected that would actually do what the passed bill required.

Re:

[Locke2005]

Will you all still be excited about giving Trump a Nobel Peace prize when some terrorist settles the Jerusalem problem once and for all by detonating a dirty bomb outside the new embassy, rendering all of Jerusalem uninhabitable for the next 10,000 years?

Probably not

[Okian Warrior]

Will you all still be excited about giving Trump a Nobel Peace prize when some terrorist settles the Jerusalem problem once and for all by detonating a dirty bomb outside the new embassy, rendering all of Jerusalem uninhabitable for the next 10,000 years?

Probably not, but they said the same thing about North Korea.

I'm willing to let the situation play out and see what the outcome is.

Re:

[Alypius]

I'm curious why you think bad people doing bad things is somehow Trump's fault? Would it not also, then, be the Senate Minority Leader's [cnn.com] fault? Quit projecting the actions of murderous despicable vermin onto your political opponents.

Re:

[Alypius]

Do you not realize what a retarded proposition that is?

Biggest Risk

[zmaragdus]

Nielsen said the government “must think beyond the defense of specific assets — and confront systemic risks that affect everyone from tech giants to homeowners.”


So....people themselves.

paper ballots

[sdinfoserv]

The report underscores the fact that not every little thing needs to be connected. Paper Ballots are just fine - outside of Florida, where apparently, they can't figure them out.

New strategy?

[smooth wombat]

This new strategy must be why the con artist eliminated the top cyber adviser post [politico.com].

After all, what better way to counter cybersecurity threats than eliminating the person in charge of overall cybersecurity.

2 pronged attack

[Snotnose]

First, force the TLAs to reveal every goddamn hole they know about so the vendors can fix them and we'll all be safer.

Second, if a site gets hacked via a known vulnerability the entire CXX suite goes to jail and, when released, are barred from an executive position for 10 years. If people are killed (power plant "accidents", etc) they go to jail for life. This will change the "it's too expensive to fix" calculus.

Too bad neither of these will ever happen.

Freedom From Privacy

[Humbubba]

By now, it's obvious the state would rather we be vulnerable than to reduce or eliminate their cyber arsenal's abilities. They've turned our PCs, tablets, smart phones and TVs into surveillance devices. They see encryption as a threat. They have done nothing to adequately protect the power grid. Our electoral system is designed by law to keep hidden any evidence of successful vote tampering. Back doors, zero-days, and other things have been kept hidden even from their manufacturers, who would fix the proble