Comments on: A Big Pot of Money

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 06:56:48 +0000

The Digital DNA is for a being developed as a commercial product for use by law enforcement, businesses and the defense and intelligence industry. It is not classified nor is it protected under For Official Use Only Information. This was openly discussed at a security conference and on a webinar earlier this year. I do go to great lengths as not to provide any direct or derivative intelligence in these pieces. I appreciate your concern and for the record I did leave out some of the more interesting aspects of the Digital DNA concept and product for the reasons you mentioned. Believe me there are many subjects that I have been asked to write on that I have declined for the security reasons.

By: Bob Grinders

Bob Grinders — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 06:55:20 +0000

DID YOU EVER CONSIDER — hackers knowing we can trace the attack code back to them is a deterrent? I saw Kevin present on this back in the fall of 2004 at a Venture Capital conference in Silicon Valley. What you don’t realize is that all antivirus software works on the code signatures derived from a virus database. This is an evolution of what is been going on for years.

By: Jay

Jay — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:54:18 +0000

You continue to provide really interesting information, Kevin.
I’m curious as to your source for the funding breakdown.

By: Camp

Camp — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 23:42:36 +0000

Regarding the DNA_DB. Is it being implemented by the government, private sector, or a collaborative endeavor? And who exactly will have access to the information? My faith in the expediency of a federal bureaucracy is a bit lacking. Not to mention, isn’t this already being done, to some extent, by the private sector (ie. anti-bug companies)?
http://www.symantec.com/business/security_response/threatexplorer/threats.jsp
https://forums.symantec.com/syment/blog?blog.id=emerging
Sure, code can be categorized by human preferences & discrepancy (as well as device variances, etc.), but such information could also be falsified. Calling it “evidence” is a bit too definitive, in my humble opinion. And wouldn’t a DNA_DB also allow entities to “cut & paste” or create code, in order to hide their own “tells”? :\
Then there is the “So what!” defense. What if a country is caught with their hand in the honey jar? They can still blame it on another country, a private entity, have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, or claim NATO brought in the Mig-29 to shoot down that drone. :| After all, who has ever gone to war over data?
Maybe countries will one day sign treaties & international bans prohibiting malicious code use… eh, probably not.
For those who are curious & bored…
http://snort.org/
http://www.sans.org/resources/idfaq
http://www.honeypots.net/
http://www.honeynet.org/
http://nmap.org/

By: Bradyb

Bradyb — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:10:51 +0000

$30 billion is nothing. Expect that to triple in the next 2–3 years. We’re only starting to understand the capabilities of China, India and even rouge code breakers/virus’s. It’s madness! http://www.madnessletters.com

By: Kevin S.

Kevin S. — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 06:43:19 +0000

I imagine the USA has been ahead of the game for some time in secret, but now that the profile of the issue has risen to material public concern it’s going to get more funding and become official.

By: Col

Col — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:39:19 +0000

I have just read everything you posted on this cyber warfare blog. I must say I am impressed. Although, I had heard of your work before from some of my staff so it was expected. That being said, I must say it has left me wondering — if this is what you are willing to share openly, how interesting the topics must be you discuss in a closed/classified setting! I will be contacting you shortly.

By: SpyGuy

SpyGuy — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:05:06 +0000

By: Old Sailor

Old Sailor — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:51:32 +0000

“Loose lips sink ships” still applies…

By: Kevin

Kevin — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:51:31 +0000