Comments on: Resignations at the Top of the Cyber Sec Ranks http://defensetech.org/2009/08/10/resignations-at-the-top-of-the-cyber-sec-ranks/ The Future of the Military, Law Enforcement and National Security Sun, 21 Mar 2010 07:27:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: ct anonhttp://defensetech.org/2009/08/10/resignations-at-the-top-of-the-cyber-sec-ranks/comment-page-1/#comment-191432 ct anon Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:03:41 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/2009/08/10/resignations-at-the-top-of-the-cyber-sec-ranks/#comment-191432 Has anyone else put the pieces together? Kwon and Hathaway left their jobs and have landed very well paid positions in the private sector. They could not play well in the rough and tumble world of DC agency pols and they took their money and left. This is the job of NSA - period. DHS is a joke. Kwon will join the long list of folks who have taken their government position only to monetize it in private practice. Your government dollars at work. Has anyone else put the pieces together? Kwon and Hathaway left their jobs and have landed very well paid positions in the private sector. They could not play well in the rough and tumble world of DC agency pols and they took their money and left. This is the job of NSA — period. DHS is a joke.

Kwon will join the long list of folks who have taken their government position only to monetize it in private practice.

Your government dollars at work.

]]> By: Joe Katzmanhttp://defensetech.org/2009/08/10/resignations-at-the-top-of-the-cyber-sec-ranks/comment-page-1/#comment-92087 Joe Katzman Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:47:39 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/2009/08/10/resignations-at-the-top-of-the-cyber-sec-ranks/#comment-92087 It is a top priority. The NSA has won the bureaucratic turf war, and DHS efforts have been ineffective for a long time. So, it will be a top priority. And the NSA will do it. It is a top priority. The NSA has won the bureaucratic turf war, and DHS efforts have been ineffective for a long time.
So, it will be a top priority. And the NSA will do it.

]]> By: Normhttp://defensetech.org/2009/08/10/resignations-at-the-top-of-the-cyber-sec-ranks/comment-page-1/#comment-92086 Norm Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:11:53 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/2009/08/10/resignations-at-the-top-of-the-cyber-sec-ranks/#comment-92086 This is further evidence of the Administration's inability to identify the core problems it is facing. There is no experience guiding the Ship of State. This is further evidence of the Administration’s inability to identify the core problems it is facing. There is no experience guiding the Ship of State.

]]> By: shawnhttp://defensetech.org/2009/08/10/resignations-at-the-top-of-the-cyber-sec-ranks/comment-page-1/#comment-92082 shawn Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:23:12 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/2009/08/10/resignations-at-the-top-of-the-cyber-sec-ranks/#comment-92082 Sounds like History repeating again- this sounds exactly like the problems with the Intelligence community- the WH appointed someone to be "DoI" over the CIA, FBI, DOD Intel, NSA, etc., yet since the DoI was from the CIA, the only department that ever listened was the CIA. Problems with InterAgency politics, trust, security levels, etc. prevents there from being a true "Intel Czar" as was intended. On top of that, by streamlining and standardizing (cyber security, intel ops, etc), it, by design, because easier to navigate the whole lot (easier for each departments employees, easier for the 'czar's' people, and easier for the enemies), which is another thing all departments are against. Not to mention, if something is implemented and fails, it will fail catastrophically affecting the entire lot at once as opposed to being limited to a single department at worst. Sorry I have no suggestions on how to resolve this, other than the 'czar' will need to remember (as others have said before me) that they can't strong-arm their way in- they will have to be equal parts politician and technician, knowing both what must be done, and how to persuade those from each area to implement the common ideas for the common good (without pissing anyone off or making them feel threatened). Sounds like History repeating again– this sounds exactly like the problems with the Intelligence community– the WH appointed someone to be “DoI” over the CIA, FBI, DOD Intel, NSA, etc., yet since the DoI was from the CIA, the only department that ever listened was the CIA. Problems with InterAgency politics, trust, security levels, etc. prevents there from being a true “Intel Czar” as was intended.
On top of that, by streamlining and standardizing (cyber security, intel ops, etc), it, by design, because easier to navigate the whole lot (easier for each departments employees, easier for the ‘czar’s’ people, and easier for the enemies), which is another thing all departments are against. Not to mention, if something is implemented and fails, it will fail catastrophically affecting the entire lot at once as opposed to being limited to a single department at worst. Sorry I have no suggestions on how to resolve this, other than the ‘czar’ will need to remember (as others have said before me) that they can’t strong-arm their way in– they will have to be equal parts politician and technician, knowing both what must be done, and how to persuade those from each area to implement the common ideas for the common good (without pissing anyone off or making them feel threatened).

]]> By: armyanonhttp://defensetech.org/2009/08/10/resignations-at-the-top-of-the-cyber-sec-ranks/comment-page-1/#comment-92081 armyanon Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:42:02 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/2009/08/10/resignations-at-the-top-of-the-cyber-sec-ranks/#comment-92081 These people are all quitting to force Barack to pick someone sooner rather than later. Get their story in the media, get some attention, get an interview showing why you understand the problems better than anyone else, and then get appointed. These people are all quitting to force Barack to pick someone sooner rather than later. Get their story in the media, get some attention, get an interview showing why you understand the problems better than anyone else, and then get appointed.

]]> By: Fredhttp://defensetech.org/2009/08/10/resignations-at-the-top-of-the-cyber-sec-ranks/comment-page-1/#comment-92080 Fred Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:58:49 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/2009/08/10/resignations-at-the-top-of-the-cyber-sec-ranks/#comment-92080 REMEMBER we are at WAR, & not in good shape as to CYBER STUFF at all! What is supposed to keep us safe in 2012 is already hacked! There was a FEDERAL COURT CASE involving RAYTHEON & it turned out that the best way to keep stuff secure ,was not to follow the FED. RULE BOOK ,(that everone knew).A PRINCIPAL,OWNER,HERO,WITH TOP CLEARANCE EX-MILITARY KNEW HOW TO DO THE JOB! Maybe the post should be secret, private & given to a TOP MICROSOFT EX-MILITARY ENGINEER with the skills & resources to REALLY DO THE JOB. REMEMBER we are at WAR, & not in good shape as to CYBER STUFF at all! What is supposed to keep us safe in 2012 is already hacked! There was a FEDERAL COURT CASE involving RAYTHEON & it turned out that the best way to keep stuff secure ‚was not to follow the FED. RULE BOOK ‚(that everone knew).A PRINCIPAL,OWNER,HERO,WITH TOP CLEARANCE EX-MILITARY KNEW HOW TO DO THE JOB! Maybe the post should be secret, private & given to a TOP MICROSOFT EX-MILITARY ENGINEER with the skills & resources to REALLY DO THE JOB.

]]> By: anonhttp://defensetech.org/2009/08/10/resignations-at-the-top-of-the-cyber-sec-ranks/comment-page-1/#comment-92078 anon Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:08:52 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/2009/08/10/resignations-at-the-top-of-the-cyber-sec-ranks/#comment-92078 Anotheranon, that is a good point and sort of fits into both #2 and #3 of my points in my original post...certain agency sees a threat to its own power, control, authority, etc, add that with the "one size fits all" approach each agency would take to the problem. In your example about FBI vs DHS vs NSA, each agency just wants to take what works in their world and apply it to everyone else. That will surely fail. Anotheranon, that is a good point and sort of fits into both #2 and #3 of my points in my original post…certain agency sees a threat to its own power, control, authority, etc, add that with the “one size fits all” approach each agency would take to the problem. In your example about FBI vs DHS vs NSA, each agency just wants to take what works in their world and apply it to everyone else. That will surely fail.

]]> By: another anonhttp://defensetech.org/2009/08/10/resignations-at-the-top-of-the-cyber-sec-ranks/comment-page-1/#comment-92077 another anon Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:20:40 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/2009/08/10/resignations-at-the-top-of-the-cyber-sec-ranks/#comment-92077 the reason this job isn't getting filled is because a certain agency is stomping around threatening to throw a tantrum unless the czar is someone they own, and this agency hasn't done anything under either the past or present administrations to get it any new bureaucratic favors on the Hill. citananon, even if NSA is theoretically the "lead agency" (presumably for response and standards-setting), actually having the entire national cybersecurity strategy run out of NSA, or any other department, pretty much guarantees that it will be the strategy that is in that department's best interest and defined by its primary responsibilities. For example, a cybersecurity strategy defined by NSA is going to involve lots of shitting ourselves about Chinese spies, lots of expansion of collection authorities, and nothing about cybercrime or enforcement. If Homeland Security ran it it would be all about having national cyber task force centers with as many DHS-employed people and as much DHS-badged infrastructure as possible and be run by people who don't actually know anything about the intertubes. If FBI ran it it would be about trying to define new cybercrime legislation and get prosecutions under it, and screw standards-setting, education, and herding industry. You can't win by having a department run the show. the reason this job isn’t getting filled is because a certain agency is stomping around threatening to throw a tantrum unless the czar is someone they own, and this agency hasn’t done anything under either the past or present administrations to get it any new bureaucratic favors on the Hill.
citananon, even if NSA is theoretically the “lead agency” (presumably for response and standards-setting), actually having the entire national cybersecurity strategy run out of NSA, or any other department, pretty much guarantees that it will be the strategy that is in that department’s best interest and defined by its primary responsibilities.
For example, a cybersecurity strategy defined by NSA is going to involve lots of shitting ourselves about Chinese spies, lots of expansion of collection authorities, and nothing about cybercrime or enforcement. If Homeland Security ran it it would be all about having national cyber task force centers with as many DHS-employed people and as much DHS-badged infrastructure as possible and be run by people who don’t actually know anything about the intertubes. If FBI ran it it would be about trying to define new cybercrime legislation and get prosecutions under it, and screw standards-setting, education, and herding industry.
You can’t win by having a department run the show.

]]> By: Kevinhttp://defensetech.org/2009/08/10/resignations-at-the-top-of-the-cyber-sec-ranks/comment-page-1/#comment-92076 Kevin Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:34:55 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/2009/08/10/resignations-at-the-top-of-the-cyber-sec-ranks/#comment-92076 Thanks gsak Kevin Thanks gsak
Kevin

]]> By: citanonhttp://defensetech.org/2009/08/10/resignations-at-the-top-of-the-cyber-sec-ranks/comment-page-1/#comment-92075 citanon Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:30:26 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/2009/08/10/resignations-at-the-top-of-the-cyber-sec-ranks/#comment-92075 Why is the NSA not the lead on cyber security? Why is the NSA not the lead on cyber security?

]]>