Earlier this year, President Obama said that “the nation’s digital infrastructure is under near constant attack.”
That statement came on the heels of the head of the Pentagon’s Strategic Command warning Congress that the United States is vulnerable to cyber attacks “across the spectrum.” In mid-January of this year, outgoing National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell said that “cyber security is the soft underbelly of this country,” in a valedictory address to reporters.
He went as far to rate the problem as significant as that of Iran having developed a nuclear weapon. Earlier this year the FBI said it considers cyber attacks to be the third greatest threat to the security of the United States. The only two preceding it are nuclear war and weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
It isn’t just the United States that is concerned about cyber attacks. Suleyman Anil of NATO said, “cyber defense is now mentioned at the highest level along with missile defense and energy security. We have seen more of these attacks and we don’t think this problem will disappear soon. Unless globally supported measures are taken, it can become a global problem.” In addition, UK Security Minister Lord West issued a warning that al Qaida is planning on launching a cyber attack against the power grid, financial systems and the government.
A number of non-classified reports have found that our nation is at risk of being unable to fight off cyber attacks unless we strengthen cyber security. A significant amount of information pertaining to these attacks is classified. Disclosure of this information could cause SERIOUS DAMAGE to national security or foreign relations. That is why more information about these threats and events are not public.
Too often people fail to understand the potential risk and sensitivities needed to deal with cyber attacks.
Those individuals conducting classified work and dealing with and responding to breaches and attacks all agree, the magnitude of this threat ranks among the most severe threats to our national security. So with all these people who are “in the know” warning about this threat, why is it that there is still a moderate amount of people who do not believe it and call it fear mongering.
Thank you. Makes me feel better knowing you’re around.
>He went as far to rate the problem as significant as that of Iran having developed a nuclear weapon.
Yea Iran launches a nuke, it hits Tel Aiv and 50,000 people die.
Lets hear your cyber scenario for that death toll Kevin if the problems are just as significant. No more bullshit beat-ups, pot head
I think it’s a simple solution you have primary secondary and third computers or mainframes with different levels of security and freedom and/or operating systems. Also setting up protocols where people cannot bring information to and from the worksite as well as making computers that do not have drives or usb ports that you can extract material or install material. Same concept used when on the internet the computer can only recieve imformation info and thats it or send info and that it. You have different layers with simplistic jobs. That way if one layer is compromised it doesn’t compromise the other and is remedied before it can spread also we should be producing aggressive programs to target individuals who are doing this. example sending a virus that infects the power management on there computers burning it out or blowing it up. Making new chips or computers with secret markers that can identify there exact location regardless of where they are and the chips itself would have a built in program that would be activated to do so when a computer writes an agressive program. Consumers would not have to know the chips have secret programs to call them out. Possibilities are endless on how you can tackle cyber security and how it can be made very effective. Nothing is 100 percent. Even creating different language for computers, Secure computers that is not compatabile with windows or other operating systems. The people writing the program first would not know why and what program they were writing because they and the program would be so fragmented. Secondly few knew, if the program was compromised you would know who is responsible. I’m not an expert, in theory it works well. The experts need to make it happen. Yes I can.
“So with all these people who are ‘in the know’ warning about this threat, why is it that there is still a moderate amount of people who do not believe it and call it fear mongering“
Like counterterrorism, most cyber work is heavily classified. Unlike CT work, there hasn’t been a major, 9/11-like attack that proves the threat is real. Even for people with clearances, it’s very hard to get much info on cyber threats — it’s so classified, and even experts are so uncertain about what is and is not classified, it’s hard to share information. Simply trusting the experts is not a good answer — if the Iraq War taught us anything, it’s that expert advice can be distorted and manipulated like anything else.
I believe cyber attacks are a real, grave problem — but if our leaders are really serious about addressing this, they need to do more to declassify info about the threat and share it, both with cleared professionals and the public. ‘Trust me’ just isn’t good enough.
“So with all these people who are “in the know” warning about this threat, why is it that there is still a moderate amount of people who do not believe it and call it fear mongering.“
I’ll give you 3.6 Trillion reason why. The different agencies all scrambling for appropriations of federal dollars ($3.6 Trillion for FY 2010) and each wants their “fair” share.
Everyone has a stake in Cyber because everyone has systems. But whose responsiblity is it, DHS, DoD, FBI, the States, or maybe the NSA?
As you have written before, there is no cyber foreign plicy to note. The legal framework locally, nationally, and internationally is disjointed at best.
And with DoD standing up CYBERCOMMAND and DHS trying to figure out its domestic role and where those lanes in the road run its no wonder there is a unified voice in dissent concerning the threat publically. Privacy versus security is an age old argument, that as other pointed out may require a Cyber 9/11 event as a public wake up call. Unti then the quiet work behind fences inside vaults etc will continue, our budgets indicate congress gets it.
“So with all these people who are “in the know” warning about this threat, why is it that there is still a moderate amount of people who do not believe it and call it fear mongering.“
I’ll give you 3.6 Trillion reason why. The different agencies all scrambling for appropriations of federal dollars ($3.6 Trillion for FY 2010) and each wants their “fair” share.
Everyone has a stake in Cyber because everyone has systems. But whose responsiblity is it, DHS, DoD, FBI, the States, or maybe the NSA?
As you have written before, there is no cyber foreign plicy to note. The legal framework locally, nationally, and internationally is disjointed at best.
And with DoD standing up CYBERCOMMAND and DHS trying to figure out its domestic role and where those lanes in the road run its no wonder there is a unified voice in dissent concerning the threat publically. Privacy versus security is an age old argument, that as other pointed out may require a Cyber 9/11 event as a public wake up call. Until then the quiet work behind fences inside vaults etc will continue, our budgets indicate congress gets it.
SGT Oblat
I thought we were done having to hear you trash. I guess that was wishful thinking. Do us all a favor — if you have something to contribute do it professionally! Or are you going to be thrown off here like you were on other sites?
Then we can all have a good laugh.
Posted by: Sgt Oblat at September 21, 2009 09:31 AM
Your obviously very very dense. Heard about plans to connect all the powerplants? Upgrade the energy grid? Lets see what else is there from insurance corp computers. To scrambling our satelites to breaking into our drone controls to stealing more government info to well it just keeps going.
Read any strategy book and it says one thing. Knowledge is power. Of course none of the things i mentioned above matter realy do they?
“Yea Iran launches a nuke, it hits Tel Aiv and 50,000 people die“
Yea and a global war starts as israel retaliates and syria joins in iraq becomes even more of a battle ground. Of course knowing iranian missiles one or 2 might fail blaketting iraq or maybe jordan. More fallout. Saudi arabia and other golf states join one after another. The war cuts off oil flow resulting in a economic crash that makes the present day recession look like a easy day.
Or they sell a few war heads to terrorist or NK or well the list are very very long.
Of course lets let them have the nukes thats not our worry.
Oh wait my bad forgot those 50,000 people were mostly just Jews so who cares.
Oblat come on man.
Kevin you really rock!!! Your previous post was about the State Department needing to take the lead. Within 2 weeks the following came out today (September 21st, 2009)
Brown professor to advise State Department on cyber affairs
http://www.physorg.com/wire-news/15004837/brown-professor-to-advise-state-department-on-cyber-affairs.html
John Savage, professor of computer science, is Brown’s first Jefferson Science Fellow and the first computer scientist to serve in that capacity. He will advise the State Department on cyber affairs. You have their ear and without question you have the insight to chart where things are going in cyber warfare. No wonder Harvard had you lecture. Keep up the great work.
The sock puppet parade after every one of your posts is getting real old, Kevin.
We
WHAT IS GETTING OLD ARE THOSE WHO MAKE POSTS TRASH — Keep it professional. Intelligent discussions seem to be too high of a goal for several people on here!
Guys you can laugh all you want, but this is a real threat. The fact is that our government and military leaders are taking this very seriously, especially the Air Force.
According to an Air Force Integrator article, over 100 million has been spent this year alone in beefing up the security on the grid. The Air Force has standardized their over 500,000 workstations and even started up a Cyberspace Operations Executive Course at Maxwell Air Force Base.
The government is getting the message, slow but sure, and is taking steps in securing our nation.
http://integrator.hanscom.af.mil/2009/June/06042009/06042009–15.htm
Daniel Dieterle
>The Air Force has standardized their over 500,000 workstations
So upgrading to vista is cyberwar
Sgt Oblat, obviously you are clueless when it comes to IT tech, so I will try to explain it in simple terms.
When you “standardize” you make all of your equipment similar so you can keep better control of it. You no longer have Windows 95, 98, Vista, Linux, 2000 and Vista on different machines. You have the same level software across the board. This closes many open doors. Vista isn’t perfect, but it is a whole heck of a lot more secure than Windows 98.
So, please try to keep your clueless comments to other pro-liberal wingnut sites, and leave this blog for the big boys.
US army is the strongest but the solder’s life is precious.
Standardizing your systems is actually a double-edged sword — on the one hand, you have fewer systems to monitor and maintain; on the other, the enemy hacks or compromises that OS, you’ve got more machines at risk. You have the same problem if you network all your systems — more info sharing, but more vulnerability.
A better indication that the AF is serious is the institutional muscle it’s putting behind cyber with a Numbered AF and formal doctrine. Although there’s still a looong way to go.
ya mahdi adrekni hello world . oo khahad amad.