DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech examines the intersection of technology and defense from every angle and provides analysis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • ‘Canes
  • Af-Cam
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the “Buzz”
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Crazy Ivan
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT’s Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • F-35 Watch
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Bubble with Joe Buff
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar’s Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples’ Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward’z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Cyber-warfare » More on the NKorean War Plan Hack

More on the NKorean War Plan Hack

Did you see the news headlines that North Korean hackers may have stolen U.S. war plans to defend South Korea? 

The South Korean military is currently investigating the cyber attack. The plans are said to include an outline of Seoul’s and Washington’s strategy in the event of war on the Korean Peninsula. 

This document included details of military operations involving South Korean and U.S. troops should North Korea conduct a pre-emptive strike or attempt to invade South Korea. This 11 page document was used to brief military and government leaders on the joint U.S. and South Korean military plans. 

One source stated that the document included details about the 700,000 US troops that would be used in the event of a full-scale war. It is also thought to include a list of targets in North Korea.  

The highly sensitive documents appear to have been stolen last month. An unsecure and possibly compromised USB thumb drive was used to copy the document and it is believed that was the means of cyber compromise. 

Sources close to the event say that the systems security software should have issued a warning message if an external memory device is inserted into a military computer, but hackers may have been able to steal the military secrets because a military officer neglected these warning messages and broke regulations.

It was reported that the military officer working at the ROK-U.S. Combined Forces Command was disciplined for mishandling the highly-classified military data. People remain the weakest link in cyber security.

FACT:    The plan title was named OPLAN 5029

FACT:    The U.S. has 28,500 troops based in South Korea.

– Kevin Coleman

Share |

December 23rd, 2009 | Cyber-warfare | 527814 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2009/12/23/more-on-the-nkorean-war-plan-hack/More+on+the+NKorean+War+Plan+Hack2009-12-23+14%3A47%3A11christian You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Afghanistan Experimental Camo — Photos from the Field | US Plans for New ICBM-Killer Take Shape » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. PrivateCitizen says:
    December 23, 2009 at 3:06 pm

    OPLANS are just notional. They get thrown out as soon as the $*** hits the fan.

    Reply
  2. Dave says:
    December 23, 2009 at 4:20 pm

    At least we hope they are just notional! Anyway, I agree that while the plans are probably what any armchair general would propose (targets, purpose, approach, etc.), it is another example of how security in the digital age needs to start with a complete commitment from the individuals responsible for its security. I know that we all make mistakes, but it seems to me that with the UK’s issues of laptops, and our past issues with cyber security would make this an issue that is at the forefront of security personnel on a daily basis. I wonder what affect the new Cyber czar (H. Schmidt) will have on this emphasis. Particularly that he believes the greatest issues are “encryption, strong authentication, and secure software development.” Maybe he needs to add the human element into that summary!

    Reply
    • Kevin says:
      December 23, 2009 at 5:12 pm

      I just asked several people about the “Cyber Czar” and this issue. The answer was loud and clear. THE CYBER CZAR has little if any direct influence over the Military (AKA DoD). That was the overwhelming response.

      Reply
  3. Dave says:
    December 23, 2009 at 6:14 pm

    Thanks so much Kevin on your reporting and follow-up on these issues! I’m curious, does the DoD have centralized leadership on cyber security for the dept., or is it more decentralized toward the departments/branches?

    Reply
    • Kevin says:
      December 23, 2009 at 6:26 pm

      Dave are you talking about U.S. or South Korean DoD?

      Reply
  4. chrisram says:
    December 23, 2009 at 6:24 pm

    I think this story illustrates one of the biggest challenges facing cyber security efforts. You can design and implement the best security regimen in the world but if people act recklessly they put the information and systems being used at risk.

    Reply
  5. Ptsfp says:
    December 23, 2009 at 10:13 pm

    On people acting recklessly or with alternative motives. Most of security issues come from inside, not outside the net. With the recent Fort Hood shootings in mind, what if Hasan worked in DOD IT? What if had access to access to secure documents or sensitive data and decided to hand that info over to insurgents instead of going on a shooting spree?

    Reply
    • Kevin says:
      December 24, 2009 at 12:14 am

      That is a very very interesting point. I think a position paper on this might be in order!

      Reply
  6. TDS4S says:
    December 24, 2009 at 12:23 am

    This is at least the 2nd time the OPLAN was compromised. In 1999, some puke in Seoul left it sitting in a subway on a disk — DPRK agents following him picked it up. DPRK used to bomb us with propaganda leaflets showing us that they knew about 5027–98 (the current version when I was there)..

    PrivateCitizen: I was a Scout PL in the ROK and part of the OPLAN. While the plan for the 2nd 24 hours might be notional, the planned unit locations for the 1st 24 hours are decidedly not notional. Compromise of the OPLAN is a big deal because it provides target locations for their RAGs and DAGs. Of course, with our reduced presence in ROK (and presumably reduced role in any war, specifically counter-battery role), maybe compromise won’t matter that much after all. They already know where the cities and airfields are… it’s the MLRS, ATACMS, and other batteries whose locations they need. If those units aren’t playing anymore (and I have no idea whether they are or not) then the OPLAN doesn’t do them as much good.

    Still, losing the OPLAN at least twice in 10 years is amazingly bad OpSec.

    Reply
  7. DavidB says:
    December 24, 2009 at 7:38 am

    Our DOD banned USB devices exactly because of a similar breach, yet we don’t insist our closest allies take similar precautions. Sad isn’t it.

    Reply
  8. Valcan says:
    December 25, 2009 at 4:19 pm

    Great the laptops being stolen and now this. Now yall know why we didnt want the F22 to be sold overseas as is.

    Heck our enemies dont have to steal anything from us. We give it to our allies who they then steal it from. Depressing

    Reply
  9. Bill says:
    December 30, 2009 at 5:16 pm

    SEAN: Gee thanks for setting me sraight, Sean. If you read what I wrote, you should notice that my comment is predicated on “Deceiving the Human Eye”, and not which toys your enemy has to use. Your statement about Ebay tells me everything I need to know about your combat experience. You read too many books by “other” “experts” and playing war games on your X-Box does not make you a veteran. Anyone who has ever been in the “shiat” will tell you that the most obvious way to gain new equipment is to take it from some dead G.I.s!!! Not frukin Ebay! When I was in V.N., charlie wore black and did pretty well with it. Every snoop and poop outfit in the world wears black camo at night. In V.N. the VC would ambush a unit and take all of their gear

    Reply
  10. Bill says:
    December 30, 2009 at 5:24 pm

    .SEAN.…Part of my post was lost in transmission.…..I said, “In V.N. Charlie would ambush a unit and take their equipment. They would then use their captured M-16s in a fire fight, especially during a night probe of a firebase; we would hear the sound of M-16s and think they were friendlies until it was too late. Fancy toys are only good if just one side has them and there is a constant supply of batteries and it doesn’t rain or get too cold.’ Finally, One Willy Peter round will kick hell out of your night vision toys and maybe blind someone useing it!!!!”

    Reply
  11. W J says:
    December 30, 2009 at 5:30 pm

    I am not trying to be provocative but I must be honest, from what I can see in the pictures the “new” Army Camo looks like a well used painters throw rag. It seems that the Army and the Air Force are like woman in that they must have a new dress for every occasion.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Recent Articles
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
    • And, the Vertical Landing
    • NLOS-LS Missile Fail Could Impact Navy’s LCS
    • JFCOM’s JOE Whacks Defense Industry
    • New F-35B Hover Video
    • China’s Shipbuilding in a Regional Context
    • Debating the Pros and Cons of LCS
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
    Recent Comments
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      F4 was origionally a Navy Fighter, so coming up with a...
      Curt
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      The US Navy was right to bypass congress and develop the...
      Tony C
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      The fly-away cost of a F-22 is between 130 and...
      The Norwegian
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      I reckon that the J-10 would be a good bet. Y'all...
      Chimp
    • Raptor Down (58-40)
      This story never gets old. This plane was never meant to be this...
      DeepThinker
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      um… they already have them. Hunters and...
      Buongi
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      Interesting, though, from my experience, many...
      Buongi
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      Not completely true-remember the Navy can be very picky...
      Chops
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      I think by the end of the year some of those flags are...
      Tom
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      I am not advocating non use of F22s&F35s in daylight...
      Chops
  • Channels:Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty |Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money |Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network:Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz |SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps |Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program |Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy |User Agreement| © 2010 Military Advantage