Slashdot Mirror
Bush Wants an Unhackable Private Network
Slur points out an article at the New York Times which says that the "Bush administration is considering the creation of a secure new government communications network separate from the Internet that would be less vulnerable to attack and efforts to disrupt critical federal activities," writing "It seems to me money would be better spent getting the next-generation Internet going, for the government to fund more of the existing research and standards boards to create protocols that are invulnerable to the kinds of attacks the government seems to fear, namely massive DOS attacks. Or is there something else a 'net terrorist' could do to 'disrupt the vital flow of information'?" Isn't hard-to-disrupt communication the reason that DARPA got involved in this "Internet" business anyhow? Update: 11/19 22:48 GMT by T : This was mentioned before a little while ago when USA Today wrote about the same concept, but apparently a Digital Pearl Harbor is still being flogged.
One more person who says they invented the internet (or in this case, the Neo-Internet)
Do I need to say that the only network that can't be hacked is the network isn't connected to anything? All this will be doing is creating a new challenge for a new generation of hackers and crakers. But then again, it will result in some interesting technological develpments, so I can think of things that could be worse wastes of taxes.
Sleep is for the weak!
It seems to me that if this Clarke is qualified to advise the President on network matters, his first piece of advice would be "Umm, Mr. President, only lamers use the term 'Cyberspace' these days."
Takahashi Rumiko made beats! DON, taku, DON, taku. . .
Bruce Schneier has an informative story about this in the November 15 CRYPTO-GRAM, including some of the pros and cons. Basically, he says it would be better than what they have now, but still not all that great (he points out that the government already has several separate, secure internets, for various purposes, and they were still infected by Melissa and LoveLetter). And that this is one of the few cases where security and convenience might really be inversely proportional.
-- Some things are to be believed, though not susceptible to rational proof.
:Isn't hard-to-disrupt communication the reason that DARPA got involved in this "Internet" business anyhow?
Yup
How long will that 'unhackability' last...?
Wasn't this covered back in Sept?
Of course, if the whole network is obscured. A logical temporary solution to higher security is to give less people access to the network. If you want to keep your money safe, put your safe in your house, don't leave the safe outside where anyone walking by can attempt the combination.
Bush may not know it, but these already exist in the form of SIPRNET, and INTELNET.
SIPRNET
SECRET INTERNET PROTOCOL ROUTER NETWORK
SIPRNET will replace the DSNET-1 during the migration to DISN. It operates at the SECRET Collateral level and can interface with the TROJAN network. It provides higher and selectable data rates at a much lower O&M recurring cost. Inter-site data rates are 512 Kbps and in some cases T-1. Users can connect to the network at selectable data rates that meet the need.
INTELNET
NAVAL INTELLIGENCE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
The NICS is designed to consolidate Naval Intelligence communications systems. The system has three parts. INTELCAST plan calls for each FOCIC or Facility to consolidate up to 12 different message traffic circuits, including OPINTEL, MUSIC, FIST, and DODIIS through INTELDATA extended in an SCI LAN Extension and Stand Alone capability configuration. The SCI LAN encompasses a full suite of SOCRATES equipment, including workstations, secondary imagery dissemination systems, and a mapping and graphics capability. The Stand Alone capability provides a workstation with tailored data bases specific to unit operational orientation. Stand Alone capabilities are being provided to Guard and Reserve units as well as to certain active, lower-echelon units.
NIPRNET
UNIFORM INTERNET PROTOCOL ROUTER NETWORK
The NIPRNET is the consolidation of several service/agencies networks (AFNET, NAVNET, MILNET) with common protocols and standards. It is a product of the DISN near Term Program, which sought a reduction in cost of operation through interoperability and standardization. Connectivity over high-speed trunking is supported by the NIPRNET. It operates at the unclassified level, while the SIPRNET supports classified networks in a similar manner.
--Chag
--Chag
SIPRNET
It seems to me this would evolve just the way the Internet did before; it would at first be used just by government agencies, next given to the large defense contractors, eventually adopted by the research universities, and then swallowed whole by Joe Public. This, IMHO, is the best way to get the next-gen Internet.
And I want Bambi's father to come back, but it ain't gonna happen. Sorry to disappoint you with this Real World stuff, Dubyuh, but there's no such thing....
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
I want a secure private network too. But those damn script kiddies just won't leave me alone.
Wouldn't creating a wholly separate network for restricted traffic be a bit counterproductive?
I mean and spy/hacker who found a physical location to hack into it (i.e. tapping into a line on a phone pole or at a phone company switch) would find *everything* on that network to be of interest. In essence they would have hit the jackpot for illicit information. We're kind enough to organise it away for them.
True it would probably prevent 15 year old script kiddies from casually hacking in at home, but it would make any break into that 'other' network all the more catostrophic prospect.
Time to dig out your War Dialers, there are bound to be dial ups on this thing. What's a War Dialer you ask? /me shakes head. Kids these days...
Note to self: No more arguing with the faithful.
Do you think maybe George and Barbara didn't get li'l George what he wanted for christmas as a tot?
I wanna missile defence system, I want the bestest internet for me and my govt buddies, I want Osama's head on a plate. They should just sit him down in front constant toy commercials, at least then his requests might be possible, unless someone forgets to preorder that shiny he xbox
Hasent the US Gov't/Military been using a provate network for years? Like the military would trust the ever uncertain internet for life or death communications.
You mean like SIPRNET?
The problem is that much of the 'vital information' in today's society flows over the public internet - by definition. Sure, take military command and control comms out of band - that makes perfect sense anyway, which is probably why there are several separate, highly secure military and governmental IP internetworks that are supposed to be completely separate from the public Net. (Although, as Bruce Schnier points out in the latest Cryptogram, ILoveYou made it onto the 'secure' network within 48 hours...
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
What he's asking for is like asking for poison-free food. Sure, the ovens can be locked and the food can be tested over and over, but the cook is still there.
The only concievable way to do this is to either:
a) Eliminate Government Data Access to All But the Highest Officials (which still poses the same problem, in theory) or
b) Eliminate the network altogether.
Bush is asking for something that isn't possible because social engineering and the "inside job" is the oldest way to hack any system of anything. Hacking didn't start with computers, bank vaults, locks, jewelry stashes... they were all done in the past with inside work.
It's impossible because of human error and human presence.
They will probably start from the ground up. They probably will create a lot new technology on the way which will in turn be useful for us. Just like the space program.
It seems to me that it would be foolish to think that a country that is heavily dependant on the Internet, could not be brought to its knees by attacking the commerce bearing infrastructure. This smacks a little less like 'Fortress USA' and more like 'Fortress US Gov't'.
I guess it just seems like a short sighted approach. Its not even a quick fix, just a narrow view.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
It would seem that a non-military network already exists that meets these criteria, in the form of the Fed's inter-office communications.
Maybe this is highly specialized, and maybe I'm naive as to its relative security merits, but it would seem that a network that handles so many high-level banking transactions would have to be fairly private, secure, and robust.
- jlph
This all exists. This all has already been said and done. Then WHY does Mr. Bush, the only man with access to every bit of information this country has to offer, think that he has to develop a "new" internet. Obviously a new 'net already exists, all it needs to do is expand and be standardized. *shakes head* Sometimes I am actually ashamed to be a citizen of the USA, but only sometimes.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
The odds of creating a totally unhackable network are about as good as winning the "war on terrorism".
Both are impossible.
I've been wondering just how susceptible Mae West and it's ilk are to terrorist attacks.
It seems to me that it wouldn't take a whole lot of bang to bring the internet to it's knees.
Funny how it was originally designed to be immune to this sort of stuff.
Why doesn't he demand an eternal-machine and cold fusion as well? Oh, and don't forget world-peace.
Frankly I think he'll have better luck attaining those three than an unhackable network.
Of course, what the Bush Administration Considers as information flow is questionable. The Bush Administration supports the WTO TRIPS agreement, as well as the authority of the WIPO. Unfortunately, when developing countries are in need of affordable pharmecuticals, Bush will advocate that compulsory patents are not issued, yet when an Anthrax scare hits the US, Bush will be a hypocrite and issue compulsory patents to aquire cheap Ciprofloxin!
The Bush Administration has a poor record when it comes to Information Freedom. Bush has, for example,picked the pro-privatization James Rogan to head of the US Patent Office. The USPTO is in dire need of reform, as business interests are able to push through unacceptable and barely reviewed patents.I doubt Rogan is the person to reform the US PTO.
Fight for Information Freedom!
Perhaps in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation, he could contract Al Gore to invent one?
Bush administration is considering the creation of a secure new government communications network separate from the Internet that would be less vulnerable to attack and efforts to disrupt critical federal activities.
That's funny, I've always wanted the creation of an insecure anonymous non-government communications network separate (or on top of) the Internet that would be less vulnerable to efforts to regulate non-critical non-federal activities.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
None of the major backbones are willing to provide IPv6 connections. The U.S. Government contracts out almost all of its long-haul communication requirements. They used to get AT&T to build underground bunkers for them, but now they get nothing. Why not start by requiring IPv6 in all government RFPs/RFQs for long-haul comm? That should provide an instant market to kick-start IPv6, complete with all the security features that have already been designed.
I'd be really interested to know how Mr. Clarke et al are going to come up with believable cost figures for this unhackable network, particularly as what makes a network hackable is NOT so much the routers, bandwidth, etc. as the due diligence done by the managers, which is an ongoing expense. (The exception might be for a physically secure signalling infrastructure... anyone know how to keep a physical network from being blown up or jammed?) But I just don't see how this would hold up in the long run... bad security inevitably drives out good if human operators (and usability drivers) have anything to do with its maintenance. Perhaps the money would indeed be better spent deploying IPv6 on a large scale, which is probably the only way we will see it replace IPv4. Since this network ultimately subsume the existing Internet or be subsumed by it, it seems best to keep this end in mind.
#!
It might be a better idea to support research into strong encryption, good protocols, etc. Maybe. But this is a pretty good idea. Think of all the boneheaded things they could have done instead: outlawed tools that could potentially break encryption. Outlawed computers that don't pass a "security audit" which required that all security-related source code be closed (effectively killing off Linux). Or worse still, done nothing and left sensitive government data floating around on the Internet, weakly encrypted.
This isn't a half-bad idea. A private network is still of course vulnerable, but it's like putting a fence around your property. People might still end up on your property, but they'd have a lot harder time explaining why they're there, rather than just "uh, I just got lost".
The internet became public because there was a need for public mass computing. That is now in place. So why would we need a second system? Necessity is the mother of invention. The Gov't needs a secure network. They will invent a new one. We won't need a secure network, so the only people that will invade it are spies.
>"It seems to me money would be better spent getting >the next-generation Internet going, for the >government to fund more of the existing research >and standards boards to create protocols that are >invulnerable to the kinds of attacks the government
>seems to fear, namely massive DOS attacks. Or is >there something else a 'net terrorist' could do to >'disrupt the vital flow of information'?"
Just please remember there were already airport security standards in place to secure baggage and personell screening within 18 years. I believe we can go forward with the standards creating process
however I believe the President wants to secure the current infrastructure that is in place. Over the last 10 years or so the Federal government started relying on the commodity internet for certain functions. This all happened at the same time they started ripping out real servers in lieu
of the current Microsoft corporation installation .
This is not a matter of hacking, this is a matter of opportunity exploitation. Regardless of how secure a net is, poorly constructed code will (generally) allow for intrusion. Additionally, this is not just a code issue- a sneaker net, and lack of regard for security and patches (see poorly constructed), allow for a breakdown.
Encourage sound code development - keep marketing away from the alpha, and keep them on a leash aroung the beta. Write solid code. Isolate nets whose admins want to play in the big pond, but piss in their own pool.
Just my humble view-
I am me...I think
Um, nope.
While some work had been done on using packet-switching to improve communication reliability after a nuclear attack, that work was purely theoretical and not directly tied to the origin of the ARPAnet. The ARPAnet was explicitly created to allow computer researchers to share files and resources, reducing unnecessary duplication of effort and resources. The nuclear war myth might be better copy, but it's just a myth.
Check out Where Wizards Stay Up Late for the real story.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
With all the reports of networking equipment surpluses and lots of fiber-optics in the ground that is still unlit, it seems like the government could get an awesome network for cheap... ;-)
Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com
If the current telco and internet infrastructure is any example, their efforts will do no good. A dozen terrorists with rented (or commandeered) backhoes in select locations could cause massive disruptions in the Internet (and therefore the economy). Miss Utility could even be an unwitting accomplice.
Don't even start with "physical diversity blah blah blah". The fact that your physically diverse circuits aren't has been proven time and again by the mighty backhoe/flaming hazmat car/junior achiever.
Of course some improvements to BGP wouldn't hurt either.
Yes. And the internet itself is hard-to-disrupt.
However, a single server can be the target of an attack, and this is what they want to secure against now. The idea of the internet was to be able to communicate even if lots of nodes failed (i.e. got physically destroyed). The idea was not to secure every single node against destruction. Also note that the internet was designed with physical rather than digital attacks in mind.
The government certainly does have a point here, but I think you can reach security for each individual node only by securing those nodes, not by simply seperating them. How will they make sure that, for example, no email can get in from the internet? Have two computers at each user's desk?
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
One of the lessons of Sept 11th is that we need to be more vigilant in imagining what the possible attacks are. We had good intel that the people who perpetrated the terrorist acts were living in America but didn't have the manpower to quickly round them up and didn't have the brainpower to imagine why rounding them up quickly was so crucial.
Likewise with the Internet. We should be spending out time identifying what the potential attacks are and thinking about ways to minimize or eliminate them.
This is a separate issue from the fact that many private networks already exist: SIPRNET, INTELNET, etc.
BEN
AFAIK AUTODIN is still where the "serious business" happens.
AUTODIN is an ancient, circuit switched network. It's a real bear to operate (I spent four years operating it) but it is genuinely secure. AFAIK the whole "packet switched so it can't be decapitated" thing that the APRANET was supposed to solve was supposed to be an answer to AUTODIN.
I hope they get something going so they can retire AUTODIN.
-Peter
The hosts on it are also important. Now most people don't want to use overly secure systems (B2 level can become quite painful, but is actually required to prevent users from executing arbitrary code received over the network), so host security will remain low. Even if you separate the network from the other internets, one security breach can still have devastating results. And since people tend to keep modems in their drawer in order to log in from home, security breaches are going to happen.
...was that he wants a closed government network because all those gubmint hosts running M$ products will never be secure. Kinda like saying "Our routers and servers will never be secure from the vendors, so let's just close the network off from the world so we can forget about pesky things like having secure operating systems."
The GovNet is a physically separate network that will connect a few "limited" sites. Physically separate means that it uses dedicated circuits, not the Internet.
And, in case you don't know, the Internet does have some significant points of failure. It would not cause a total outage, but it would grind things to a slow pace. The idea of GovNet is to insure that the Government can still communicate in the event that one of this points were hit.
Notice that this lovely post comes straight from an Anonymous Coward...hmm...anybody else smell the irony of that?
Slashdot, the site where everything's made up and the points don't matter
None of the major backbones are willing to provide IPv6 connections.
I think you may have hit on something here. Why not demand a separate and secure Internet 2 with Bastille Linux and IPv6 with full security enabled and mandated. And have the gateways deny non-capable access.
It would be useful in terms of jobs, forcing the Net to switch, and addressing all the problems, while being infinitely more secure than the current Net.
Remember, private enterprise needs the government to force it to take the big leaps forward.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
All it takes is one idiot to install PCAnywhere and throw a dialup modem on their office computer so they can work from home. Or someone who dials out to the net from their office computer and runs something like Go to my PC.
This is about money and ego.
97 percent of the fiber in this country is dark because of no demand. The major telecoms desperately need another source of income. A new *major* network would turn Cisco around overnight.
Add to this the bureaucats and their desire for their own little playpen and you have a recipe for screwing the taxpayer.
They stab it with their steely knives,
But they just can't kill the beast.
Start coversion of the internet over to IPv6.
But do it the smart way. Make strict standards,
derived from the IPv6 standard. Create certifications.
That will make sure that PHBs will buy into it.
Strict standards will allow for flow controls,
and massive genetic system that will detect influx
of copious data and manage network nodes to cut
it down. 128 bit address space will allow to
idenetify every computer. Strict certification
rules for the routers will ensure that network
is protected and is still open to the public!
Now there are negative possiblities here.
Government may create standards that will require
backdoors, and advertise these as the most
secure for the people's networks. As usual PHBs
will ignore utter cries of their employees and
buy equipment enmasse. IPv6 shall eliminate
generally most of vulnerablities. Stacks though
are not many in IPv6.
this could be really really good, or just horrendous...
p.
..before someone plugs in their wireless base station with NAT/DHCP turned on and WEP turned off?
.. it's inevitable .. ;-)
You know it will happen
73 de N5VB (ex-KD5BIV) AR SK
Isn't hard-to-disrupt communication the reason that DARPA got involved in this "Internet" business anyhow?
While this is true, remember that DARPA was trying to prevent communication disruption under traditional war conditions - i.e. physical attacks on wiring and facilities. High path redundancy, packet acknowledgement and retransmission, and multiple routing paths were the main ways they solved this problem. In those days, I doubt anyone considered the idea that nodes on the Internet would render the network unusable by flooding it with traffic.
If Bush creates a private network, what's going to stop someone with a pair of alligator clips from hooking in and exploiting the flaws in that network? At least on the Internet now, security issues can be identified and fixed under real-world conditions.
"It is a mathematical fact that the casting of this pebble from my hand alters the centre of gravity of the universe."
Give him a Lite-Brite, a couple plastic cups and some string, he's all set...
LEXX
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
For Christ's sake, calm the fuck down.
It is nice to know the level of knowledge our leadership has and even more the level of knowledge that their adviser have. Sleep Well America your elected government officals and their crack team of experts are on guard.
No matter how much security tehy put on such a system, it is still very vulnerable at a hardware level... Obviously for something like this they wouldn't use a wireless solution for datacommunication... as that is very easily read by anyone with a reciever (although transmission on said backbone is more difficult) Even a buried cable/fiber link is still vulnerable however, someone could easliy add a reader somewhere in the middle of the thousand-mile long cable running through the plains of southren US, even passive readers are easily available which do not require cutting the link and, since they draw no power from the line (the read the radiation given off by it) they are nearly indetectable... I think this unhackable network idea of bush's is worse than normal internet communications, because at least with the internet, someone trying to find data has to sift through terabytes of data from regular users to get at the sensitive gov't data... personally if I were a data miner I'd have a lot easier job if I knew all the traffic on a line was useable...
If you want a unhackable network then run distributed.net client!!! It searches for RC5 key and sends to RSA to analyze it once it approves..we got new security!
If the internet developed by DARPA, which we currently use, was as open and impossible to destroy, then the FBI would have a harder time installing carnivore.
Intelligence is a matter of opinion.
What has happened to America ? All this running scared and talk of DEFENSIVE measures.
The best defence is a good offense. America should be prepared at any moment to bombard its enemies with its own terrorist software, causing their communication networks to crash, loss of data, etc.
America won't be safe until B52s loaded with Windows 98 are ready for take off at a moment's notice. For first world enemies, Windows XP offers even more security.
An *isolated* government network, eh? Okay.
Let's forget about the technical and monetary problems to overcome. We will assume that it can be put into place with minimal fuss. Given enough money and technical know-how, we know this is the case anyway.
But...now, Senator Fritz can't get email from his constituents on his brand-spanking new, PentiumV 4GHz, Federal-Government-Issued computer! So, he tells Joe, the inter-department geeky-type, to hook up his new computer to the old network, and to make the new network work as well. Joe, being the good intern that he is, does so dutifully, and soon both networks work on the Senator's computer.
Anyone else see a problem with this? Granted, this is a hypothetical situation, but... Can't you just see it happening? And then where would all that money have gone? Senator Fritz is now an open relay on the new, <quote>SECURE</quote> network. Money down the tubes, taxpayers screwed, because El Presidente doesn't understand how networks work.
Networks WANT to be connected. They will prevail.
GIR: I'm going to sing the Doom song now. Doom doom doom doom doom doom de-doom doom doom doom doom doom doom...
Somehow this whole discussion would be a lot funnier if it was Al Gore saying that he wanted his own private internet.
Little does he know there currently is a unhackable private network. It's called localhost.
--jdmmmmm
Why bother with a private network. Simply run Slashdot at a loss until it has to close down, or be sold , or drags down whatever loss-com owns it?
*THATS* what I don't understand. Then nobody would be able to hack it. All osdn employees can't post on the weekend as they're not at work.
This poses a problem , as with stronger encryption methods , Slashdot is actually paying it's own way.
Bush is incorrect however in assuming that it's important still holds with the guys upstairs. "We are nothing but a ghost" they say.
We're stuck with it, and we can't sell it. At the moment.
Given their cozy relationship they'll probably want to use Microsoft's latest server which is the only one proven unhackable.
George Busth will never forgive the internet for allowing itself to be invented by Al Gore.
So he is going to redo the whole things and invent the BushNet, a secure unhackable network based on the ingenious idea of running the following script on all government machine:
-- look, cheese ahoy!
they'd build a massive secret ultra secure network then run IIS on it.
Or is there something else a 'net terrorist' could do to 'disrupt the vital flow of information'?"
I thought this was the government's job, not the terrorist's job.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
: )
I'd like to point out that whatever the government's intentions may be, it's near impossible to prevent DOS attacks on any form of computing platform. I personally think that if the goal is to keep government communications going, then this is a better idea than trying to develop protocols for Internet 2 that will be invulnerable to DOS attacks.
__________________________________________
Take comfort in your ignorance.
Grandmaster Plague
Unhackable? not possible.
that's like asking for unpickable locks,un crackable encryption and uncopyable CD's and DVD's.
Glad to see that our executive branch hasn't veered too far from the normal...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
My initial impression is that the net would be less prone to complete shutdown than other infastructure. The net still is sort of a wild wild west, and everybody from skript kiddies to hackers are continually trying to break in and DOS various different sections of the Internet. It's hard to imagine how any group (unless it was some massive government funded operation) could be more disruptive than what currently takes place. Radical islamic fundamentalists dont' seem THAT tech savvy.
Airports thought about security a bit, but really serious measures generally weren't taken. However, security has been one of THE TOP issues for the Internet for a long time. Kerberos, ssh, bastille linux etc... there are a lot of tools out there to lock systems and networks down.
That said the government is probably getting hacked all the time now. Really critical systems probably should physically seperated from the net. One aspect of security that is the most difficult is human error. Sure a system can provide ssh and kerberized login, but if people use the same password for their yahoo games account, all the encryption in the world doesn't appear to do a lot of good.
Just some random musings.
The notion of a secure private network for the government seems like a decent idea. To think that through such a private network we can avoid some sort of internet peral harbor is absurd. Why? Real simple: was the world trade center a government building?
Why would any terrorist waste their time and resources trying to take down the FBI when it could go after banks, airports, power grids, and a whole host of other things that are on the public Internet? All of those things are far more visible and have a far more significant immediate impact on the lives of US citizens. Remember, terrorism isn't about taking out strategic assets, but creating a sense of fear in the every day lives of normal unassuming people.
Now, one might say that the answer to this quandry is to put corporations on that network. Of course then you are expanding the base of users and increasing the likelyhood that a few terrorists (or those easily bribed or fooled by them) will be able to breach that network. I suspect that even putting large swaths of the government on that network already risks that compromise within the government itself but that just amplifies it.
Why don't we take that money and put it into developing policies and technologies that will make the current networks more secure? I know that this doesn't look as impressive to the public, but in the long run it will probably do more to prevent an Internet Perl Harbor.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
If you read the New York Times article (free reg., you know you want to!), nowhere does it actually say "Bush wants an unhackable network." That, my friends, would be a great Christmas wish. However, what the article says is the Bush administration is considering making a government-only, always-closely-monitored network. They want a "less vulnerable" network, which I'm sure they realize is still hackable (as is implied by saying it will be constantly scanned for viruses, etc.). Their network in its current state is too difficult to shield, so they want something a little easier to defend. I don't see the problem with this.
/.'s headline skewed many readers' perceptions of the article it was referencing. What's up? Have you been watching too much CNN? :-)
I was a bit disappointed that
HEY!!! Its Professor Leibstrum!!! (Mr Bushes sock puppet from 2DTV)
Hello Mr. President, its me, professor Leibstrum, and i'm here to tell you about "secure networks". You see, many years ago, some clever people had an idea to make a big clump of computers connect with each other. But they didn't want any 'evil' russians (Bush butts in: Yeah! bloody ruskis) to break it. So, they made loads and loads and loads of wires to join up the computers lots and lots of times to create a 'network'. Soon, the network spread, and people invented ways to make it easyer to use with lots of pretty colours and buttons (Bush: And mickey mouse?) yes, and Mickey too. Nowdays this 'network' as we call it, is use mainly to trade dirty pictures (Bush: Like the ones of Misses Bush?) Um... yeah, anyway, the network was designed to be really hard to break, but _someone_ made it all commercial and public and now so many people use it, its hard to know whats going on... (Bush: So can we have a new one professor? huh? huh?) Well, no... you see, we're kind of low on money at the moment, what with paying for that war, and giving all the major corporations of America money, and that rather expensive missile system... so, no, we can't.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
yeah, and i want a cute-smart-slashdot-editor...
sheesh.. c'mon timothy...
OT? maybe, but we're commenting on the article, and this is my comment on the article.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Like THAT will happen in OUR lifetime.
Then again, it may happen in our lifetime. But not today with TODAY's technology.
Owell.
Building a private network isn't a big deal. I think the government could build an encrypted WAN without much effort. I think the biggest challenge to security is going to be on the physical front... meaning that every piece of network equipment must be in a secure location. This includes every router and bridge in every network shack along the WAN lines. Wouldn't want any 1337 hax0r5 to come along with a patch cable and bring down the government network. Since guarding every inch of wire is impossible, point to point connections must be made with fiber line so it can't be tapped like copper.
None of this even begins to consider the physical local machine security... government workers shouldn't be alowed to bring any media from home, no incoming modem lines, etc.
Lots to think about. If GB wants to cut me a check, I'll begin the engineering work tomorrow.
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
Just because no one has bothered to erase hard drives with these vulnerabilities before now, doesn't mean that it isn't coming.
In space, no one can hear you moo.
Turning to other news tonight, new reports on the status of Unhack-a-Net, originally proposed by former President Bush, indicate the test servers were actually transmitting gps information to would-be hackers, indicating their course and heading.
And in an ironic turn of events, an undisclosed number of people were arrested in nationwide raids following the most recent round of Unhack-a-Net testing, on charges of using illegal circumvention devices. Officials close to the case described the devices as 'Garmin eTrexes.' The official hinted at prosecution under the SSCA (Super-Secret Copyright Act), the details of which are still classified.
One detainee was overheard saying, "But...we're beta testers! You know, Unhack-a-Net!"
SSCA was signed into law in 2003, following the terrorist threats to the music and film industry. Those attacks came in the form of the thirteen year-old son of a record company exectuve, who crashed his father's Windows 2000 computer one night. Under the terms of the MASTA (Microsoft Antihacking, Security, and Terror Act), the child was sentenced to a prison term, but President Ashcroft felt greater protection was needed for America's vital interests.
every good
Doesn't MILnet do this already? Isn't this why when the DoD gave up control of ARPAnet, they forked and created MILnet to retain a secure channel?
Bush needs to lay off the MSN. The U.S. government is already waaaaaaaaaay ahead on this one.
I'm speaking both from an encryption perspective and a physical perspective.
Breaking into Fort Knox isn't impossible - we just haven't had anyone who is smart and resourceful enough to do so.
As for computer networks - if it is built, it can be hacked. It's just a matter of just how much work will have to go into said hack and how dedicated the prospective hacker is.
Then again, if it DOES happen, the aforementioned prospective hacker would be thrown into jail SO friggin fast...
I expect this initiative to be exactly as successful as the "Missile Defense" plan that was going to keep America from being hit by explosive airborne projectiles...
precisely by defining the network as high-security and "unhackable", it will be a much more attractive target. the private sector will benefit mightily from reduced attacks, as they are concentrated on delicious government systems.
That is pretty witty.... Good point. However, I think that there is something to be said for the idea of a relatively separate network. However, untortunately, this could actually be a BIG blow to MS. Here is the problem: Security.
Now, I am not talking about vulnerabilities like those exploited by Code Red. I am talking abount internal security and differing levels of security classifications that would make implimenting such a network on NT or Windows 2000 based infrastructures a really daunting task.
Enter SELinux. SELinux uses a concept of MAC (Mandatory Access Control) rather than DAC (Discressionary Access Control) which allows one to actually enforce security access and localize the effects of security incidents. With SELinux, if I send you a file, you may not be able to access it if you don't have the relavent security classification and, if it is really secret, the mailer may not be able to read the file and hence I may not be able to send it at all!
To do this sort of thing with Windows 2000 or NT would require a large number of servers, and each server would have to have documents only of one security classification on them. Each of these servers would have to be carefully evaluated as to their suitability for their jobs but with MAC in SELinux, these can be combined onto a single system.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Or has he pulled his head back out of its port again?
Oh boy. GW "I don't read email" Bush wants a secure government. Betya he's been chating with billy boy gates.
NO WAY!
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!
O.K. Just Kidding
The problem is that open networks evolve so much faster than closed, secure networks, that users become frustrated with the later and start moving files surrepticiously between them. Thats what Prof Deutch of MIT did while head of the CIA and Wenho Lee of Los Alamos.
We alreayd have such a network. Its called milnet and is used by the US millitary who funded the original inetrnet research.
As soon as the internet was working they built their own, secure network, and got the hell off of the publicly acessible one.
Maybe Colin won't let Georgie play with his toys, so Georgie wants his own....
The only concievable way to do this is to either:
a) Eliminate Government Data Access to All But the Highest Officials (which still poses the same problem, in theory) or
b) Eliminate the network altogether.
We already went down this path with the CIA and NSA. Turning to more hardware meant that we were less adapatable, and missed more things.
While people will always be the weak link of any network, and inside access the way to defeat security, this does not mean that it is unwise to trust people.
Instead, we should make security transparent and easy to use, and learn from our mistakes.
This is the lesson of open source - the security actually increases as the number of eyes peering at the code increases. Dependence on the technology ignores the fact that someone has to see the data at the beginning and end of the process.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Why in the world was this article not put in the 'It's Funny, Laugh' category?
Oh my god. This is hideously ironic considering what the internet was set up for in the first place.
Man and Goat
The government could create an unhackable net...
Keep in mind the following...
These are the same people who spent 2-3 million dollars during the cold war to see if burning a photo of a soviet missle could destory the real missle...
C'mon, this is *old* news - hell, it's been *posted* *on* *Slashdot* *before*!
;)
:) Their only option is to reduce the amount of hostile actions they recieve against them.
;)
And as I said then, I'll say now. STFU.
They want a network solely for governmental agencies. This is a *good* idea.
And while it won't be foolproof as anyone with access to it will still be able to carry out malicious access, it'll be a hell of a lot more secure than what they have now - the plain old Internet (Presumably invented by Al Gore
"They'll still have hackers and crackers and blah blah blah!"
Yes they will. What they won't have is every twelve year old kiddy who think's he's a l33+ h@x0r sending out his little virii thinking he's cool. I Love You, Sircam, Code Red, Nimda.. These four alone have cost the government quite a bit in time, resources and money.
It's a proven fact that you can't train the average computer user to not open attachments that seem strange. We've all tried.
Go Government, Go. Someone up there has a brain when it comes to tech... Now if they'd only strike down the DMCA.
from the and-i-want-a-cute-smart-girl dept
Shouldn't this be from the and-i-want-a-cute-smart-bisexual-girl dept
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
that's funny. i thought it was that a bunch of hackers wanted "bush!"
As long as only government officials can connect to the network. No connection, no cracking.
Unless you have physical access, which is a completely different matter.
Do you like German cars?
That the US Govt saying they want to do this is akin to a company saying they want to build a large, private WAN, because they don't like working on the internet for sharing info between offices. Fair enough.
Apples and Oranges.
Even with a private network that isn't connected to the Internet, there is still at least one big security issue: A false sense of security. Government employees may think that because their private network is so secure and separate from the big bad Internet, they can relax and give computer security a low priority. What most folks don't understand is that computers are like any machine: They require constant maintainence for reliable operation. Security is a large part of that maintainence, and cannot be set aside while other things take place. On the contrary, security must proactively be part of everything that goes on in a computer and network. This is partly why a false sense of security is dangerous.
Besides, intruders could still access the network through such techniques as war-dialing, to name one example off the top of my head.
> The breach will come when some high offcial
> doesn't like having two computers
Oh, the "breach" will come way before that. It'll come when Mr. Politician is too lazy to log in himself and has someone else do it for him. Pretty soon, everyone in his office will know how to log into the "Unhackable Private Network" but the one person who is SUPPOSED to have access.
You can never have a secure network until you can ABSOLUTELY BE ASSURED that one person and ONE PERSON ONLY can log into the system. That will not happen for quite a while. (Probably until we have some sort of retina scaner built into these "high security nodes", but I'll leave that up to your imagination.)
Whats Bush Talking about? The government has had independent secure private internets since before we even had the internet.
Why are they telling us what they are building unless its going to be a public government internet.
I mean really, if something is private and secure, the last thing to do is tell the world about it.
When the government wants to keep secrets they can, and they do so by not telling us anything about it,
Perhaps bush wants an internet seperate of the private government internets already in place so he can email his friends in various other countries on any computer (not just the secure private ones) without worrying about people reading his msgs.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
This is funny.
The president talks to a "Mr. Clarke" and i think its really clear who this Mr.Clarke fellow is,
It would be funny if the unhackable internet ends up being based on freenet or uprizer.
as much as i like the idea of this, i dont like the idea of freenet people working for government, the two just dont mix.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
first of all nothing is unhackable. Second they're talking about setting up a seperate wan for just the government. If just ONE computer on that network is also connected to the real internet, then someone can get in. If none of the computers on that network are connected to the internet, then government employees will be very unhappy at work. Hence, another waste of money.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Actually, I think this it a good idea. If the government used a seperate network with seperate protocols it would be very hard for a script kiddie to attack it. If fewer people are using the protocol(unlike the internet where everyone uses the same) there will be less people with the know how to hack it.
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/784/packet/apr01/ p22-enterprise.html#title
Sounds great doesn't it, 40% Cheaper phone calls, more secure network etc, but As more and more technologies and services get incorporated into the one implementation, the number of eggs in the basket continue to grow.
Just remember, attacks can come from behind the firewall too.
Just incase you are interested in how the government currently protects their Cisco routers:
http://nsa2.www.conxion.com/cisco/download.htm
is an interesting read.
GyaHaHaHa!
I will never believe that the Republicans are against big government.
I'll take public libraries and health care over a gluttonously large military and an ultra-strong federal government any day.
Some basic things can be done to make "secure" or "segregated," or other types of somewhat-more-protected-than-usual environments.
... using currently available products to implement solutions, rather than building that which might be necessary.
Unfortunately, I think that there are also some very real problems. Some very old military systems (e.g.) SAGE - were secure. The customer (Government) could own and have all code reviewed. All end points were well controlled. The number of nodes and links, etc... were limited. The system was also special, and dedicated - purpose.
There are limits as to how secure any system will be if it will be built on off-the-shelf components, software and hardware components that the gov't can't fully inspect, networking protocols that are not provably secure, and the inevitable
Sam Nitzberg
sam@iamsam.com
http://www.iamsam.com
Think about it: when the Internet was restricted to non-commercial nodes, it was pretty secure. The first major security disaster was the Worm of 1988, which came from a university site.
If you maintained a separate TCP/IP network that only had physical connections on military bases and the like, I'd think it would be pretty secure. It's this business of giving everybody an Internet connection that gets all the script kiddies online.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
Those ignorant fools already have that very thing in place. The military has been using it for years. I hope to burst everyones bubble but no I highly doubt that it could be compromised and even if it could it would not be for long. Each and every single packet is encrypted with daily changing crypto before it even hits a ethernet card. To further secure the network each and every single cable, every inch is walked and inspected every single day, this to avoid any taps and such.
s/private/government/
s/world trade center/Pentagon/
Someone explain to me how a nationwide government network, PHYSICALLY seperated from the "Internet/public ISPs/and population in general", is unsecure? With the exception to the human factor, this is theoretically possible. And for all realistic purposes, I support this move by the government.
"AK47. When you absolutely positively have to kill every mother fucker in the place. Accept no substitutes."
Do you realize you sound like a complete idiot? Not only is that peice poorly written it exposes what a pathetic and unintelligent mother fucker you are.
Seriously, if Bush was *really* concerned about security, he'd stop fucking around with that piece of shit Microsoft calls an operating system and roll out Linux desktops and OpenBSD servers, all running IPv6.
So, instead of users experiencing hours of downtime seperately, as is par for the course with the internet anyway, in the "Digital Pearl Harbor", it will all happen at once? Would anyone even be bothered?
"Oh. Another outage. Darn."
I think I experience a "Digital Pearl Harbor" about once a month with my Road Runner account.
Yes, the U.S. government better be on a nationwide Intranet. I've worked for a few Fortune 50 companies, and their networks are all private. Sure, they external webservers and employees can use port 80 for WWW traffic, but everything else stays internal.
I dont know about you, but I would rather have a very easily hackable http://www.whitehouse.com.
Well, I blew that link
How will they email with the outside world??? Knowing Bush he will prolly have a email forwarding server that will forward all the normal email to the internal system... Code Purple with yellow dots and orange stripes here we GO!
Sig you!
Such as, on-net cracking...all someone needs to do is bluff their way though security or come up with a good forged security pass, especially a visitor pass, slip in and get onto a terminal that's secluded. I beleive that /. already had an article on this, same rules still apply...
I suppose it comes down to this, you can make the most perfect, impenertable network but...as long as you have lax human security someone will still get into it.
Om, nomnomnom...
If the government wants a really secure network of nontrivial size, then it probably should not use TCP/IP as its underlying protocol suite. TCP/IP was designed in the 1970s for a limited-access insecure network of researchers (ARPAnet). If anyone misbehaved, they'd be booted, and/or their site manager would get a nasty notice. Nobody was "entitled" to be on ARPAnet, and almost everyone cooperated. The network was designed for maximum openness within that selected community.
Now we have the public Internet, and Microsoft's virusware for applications. Firewalls help, but as many have noted, it's too easy for a laptop or floppy to inject something, and if an email gateway it provided, MSware will do the rest. Or any other mail client that follows their evil lead and executes email.
A serious fix is to create a new protocol suite that has security designed in. New stack code with no buffer overflows. A stack that doesn't invite address spoofing, flooding, or various other vulnerabilities of TCP/IP. Not that TCP/IP is all that bad for public use, but you just don't try to add security later and expect it to work! (It's a sieve: It should stand for Transmission Colander Protocol/Insecure Protocol.)
This new stack would have new, or at least modified, applications written for it, the way ARPAnet did back when it was young. And rules against insecure crap, so no Outlook ports! It might then catch on outside, but if the protocols have security handles in them, it's okay; there's no security through obscurity. This would help long-term stabilization of the public Internet, if it adopted more secure (and probably more efficient) protocols. Just as government funding for its own use led to TCP/IP.
Some people seem to think that TCP/IP was handed down to Moses on Sinai, and is thus sacred, Perfect, and should be inviolate. I don't buy that for a minute, and I was on the ARPAnet back in the NCP days. It was a nice experiment but it has ossified with widespread use, and clearly has trouble keeping up with current needs. IPv6 is not an improvement in any sense, efficiency or security; it is a distraction whose misbegotten presence, on balance, makes things worse.
It's simple, really.
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Secure network? The gummint can't
even keep drugs out of prisons!
Well, the US government doesn't have the best record when it comes to security of any kind. They can try using their technology ( like tempest [http://www.eskimo.com/~joelm/tempest.html] and whatnot) though they will always have a problem with the users of the system. Poloticians arn't very good at keeping their own lives straight how do we expect them to keep there personal security which is vital to the network as a whole?
I love it how the /. editors always have an excuse as to why they post dupes. Either it's witty, or dodgy, or it's "this is important enough to read twice." Please.
Is it THAT IMPOSSIBLY HARD to use your OWN search tool before posting dupes?
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
Hey.. Give bush a break. At least when he is talking about things he does not understand (I fear most of the time) he is not bombing some peasants into oblivion.
Let him talk all he wants about "secure", "hack proof" networks. With any luck he will throw more money at our industry and in doing so actually contribute to "more secure" and "hacker resilient" networks. If he then wants to claim he invented the internet... good luck to him.
One clever cowboy there!
What... the irony doesn't speak out to you?
eudas
Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed.
The government has it's head up it's ass...
Well, ok, you've got me. The government almost always has it's head up it's ass.
If the government really wants to secure it's communications, it ought to post an "ask slashdot."
G_W_Bush asks:
Dear Slashdot, I'm a leader of a major world power and I don't know my ass from a hole in the ground... How should I secure my communications?
Given the Bush administrations obvious love affair with Microsoft, I hope he makes his secure network entirely out of Windows machines.
I was actually going to reply to "Ask Slashdot: French Government Online-Why Isn't the U.S.?," but I figured it was too late. Then I saw this story, which basically states what I was going to say about the former. The US isn't online because they can't keep something like that secure and they know it. I wouldn't be surprised if someone wipes out the French system fairly soon now that the "word is out." Of course, I may be wrong; they may have hired a building-full of 1337 French hackers to secure the system. But I doubt it.
A while back, a bunch of folks built a ship. It was loudly trumpeted that even Mother Nature herself couldn't sink it.
Remind me again what happened to it?
Don't "misunderestimate" Bush's private internet plans, "hispanically speaking".
Men believe what they want. - Caesar
Santa Claus to personnaly deliver me a windows based computer that has 99.999% uptime.
We all got our wants. Reality Sucks.
but that isn't going to happen.
Wishing doesn't make it so, Mr. President. Networks are designed to let people share information. Even if you cut yourself entirely off from the Internet, you leave yourself wide open to moles, leaks, and all sorts of human error. A private network may make the human security holes even wider because it gives you a false sense of safety. I'd rather see my tax dollars spent on secure open protocols and sensible security policies. Security is a mindset, not a technology.
This
Thats why bush wants to make a more public government internet for the common government employee.
The private internet Bush himself most likely cant even use is what you'd call, a military secret, only used for serious business by intelligence agencies to exchange information with the military, and people know about it on a need to know basis, its not common knowledge, and only a few people actually know how the whole thing works technology wise, so even if you've used it, 1 you wouldnt know how it worked, and 2 the people who do know how it works prolly have no clue what its being used for.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
The real problem with no-tech-dummies-with-power is that they can make decicions, but they dont have a clue as to why they are taking them.
Of course, this guy is a politician (subclass of NoTechDummiesWithPower), and his tech advisor is probably no other than the all ubiquitous and ultra smart devil Mr. Will F. Goats.
Now, its obvious that WFG is another (although altogether different) subclass of the said NTDWP.
So, why does it surprise anyone that politicians (and CEO's of big companies, a NTDWP subclass) allways take the wrong track where technology is whats being discussed?
Lets accept NTDWP as part of our society and just try and help them as well as we can. Of course, its not a nice prospect to be against them since they are WP, but lets pitty them as they are also NTD.
Little stupid GWB, take WFG's nose out of your ass and get a decent tech advisor. Thats the only good word we can give you....
Alex
NO SIG
It's more like a DoD wide transition from Unix to WinNT/2k. It's all the DoD networks - not just the classified ones.
I think it's a mistake personally, but I've never researched the reasoning behind the decision. The difficulty in finding unix admins shouldn't matter that much, since the military tends to grown their own anyhow.
They came in designed a prototype / poc and then left it. It was not a project that was going into the next century ... just the 60's and 70's
I want a million dollars.
I hate sigs.
SSH, VPN's with decent encription...etc.?
Hasnt the SS told GWB about this kind of technology?? I mean, just use private keys and the like. I think government officials are responsible enough to carry arround a fucking key and not give it to anyone, arent they?
Alex
NO SIG
"If you build it, they will Hack."
Opinions Expressed by Me should be Forced on Others - PbHead
- Sonic communication? When your "wire" is the atmosphere/ocean, no one can cut the wire.
- AM radio? This already travels long distances, but might be susceptible to (brief) interference by nuclear explosions. (A nuclear detonation will ionize a large portion of the atmosphere, making it quite opaque to radio signals.)
- High-power visible lasers?
For all these methods, signal repeaters would be a must, but remember: signal repeaters are used in solid-state communications as well, so this isn't really a drawback. You might argue that someone could simply blow up the repeaters, or the transceivers, but it's impossible to eliminate those elements of the system. The wires are the most susceptible element of the system, since they have to travel long distances through unguarded territory. And the wires can surely be eliminated.If you make the argument that all of these methods will necessarily have very low bandwidth, you'd probably be correct. Except for the fact that in a wartime crisis, you don't need to swap gigabytes of porn -- you just need to send vital information such as "The enemy is at 56.47 by 14.03," and "Incline the mortar by 56 degrees". These messages don't need much bandwidth.
As for DOS or DDOS, however unlikely they might be on a private network -- just use a strong protocol such as IPv6.
With all this hysteria about the WTC, naturally people are getting paranoid about the internet. But I don't believe the threat from hackers is any greater than usual. Where are they going to come from? Afghanistan? That's a laugh. I doubt they even have internet access over there. It takes talent, time, and readily available internet access for hackers to hone their skills. Citizens of unfriendly countries have none of these things. Sure, there could be the odd evil nitwit genius sent over here to go to college and learn computer crime, but that drastically narrows the pool. I simply don't believe that there are legions of enemy hackers out there- for the near future, at least. When the average Chinese or Syrian kid has a computer with internet access from the age of 4, I'll worry. But not 'til then.
Perhaps a system that is constantly being challenged on a wider scale where the gaps in security are discovered and patched relatively quickly due to sheer magintude and a shared problem (i.e. the internet as is), would be more secure than one that is seperate such a GWB is proposing. (i.e. tested by outsiders much more rarely and thus more open to a catastrophic security failure)
Sticking it to the MAN since 1980
Right now this thread is filling with posts about why or why not this network will be secure, and why or why not all of the OTHER protected/secret government networks are/are not secure. What people are missing out on is that the government does not actually WANT a secure network.
Bush and co. want a new network because two states, California and Viriginia, are full of out-of-work techies, left jobless by the dotcom collapse. Virginia and California are also the top two states in regards to defense agencies, contracts, locations, dollars, etc.. Building a new government network would create a huge number of stable, high-paying jobs in Virginia and California as the agencies and contractors in those states were wired up; and even more jobs all across the country as the network spread out to all of the other states in between.
Not only does this have the effect of greatly boosting the economy without pissing too many people off (Which Congress has proven they cannot manage to do.), it also earns a lot of loyalty to the Republican party from all of the people who get those jobs, as well as the other people who benefit from those jobs as the money trickles outward.
Is this network needed, or even likely to work? I do not really know, and anyone who had nothing better to do than post to Slashdot about it really does either. But that does not matter, because right now America's economy needs to get going, the world needs our economy to get going, and the people making decisions in the White House realize that this is a good way to give a long term boost to the economy and their careers, without really earning much scorn, and they would be fools not to.
I think people are misunderstanding what is being requested. Yeah people may say a UnHackable Network is impossible. Why? because you can't think about how to do it? Because it doesn't seem possible to you? I seem to remember a similar request from a previous president, I believe his name was John F. Kennedy. This president requested that we place a man on the moon. Which seemed ridiculous at a time, many people said it was impossible and laughed probably saying things similar to what you are saying now. But what I see is a man making a bold request for new technology, so instead of being pessimistic lets reasonably see if something could be created that would be "Virtually UnHackable".
"Jedem das Seine", don't you?
Just terse and correct.
IPv6 is way too baroque for the few problems it actually solves. It's a classic case of the second-system effect. I can't imagine it ever being widely implemented as it stands.
let's see if the stocks for the telecom sector starts going up a little bit more... things like this gives us the faintest hope that new grads like us will actually be able to find jobs....
my blog
If they did this, you would think that if somebody obtained access to the network they would have an easier time getting around due to the false sense of security a private network brings.
I'm a minister!
The way I see it, an unhackable internet is completely impossible due to two factors: human nature and human ingenuity. The Nazis thought Enigma was unbreakable, yet it was quickly broken. Bush's plan reeks of a PR stunt for the technologically illiterate citizens of the nation. I'm sure that average-joe republican will buy this as feasible, but the fact of the matter is that this is just a piece of bravado.
Well, over a hundred posts and nobody has said this;
How is such a super duper secure network going to be used? Is there going to be a secret special terminal at your local federal building where the agents email their counterpart in the next state?
I work daily with military computer systems and it is hard enough just keeping the spam and porn and cnn streaming video off our networks. The worst offenders are often those in charge and those who should know better, those whose job it is to enforce security. As long as we have people using the system it will be inherently insecure. Maybe Dubya will be calling up about 2.8 million more security people to stand in every government office and look over shoulders.
Those people in the government who have a need to know secret things already have secure (physically) means to do so. This new GOVNET is a PR scam that has no purpose other than to stir up the public even more.
(Though I think the public are more excited about the 0% interest on new cars and the cheap gasoline than they are about not seeing photos of the 5000 people recently murdered.)
*sigh* My sig is becoming more and more true...
"I want peace on earth and good will toward men." "We're the U.S. government. We don't do that sort of thing!!"
We could have had an uncrackable PUBLIC network by now, if the government hadn't put so much effort into harassing people who tried to publish crypto code.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
All it will take is one lawsuit or police raid and suddenly certain "IT-Solutions" will not seem as attractive as the normal Solaris/BSD/Linux/etc based ones.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
When MS starts .NET on it's own fiber, we can call it ABOVE_the_GOVNET.
Don't you get it?
They want the us to be secure and keep the rest of the world vulnerable. So they can (try to) f**k around with it.
Is obl our buddy?
Isn't hard-to-disrupt communication the reason that DARPA got involved in this "Internet" business anyhow?
Good point, although I don't think at the time that DOD believed that others ( non-US govt) would have widespread access. I think they were trying to imagine a way to avoid the single point of failure, which the Internet still fulfills quite well. The DOD was probably more concerned with bombed-out Comm stations and cut fiber/wire under devastated city roads, than DOS attacks. DOS attacks are new and would've been difficult to foresee in the early Internet.
Personally I think that a fragmented Internet is inevitable. The free-market, ( some may argue not-so-free) coupled with the immense size of the Net will cause the net to fragment into different carriers. Each carrier will offer similiar services, prices and the like, just like the Telco's. Hell, most of the fiber is owned by the Telco's anyway, it just allows them to get a return on their investment for all that dark fiber.
Coming Soon: AOLNET, MSNET, GOVNET, DisneyNET, EuroNET, etc.
my philosophy has always been that if it can be made by humans, it can be hacked by humans. someone somewhere will figure it out.
When will the men in charge realise that human factors are the single biggest cause of security breaches. You can have a super secure network, but it takes only one dumb employee who uses a dial-up connection to bring it down. Or hang his home laptop into the network. Or bring a floppy disk with his home work into the office. Or telling his coworkers his passwords for easier cooperation.
The list is endless, and all the network security in the world is not going to change it if you don't educate the people working with it.
"Bush Wants an Unhackable Private Network"
and i want a classic series 3 Jag. Methinks we are both gonna be disapointed come christmass.
Remeber JINTACCS? I doubt it, it was a messageing system, actualy kinda like XML. It allow an Army soldier to do things like call it Naval gunfire. On the lowest level it was a fill in the blank paper, then read over voice radios, at the higher levels a computerized intercomunications protocol.
Actualy it was a good system, not perfect but good, but it was murdered. They did this by teaching it. They didn't start with the easiest and work to the hardest, they tought the hardest first so the average pvt Joe Snuffy got hopelessly lost. They actualy tought me how to report the laying of a naval mine field, I was in an light infantry organisation at the time, that report was for Naval ships Captains. This happened because the middle management types realy didn't want to lose their turf. I think the same thing is going to happen here.
To us its easy, blow some fiber, install some routers between facilities, gateway to some secure sattalites and maybe change the networking code enough to make the civilian stuff incompatable. Add in an armor plated authetication, distr the software to authorized users and your done right? Well the Army won't like working with the Marines, DOD won't like working with DOJ, and Intell won't even like working with themselves.
The only good thing I see from this is sonner or later some of the reasearch is going to trickle down to us and be usefull.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
We're with you on that one geeorgee (first time ever). We're always working to keep ourselves from being phracked into cyber oblivion. As always, we recommend: If you don't want IT seen/pilfered, don't store it on a 'public' server. Anybody tales you different, is feeding you FUDge. That will change (for better, or worse) as time goes buy.
Meanwhile, check out our web address giveaway. Includes a year's free hosting. In case you need somewhere to hang your hack as the GNU millennium kicks in.
Whois using your m$ewallet?
For National Security purposes, there should be a built-in back door.....have we heard this crap before? A clipper chip emulator. Parental controls, these douche bags. Bush? Yeah, right.
Our govenrment again shows it's ignorance of technology.
There is not, and never WILL be such a thing as a network that is absolutely private and secure, particularly when the government (which can't even deliver mail across town on time) is running it. No amount of billions or trillions of dollars spent on it can change that fact.
A "secure" network works like a secret. So long as only one person knows the secret, it's secure. But the instant a second knows it, it's not, and becomes less secure the more people (computers) are "connected" to the network.
What scares me is the draconian police-state laws that will have to be passed to even make this at all workable. Soon as some hacker breaks the "perfect secure private network" (which will happen within days if not minutes of it being established), some group of mornons (Congress) will propose and pass such legislation.
Also, doesn't anyone find it interesting that the govenrment now wants to secure public information systems, yet deny strong crypto to private industry?
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
life's tough sometimes. deal with it.
bush invents us govt network.
thanks, now develop it quickly
AND LEAVE THE REST OF US ALONE!!!
now why didnt al gore think of this, I wonder..
...But doesn't the US flag start with a red bar instead of a white one?
:)
Just a thought
--Bel.
how well 'bush' and 'douche bag' go together?
I hope baby Bush consults Al before he goes forward on this proposal because it'll be prudent to consult with the man who invented the internet...
'easily read my anyone with a reciever?'
Just goes to show that people who
don't know anything still have something to say.
Why? How would you know the framing and
formating of a wireless connection?
how would you know the data-rates?
How would you know in what direction the bits
should be read or the word size?
Yes, wireless can be secure and anyone with
a reciever can't easily get at wireless data
streams unless they are put in a simple stupid
format.
The US government is many things, but not
simple and stupid.
Ethernet protocol is only ONE of many.
Wireless protocols are fads and an open book.
These are just two types of an infinity of
formats that is theoretical.
datacomm doesn't need to be an open book.
Networks can be secured.
The government should be doing this.
What the hell were they thinking putting everything on internet. There ought to be
at least two public networks to secure communications.
There are so many ways to pass data and verify data. The internet and TCP/IP provides an open book for the data. So a different network can use some other protocol.
OH, I know, many think that TCP/IP is the only thing with the only other option being UDP.
Why don't those people go back to school and shut up until they learn about data comm.
Oh, I know why, because in America data comm products are designed by marketting departments.
People who work on data comm aren't even engineers typically.
And that is why that whole sector of the economy is tanked.
The main idea is to protect against denial of service attacks, hacking is less of a concern than a bomb planted at MAE West.
As such there are two ways to address the problem, one cheap but pointless and one expensive and equally pointless,
The cheap way is to patch together a private network using leased lines, the old private network approach. The problem here is that it does not actually add any security, it simply means that you are vulnerable to attack at the SS7 level rather than the IP level. 'fixed' lines are these days routable, albeit using different technology etc. to IP.
So pointless approach number 2 is you go and dig your own trenches, fill them with wire etc. This would cost of the order of a billion dollars and would actually increase the vulnerability of the network since the private net would never be as dense and redundant as the public network.
All in all this is an indication that the administration don't understand what they are doing. They are recapitulating the pre-Internet mindset, they are not moving beyond it.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
And that is exactly why it is so incredibly stupid to restrict the use of encryption to combat terrorism.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
my .02
-Bob
Oh yeah, the pentagon got attacked too, I almost forgot. And so has most of the press. And so has most of the public. My point is made :)
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
a new internet?, I guess its back to the drawing board for Al Gore!
Sure, it could lose 99% of its routing nodes, if all those were the internal routers inside of autonomous systems. Lose those 1% of nodes that speak a border gateway protocol (i.e. exchange routing information among autonomous systems), and suddenly you have a much larger problem.
120 characters isn't enough to explain it.
In addition to pushing for funding for a private Goverment-Net which would continue to use the same flawed non-security based protocols such as BGP but entrust "limited access" to accomplish security, Bush advisors are also pushing forwarded in getting congress to approve Goverment-Ways. Similar to Highways, GovWays ensure the ablity to move goverment officals and equipment more rapidily than highways by declairing GovWays to only be usable by authoritied goverment departments.
"Even if we 100% of our highway growth funding on public highways, there will still continue to be drunk drivers, cell phone drivers, accidents and traffic jams that will get in the way of Goverment traffic," said advisor John Smith. "By re-allocating 80% of those funds towards building Gov-Ways, we are creating a more efficent Goverment."
While quick to admit that the majority of Americans would not get the direct benfits that funding goverment funding of the Internet and Highways would provide, he is just as quick to promote Gov-Net and Gov-Way by stating, "a more efficent federal goverment will always be indirectly good for all Americans. For example, I have been informed by a postal offical that if given access to the purposed Gov-Way system, the average delivery time of mass mailing such as bills and junk mail should be shorten by two hours! That alone should convince most people that discountinuing public highway funding in favor of goverment private highways is the American thing to do."
Jane Doe, another Bush administration advisor also signing the prases of the new GovNet/GovWay purposals stating, "When federal goverment spending becomes more self-serving and less about funding public works, it is then we will have a more efficient and reliable federal goverment for everyone! What could be more American than that?"
Some local goverment offices have already announced similar plans. Several cities have announced plans to reduce funding of public water works in favor of city offical water works. "After all, with scares like anthrax, it is important that we have a closed water system for city officals which isn't exposed to the tampering that a public water system is," said a major city mayor that requested to remain anonymous. "While some say we could try to improve the security of detecting unfriendly agents in the water, it is clear that our limited resources would be better spent on a private secure and reliable water system for myself, my family and staff."
>3) Demand that every OS Developer, from Microsoft to RedHat make their OS absolutely air-tight and unable to be used for such purposes,
Ok, then we need to add #6
6) Demand that every human being is required to perform their job flawlessly, any deviation from this standard will result in life imprisonment, forfiture of all assest and or death by exposure to rabid lawyers.
Do you honestly think any OS developer really wants to let bugs slip into their products? (Ok, well maybe MS.) C'mon, if it were so easy to just *snap* oh look, no more bugs in our 400,000+ lines of code it would have already been done. (Even by MS)
I agree that there should be consequences for DoS attacks and the "free speech" excuse gets thrown out in defense of too many things but what you're suggesting here is not only unresonable, it is not humanly possible.
man RTFM
No manual entry for RTFM.