Howard Schmidt Resigns As Cybersecurity Advisor

scubacuda writes "CNN and others report that former Microsoft chief of security Howard Schmidt has resigned as White House cybersecurity adviser. 'With the historic creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the transfer of many of the responsibilities from the Critical Infrastructure Protection Board and the release of the strategy, I have decided to retire after approximately 31 years of public service and return to the private sector,' Schmidt said in his April 21 e-mail."

Comments

What?

[SixDimensionalArray]

I might be way off here, but didn't he just recently ACCEPT this position and he's already resigning?

Re:What?

[Blaine Hilton]

This is probably a sign that the current administration has really bad cyber security plans. I know they really are not doing too much for homeland security too. They have all these billions of dollars, but it doesn't seem that it's going for any real protective measures.

Go calculate something

Re:What?

[Motherfucking Shit]

I might be way off here, but didn't he just recently ACCEPT this position and he's already resigning?

Yep. His predecessor resigned, too, just three months ago, citing the Slammer worm as his reason for leaving. It seemed like a bad excuse at the time, and it seems even worse now, after two people have resigned that position this year.

My hunch is that either:

a) Whoever's in the office of Cybersecurity Adviser is basically the designated fall guy. We'll see this person pushed out (e.g. fake resignation) whenever there's a "cyber attack" that he "should have seen coming."

b) Both men accepted this position, realized that the plans they're supposed to implement are just feel-good actions which aren't going to really accomplish anything security wise, and decided to get out.

c) Both men accepted this position, were asked to do something they couldn't morally/personally agree to do (perhaps some sort of TIA-style project, or overzealous "figure out how to route the entire internet through the NSA" plan) and decided to get out.

d) The government doesn't pay me enough to put up with all this shit.

e) Some combination of the above.

Granted, all of these are speculation, but I imagine the true answer is probably e). It'll be interesting to see how long the next one lasts.

Actually a loss to the Government

[D3TH]

Having worked with Howard during his time with the Air Force, and having followed his career in the private sector and post-Air Force public service, this is really too bad.

For those who don't know (which I assume is most of you), Howard was a pioneer in the area of computer evidence analysis, first as a 'local' police officer, and then as a federal Special Agent. It's important to note that his time at Microsoft had nothing to do with their products (this in response to all those "we all know how secure Microsoft products are" trolls out there).

He and his wife are avid computer users, and Howard was one of the few people I've ever encountered at his level in Government service that could talk to you about technology and computers with any degree of real understanding. He built his own machines (at least when I was working with him) and was taught classes on low-level file system internals and disk layouts.

He became involved with computer crime at a time when only hard-core hackers (not crackers) were really playing around with computers, and paved the way for many others who are themselves pioneers in the information security community, both in the public and private sectors. The atmosphere created and fostered during his time at the Air Force allowed many people to grow and learn, and many of them are not only members of the InfoSec community, but the open-source community as well.

I'd better quit before this turns into blatant fanboyism, if it hasn't already. My intent is not to deify him, I just want all of you who've only heard him give nicely formatted press conferences or canned interviews to know that there's more to him than that. I'm not sure if you could really find someone better to be involved with the goings-on at that level, but I'm absolutely certain that you can find many many worse.

Re:Actually a loss to the Government

[Anonymous Coward]

If he's so great then what was he on about with all those interviews where he insisted that Microsoft was completely focused on security? It was only a couple of years later when everyone at Microsoft resigned the fact that they didn't have a clue about security and took time off to try to figure it out.

Canned interviews are quite telling because it puts a face on the hype. He was either saying things he didn't understand or he was knowingly selling a myth.

We've made a wrong turn somewhere.

[eidechse]

As evidenced by the fact that this: "We are concerned that the cybersecurity issue is losing visibility inside the White House," said Harris Miller, president of the Information Technology Association of America. "In this case, the 'bully pulpit' opportunity to influence the development of a truly secure cyber infrastructure and associated best practices will be lost." is one of the main opinions expressed in this article. We've elevated commerce to such a position that the perspective of a trade group is of primary importance when reporting on government and security. I know this isn't new. Business has played a large role in politics and civics (if the two can be separated) for at least the last 2000 years, but it seems especially egregious when Miller laments the loss of the "bully pulpit" as if he just got outpid for a Super Bowl commercial slot.

Re:So when the Windows update servers got pantsed.

[D3TH]

It's easy to sit on the sidelines and snipe, but the fact of the matter is you've done nothing to address my original post. Instead of nitpicking my statement about his position not being related to products, it would be nice if you had addressed my point, which is simply that during the time that I worked with him, he was significantly more clueful than the other administrators I've interacted with at his level.

Since it's doubtful you were employed at Microsoft during his tenure there, and even less likely to have been privy to any policy or other decisions he made while there, its fairly disingenuous for you to now judge him on the content of a few news stories. I suppose that's always the problem with any position related to security, people never hear about the incidents that DIDN'T happen.

Regardless, I'm not here to defend Howard's performance per se just to give my opinion, having worked directly with him (unlike you?) that there are certainly worse people they could tap for the job (see post below re: Hillary Rosen).