DHS Publishes Report on Operation Cyberstorm

uniquebydegrees writes "InfoWorld reports that the Department of Homeland Security has released the findings of Operation Cyber Storm, a large-scale simulation of combined cyber-physical attacks on U.S. critical infrastructure. From the article: 'According to DHS, "observers noted that players had difficulty ascertaining what organizations and whom within those organizations to contact when there was no previously established relationship or pre-determined plans for response coordination and risk assessments/mitigation. There was a general recognition of the difficulties organizations faced when attempting to establish trust with unfamiliar organizations during time of crisis."'"

Comments

Shouldn't government agencies be a bit paranoid?

[s20451]

We're all hopelessly paranoid, making trust impossible, and rigidly stratified, making flexible response or communication impossible, oh and so totally self-centered that the mere notion of cooperation causes outbreaks of hives

Hello, FBI? Mid-level functionary from FEMA here. Nasty computer virus we're having, eh? Yeah, I haven't had power for a week either ... no, I can't get money out of the bank machine either. But the good news is that the price of bread is down to ten cigarettes here in Wichita ...

Anyway, I know you've never heard of me, and have no way of verifying my identity. And I know we're in the middle of an unprecedented national crisis. But it would really help us out if you could forward all your operational plans and the locations of all your agents as soon as possible. You know, I really value your trust, flexibility, and co-operation on this one. 'Kay, thanks, bye.

How am I supposed to be surprised?

[cultrhetor]

The FBI can't even get a modern computer to the majority of it's employees. FEMA "misallocated" (read: got suckered out of mucho money) more money than Bill Gates can come up with. DOT engineers have to fill out fifteen forms to receive a box of pencils. The IRS has to rely on outside collection agencies to retrieve back taxes. Veterans' benefits have been slashed - by a government - which claims to support our troops - creating more disabled veterans because of a war we had no business fighting (Iraq). The federal deficit is in the trillions, yet we cut taxes. How the hell am I supposed to be surprised that they can't maintain computer system security?

Re:Sounds Interesting

[jamstar7]

Actually, I think there's a lot of merit to the philosophy of "ineffective government". And it's definitely the case that the system of government we signed up for was designed to be as ineffective as possible without being completely useless.

I wholeheartedly agree. The Founders knew what they were talking about when they insisted on keeping the Federal government relatively weak and ineffective. They had a severe distrust of centralised power, and with good reason. They'd just won a revolution from a strong centralised government that ran roughshod over their rights. They believed the best solution to any problem was a local solution. FWIW, I tend to agree with them. The best information is on the spot, not X thousand miles away.

However, in so far as we have government at all, I would prefer that it was able to act effectively in times of crisis.

I mean, think how much better off we'd be if FEMA, the State of Louisiana, and the City of New Orleans had thought to work out trust relationships and clear contingency plans and handoff of responsibilities, prior to the arrival of a giant fucking hurricane, yeah?

What's wrong with the local authorities, the people closest to the 'action' calling the shots? IMNSFBHO, when FEMA showed up, it should have been to check out the site, figure out the damage, and cut the check.

Also, the article isn't about the "secret police", but about the woefully feeble capabilities of government infrastructure agencies in general, to survive and recover from "cyber" attacks. You might want to save your "secret police" objections for an article about actual "secret police".

So the answer to a weak central facility is more centralisation? To me, this is a firm argument for decentralisation. Spread the pieces around and some of them will survive a hit. It makes the so-called 'Bad Guys' work harder for the same effect. And I'm all for making the 'Bad Guys' work for a living. Why centralise things and make it easier on them by giving them one big juicy target to hit?

Re:Sounds Interesting

[jamstar7]

"What's wrong with the local authorities, the people closest to the 'action' calling the shots? "

there are probably untrained to assertain a priority to recovery.

This training only exists at a Federal level?

You need experts. You also need the local politicians to scream, yell, point, and gather attention of the media and point out every single problem you run into to focus responisbility on FEMA.

These experts only exist on a Federal level? And aren't a lot of our problems due to the tendency of everybody passing the buck up to the next level? If the local politicians are only there to scream, yell, point, and gather attention of the media and point out every single problem you run into to focus responisbility on FEMA, what are they in place for? Where does their responsibility end. Hell, where does their responsibility START??? Local problems need local solutions. What is so inherently difficult in understanding this? Whatever happened to the old fashioned American attitude of self-reliance?

In New Orleans there wan't anyone on the ground capable to call the shots.

In New Orleans, there wasn't anybody on the ground allowed to take responsibility and/or call the shots until FEMA showed up. Biggest problem is, what happens if your Federal visiting fireman who ride in from the sunset don't know their ass from a hole in the ground?