Slashdot Mirror
Air Force Cyber Command General Answers Slashdot Questions
Here are the answers to your questions for Major General William T. Lord, who runs the just-getting-off-the ground Air Force Cyber Command. Before you ask: yes, his answers were checked by both PR and security people. Also, please note that this interview is a "first," in that Generals don't typically take questions from random people on forums like Slashdot, and that it is being watched all the way up the chain of command into the Pentagon. Many big-wigs will read what you post here -- and a lot of them are interested in what you say and may even use your suggestions to help set future recruiting and operational policies. A special "thank you" goes to Maj. Gen. Lord for participating in this experiment, along with kudos to the (necessarily anonymous) people who helped us arrange this interview.
How do we prevent "mission creep" (Score:5, Insightful)
by Jeremiah Cornelius (137)
It appears that the military is increasingly involved in areas who's jurisdiction was once considered to be wholly in the civil domain. Use of jargon like "cyberspace" seems only to obfuscate and distract from the core issue. This appears an effort to recruit public opinion and defuse the deeper questions that strike at the heart of a free and civil society. I think that if we had a statement that "The private mails are a warfighting domain" would generate a fair amount of debate on the role of the military as opposed to the police, the function of constitutional protection of liberties, and the question of what actually constitutes a state of war.
What are the limits on this jurisdiction? Who enforces these limits, and how is the public informed of that status? How are efforts to extend being safeguarded from creating mission creep that threatens all civil discourse in the United States and abroad form targeting, suppression, propaganda and extra-legal surveillance?
ANSWER:
A very good question. It's a complex issue, but bottom line is that we won't need new laws to be able to fly and fight in cyberspace. The DoD's role in protecting cyberspace is governed by domestic and international law to the same extent as its activities in other domains. Other U.S. agencies, such as the Department of Justice and the FBI, have important and, in many cases, leading roles to play.
Attacks on the US and its Allies by China (Score:5, Interesting)
by Yahma (1004476)
There have been several recent news reports that China has and is engaging in a nationally funded effort to hack into and attack US government computer systems. The German government recently announced that they traced recent aggressive cyber-attacks back to the Chinese government. What, if anything, is being done against this type of cyber-terrorism against us and our allies? Why do we still confer most-favored nation trading status onto a Nation who is actively engaged in efforts to spy on and attacak our government and corporate computer systems?
ANSWER:
Yes, there are lots of news reports on that, but I'm sure you can appreciate the fact that there are other branches of the U.S. government that must answer your foreign policy questions. I can tell you that securing cyberspace is difficult and requires a coordinated and focused effort from our entire society - federal government, state and local governments, the private sector and the American people. The Air Force is working to improve our ability to respond to cyber attacks, reduce the potential damage from such events, and to reduce our vulnerability to such attacks.
Accept, Retain, Solicit good people? (Score:5, Interesting)
by Lally Singh (3427)
General,
Some of the most talented people in computer security tend to have the sort of records that prevent them from getting clearance. Maybe nothing heavily criminal, but enough of a colored background that traditional security clearance mechanisms would throw them out of the room before they get started. Often the same types of minds that are really good at computer security are also the rebel types, who'll have some history. Will you work to get these people in, or are we looking at a bunch of off-the-shelf programmers/admins who've taken a few simple courses in computer security?
Also, how do you plan to attract/retain them? Again, rebel types are some of the best hackers, and they're not likely to go in without incentives. Not due to any lack of patriotism per se, but an unexplored understanding of it. More importantly, they're likely to be anti-establishment types who aren't comfortable in the strict traditional chain of command. Finally, usually the outside industry pays quite well for the good ones. Are you prepared to financially compete for the best?
Finally, will there be any connections back to the research/academic community? You may find academics more happy to help than usual, as cyber warfare can often be nonviolent. Also, will the existing (and immense) capability within the NSA be properly leveraged?
ANSWER:
I believe even the most unlikely candidate, when working for a cause bigger than himself, turns out to be a most loyal ally. Young men and women come into the military for any number of reasons - education, health care, etc. - but end up staying because they believe what they're doing matters. We know money doesn't create loyalty--a sense of purpose does. We'll take what they have to offer, and in turn they might be surprised by what they get back. It's not just our military members either, it's all those who partner with us . . . academia and private industry, our civilians and contractors, too. In the cyber command, there is a purpose and sense of urgency to be ready. You can bet that we leverage all the expertise out there to help us do our job.
Older recruits? (Score:5, Interesting)
by rolfwind (528248)
It seems that in the military traditionally it was always looking for people fresh out of highschool for EMs and if you wanted to get anywhere in the military you had to be either college educated or, to really have a high end military career, start really young in something like the Valley Forge Military Academy and work from there.
In a traditional branch of the army/navy/airforce that is probably as it should be.
But in this area people have to be trained for years, still not know as much as the older hands in the private industry, and before they really know enough their enlistment would be over. Also, it would be unacceptable for an older IT person to join but take a pay cut to a Private's level or perhaps even a Lieutenant's -- so I imagine this branch would have to be somewhat different.
Is the military going to do to reach out toward the older folks who have extensive experience and knowledge outside the military?
ANSWER:
As I work alongside today's Airmen, many with very specialized skill sets in great demand outside the Air Force, I find them to be incredibly well trained and up-to-speed on current technologies. We bring them in from a general practitioner level and take them to expert level in reasonable time ... and well before retirement age indeed! We train them with specific technical skills as well as overarching abilities required to lead in today's environment. You're right in that we couldn't compete in the cyber world without the experts in the civilian industries who give us the technology in the first place, provide the architectures we use, and even the software we need. People don't have to enlist or take a pay cut to help us out. Certain skill sets can also be brought on board as civilians or contractors, and in many cases we do offer compensation competitive with the commercial sector.
Which acts of war should be illegal in cyberspace? (Score:5, Interesting)
by cohomology (111648)
War is never clean.
In conventional warfare, certain actions such as hiding among civilian populations are forbidden. These actions are considered war crimes because of the collateral damage they are likely to cause. What actions in cyberspace do you think should be outlawed? How about intentionally bringing down hospital IT systems, or destroying undersea cables without regard to the effects on civilian populations?
ANSWER:
The U.S. military complies with all applicable domestic and international laws, and that will certainly apply equally within cyberspace. The Law of Armed Conflict, for example, arose from a desire among civilized nations to prevent unnecessary suffering and minimize unintended destruction while still waging an effective war. It would be possible, as you mentioned in your scenario, that some who ignore the laws of civilized nations could conduct operations in cyberspace that may have unlawful negative consequences on civilian populations. For us, abiding by these laws, being good at we what do and maintaining a technological advantage over our adversaries provides us a first line of defense. Those who commit unlawful acts would certainly face potential criminal liability for war crimes.
Physical Fitness (Score:5, Interesting)
by spacerog (692065)
General, You were recently quoted in Wired as having said "So if they can't run three miles with a pack on their backs but they can shut down a SCADA system, we need to have a culture where they fit in." Is this an accurate quote? As a former member of the US Army I must say that passing a PT test is not very difficult and the suggestion that some soldiers should be exempt from basic minimum requirements is rather upsetting. Are you actually advocating the relaxation of military physical fitness standards for 'cyber warriors'? Would this not create a double standard and animosity between the cyber command and other sections of the military? Surely there must be other recruitment incentives that can be applied to attract the talent you need.
ANSWER:
I don't disagree with you . . . and I am not advocating changing our PT test. What I am saying is that we, as a military culture, need to look beyond what we've traditionally recruited. The very nature of our military requires that we be able to work in combat conditions and be able to establish and protect our cyber/communications structures and networks in remote, even austere conditions. As anyone who has worked in these austere locations will tell you, being fit is critical to mission success, so I don't foresee or advocate for a relaxation of standards just to bring in this specific type of talent. But, as we know, some of what we do in cyber can be done at home station as well, so what will our force look like in the future? This is something we need to look at and evaluate as we progress in this area.
It is good war is so terrible... (Score:5, Insightful)
by MozeeToby (1163751)
A wise man once said "It is good that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it". If cyberwarfare ever becomes a reality, how do we respond to the fact that is isn't "terrible"?
The direct damage from such warfare would be primarily economic or data security related (rather than a cost in human lives) how do you feel we can prevent it from becoming a monthly, yearly, or daily occurance?
ANSWER:
The fact is we are dealing with this on a daily basis and it won't be going away anytime soon. Not for any of us. The way to shield ourselves from these attacks is to be at the forefront of technology, tactics and procedures relating to operating in cyberspace. We have systems and software that are protected by multiple layers of security and functional redundancy. We train our people to be on the cutting edge of this technology, and we find ways secure our information. We have to take this very seriously because we rely on our networks to conduct military operations all around the world. The person who hates war the most is the warrior who has to go to it ... we want to prevent that.
Criminal vs Warlike Actions (Score:5, Interesting)
by florescent_beige (608235)
General Lord,
Does the AFCC have a mandate to pursue criminals that use information infrastructure to commit crimes, or is your group intended to defend against warlike attacks only?
If the latter is true, how would you distinguish between criminal activity and warlike activity in cyberspace?
ANSWER:
The speed and anonymity of cyber attacks makes it very hard to distinguish what actions would be those of terrorists, criminals, nation states or just some lone prankster. Our command coordinates with government partners such as the DoD's Cyber Crime Center staff, who work with law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute criminal acts if necessary. A "war-like activity" can also include presenting misleading information to our battlefield commanders. So, we've got to be spot on about authenticating the trusted source of that information in the first place. But, generally speaking, if something is a coordinated attack that would cause disruption or an attack that required a high level of technical sophistication to carry out, that would cause us to take a closer look and recommend a proper response.
Legal Hacking... (Score:5, Funny)
by JeanBaptiste (537955)
Just post a list of the stuff you want hacked and the more patriotic hackers will enjoy doing it for free.
Due to the nature of hacking and what many people do to acquire such skills, they may not want to 'join up' and all that.
But if you post a list of IP's that are okay to bring down, and networks you want information stolen from, with the understanding that the US will not condemn any attacks, and I'm sure more than enough people would do it for free.
Is there anything like this already in place? Cause I got nothing better to do this weekend. Or most any weekend.
ANSWER:
YGTBKM! LOL! I like your enthusiasm, but you know the Air Force neither encourages nor condones criminal activity.
Could a Cyber Attack Trigger a Real War? (Score:5, Interesting)
by florescent_beige (608235)
General Lord,
I'm curious to know if you have have any criteria that would enable you do decide when a cyber attack is an act of war. Would it be possible for some kind of action inside a network to lead to a shooting war without some kind of overt physical threat occurring first?
ANSWER:
Within the Department of Defense, we are careful not to speculate about what would be considered an act of war. Our nation's elected officials are the ones who will decide what threats to, or actions against our national security will constitute an act of war against the United States. These same leaders will likewise determine what an appropriate response would be, and that could be diplomatic, economic or involve the military to demonstrate the nation's resolve. That's why it's my responsibility to oversee the building of a command that will provide our leaders, through the appropriate chain of command, with many options with which to deter threats in the first place or respond when necessary.
Why was the Air Force tasked with this? (Score:5, Interesting)
by Isaac-Lew (623)
Why should the US Air Force be tasked with this, instead of DISA or NSA, neither of which is tied to a specific branch of the military?
ANSWER:
Don't confuse the fact that we are standing up the Air Force Cyber Command to mean we are the lead for the nation, or the primary command to respond to a particular incident. We are just one part of a combined effort. Our first priority is to work with DoD to defend AF military resources, but many of those resources rely on civilian entities, so we obviously have a keen interest in protecting those items as well. We thought it was the right thing to do to consolidate our efforts and to align all the Air Force cyber-related resources so we can have better command and control. This command will be able to respond better to the needs of our commanders and be the focal point within the Air Force for cyber security and defense missions, as well as respond to emergencies and natural disasters. Make no mistake, we are partners with the other sister services--the Army, Marines, Navy--as well as with DISA, NSA and Homeland Security to name a few. We're all in this together.
Question about Existing Contractors (Score:5, Interesting)
by tachyon13 (963336)
General Lord, I currently work as the exact type of 'cyber warrior' you intend to recruit. But I already have a Top Secret clearance, already familiar with DoD systems, etc. The dynamic with what we call 'Information Assurance' is that of a constant struggle with our contractor management (stay within the contract, the budget, etc) and with our 'warfighter' higher ups (educating them on why they can't have full access from their home in the spirit of "operations are a priority, to hell with security"). So assuming you can get the type of expertise that are eligible for clearances, and that are willing to relocate to Offutt/etc, how are you going to address the core issue of security in the DoD: Operations/budget/schedule will always trump security. Or alternatively, security will always be back burner to 'hot' issues. Thank you for your time.
ANSWER:
Certainly the balance between having access to do our mission and having robust security is an issue where not everyone agrees on just how much to restrict or how much to allow. The Air Force takes the security of its computer networks very seriously and has taken several measures to educate our users and to provide secure means for them to operate. As with many other issues, the Air Force through its commanders, must assess the risks and make a decision. I don't agree or I maybe I just haven't seen where security is always a back burner item.
CyberCommand Location (Score:5, Interesting)
by Mz6 (741941)
General,
Can you explain some about the situation developing between Barksdale AFB and Offutt AFB as they try to fight over the eventual final location for CyberCommand? My thoughts are that finding and recruiting talent, and laying the foundation for such a large wired infrastructure in the Omaha, Nebraska area may be easier to accomplish than in and around Shreveport, LA. What types of things is the DoD looking for when they choose the final location for this new Command?
ANSWER:
The government actually has a regulation that covers the whole process for choosing a location for a command and it's a very defined, thorough process. The bases must meet certain criteria -- existing infrastructure would be just one aspect of many items along with communications or square footage requirements, but there are other considerations, such as the impact to the environment that the Pentagon will consider. I would hope that no matter where it was located, we would still be able to attract the talent needed to work in this exciting command and that all communities see the need to protect this domain.
How do we prevent "mission creep" (Score:5, Insightful)
by Jeremiah Cornelius (137)
It appears that the military is increasingly involved in areas who's jurisdiction was once considered to be wholly in the civil domain. Use of jargon like "cyberspace" seems only to obfuscate and distract from the core issue. This appears an effort to recruit public opinion and defuse the deeper questions that strike at the heart of a free and civil society. I think that if we had a statement that "The private mails are a warfighting domain" would generate a fair amount of debate on the role of the military as opposed to the police, the function of constitutional protection of liberties, and the question of what actually constitutes a state of war.
What are the limits on this jurisdiction? Who enforces these limits, and how is the public informed of that status? How are efforts to extend being safeguarded from creating mission creep that threatens all civil discourse in the United States and abroad form targeting, suppression, propaganda and extra-legal surveillance?
ANSWER:
A very good question. It's a complex issue, but bottom line is that we won't need new laws to be able to fly and fight in cyberspace. The DoD's role in protecting cyberspace is governed by domestic and international law to the same extent as its activities in other domains. Other U.S. agencies, such as the Department of Justice and the FBI, have important and, in many cases, leading roles to play.
Attacks on the US and its Allies by China (Score:5, Interesting)
by Yahma (1004476)
There have been several recent news reports that China has and is engaging in a nationally funded effort to hack into and attack US government computer systems. The German government recently announced that they traced recent aggressive cyber-attacks back to the Chinese government. What, if anything, is being done against this type of cyber-terrorism against us and our allies? Why do we still confer most-favored nation trading status onto a Nation who is actively engaged in efforts to spy on and attacak our government and corporate computer systems?
ANSWER:
Yes, there are lots of news reports on that, but I'm sure you can appreciate the fact that there are other branches of the U.S. government that must answer your foreign policy questions. I can tell you that securing cyberspace is difficult and requires a coordinated and focused effort from our entire society - federal government, state and local governments, the private sector and the American people. The Air Force is working to improve our ability to respond to cyber attacks, reduce the potential damage from such events, and to reduce our vulnerability to such attacks.
Accept, Retain, Solicit good people? (Score:5, Interesting)
by Lally Singh (3427)
General,
Some of the most talented people in computer security tend to have the sort of records that prevent them from getting clearance. Maybe nothing heavily criminal, but enough of a colored background that traditional security clearance mechanisms would throw them out of the room before they get started. Often the same types of minds that are really good at computer security are also the rebel types, who'll have some history. Will you work to get these people in, or are we looking at a bunch of off-the-shelf programmers/admins who've taken a few simple courses in computer security?
Also, how do you plan to attract/retain them? Again, rebel types are some of the best hackers, and they're not likely to go in without incentives. Not due to any lack of patriotism per se, but an unexplored understanding of it. More importantly, they're likely to be anti-establishment types who aren't comfortable in the strict traditional chain of command. Finally, usually the outside industry pays quite well for the good ones. Are you prepared to financially compete for the best?
Finally, will there be any connections back to the research/academic community? You may find academics more happy to help than usual, as cyber warfare can often be nonviolent. Also, will the existing (and immense) capability within the NSA be properly leveraged?
ANSWER:
I believe even the most unlikely candidate, when working for a cause bigger than himself, turns out to be a most loyal ally. Young men and women come into the military for any number of reasons - education, health care, etc. - but end up staying because they believe what they're doing matters. We know money doesn't create loyalty--a sense of purpose does. We'll take what they have to offer, and in turn they might be surprised by what they get back. It's not just our military members either, it's all those who partner with us . . . academia and private industry, our civilians and contractors, too. In the cyber command, there is a purpose and sense of urgency to be ready. You can bet that we leverage all the expertise out there to help us do our job.
Older recruits? (Score:5, Interesting)
by rolfwind (528248)
It seems that in the military traditionally it was always looking for people fresh out of highschool for EMs and if you wanted to get anywhere in the military you had to be either college educated or, to really have a high end military career, start really young in something like the Valley Forge Military Academy and work from there.
In a traditional branch of the army/navy/airforce that is probably as it should be.
But in this area people have to be trained for years, still not know as much as the older hands in the private industry, and before they really know enough their enlistment would be over. Also, it would be unacceptable for an older IT person to join but take a pay cut to a Private's level or perhaps even a Lieutenant's -- so I imagine this branch would have to be somewhat different.
Is the military going to do to reach out toward the older folks who have extensive experience and knowledge outside the military?
ANSWER:
As I work alongside today's Airmen, many with very specialized skill sets in great demand outside the Air Force, I find them to be incredibly well trained and up-to-speed on current technologies. We bring them in from a general practitioner level and take them to expert level in reasonable time ... and well before retirement age indeed! We train them with specific technical skills as well as overarching abilities required to lead in today's environment. You're right in that we couldn't compete in the cyber world without the experts in the civilian industries who give us the technology in the first place, provide the architectures we use, and even the software we need. People don't have to enlist or take a pay cut to help us out. Certain skill sets can also be brought on board as civilians or contractors, and in many cases we do offer compensation competitive with the commercial sector.
Which acts of war should be illegal in cyberspace? (Score:5, Interesting)
by cohomology (111648)
War is never clean.
In conventional warfare, certain actions such as hiding among civilian populations are forbidden. These actions are considered war crimes because of the collateral damage they are likely to cause. What actions in cyberspace do you think should be outlawed? How about intentionally bringing down hospital IT systems, or destroying undersea cables without regard to the effects on civilian populations?
ANSWER:
The U.S. military complies with all applicable domestic and international laws, and that will certainly apply equally within cyberspace. The Law of Armed Conflict, for example, arose from a desire among civilized nations to prevent unnecessary suffering and minimize unintended destruction while still waging an effective war. It would be possible, as you mentioned in your scenario, that some who ignore the laws of civilized nations could conduct operations in cyberspace that may have unlawful negative consequences on civilian populations. For us, abiding by these laws, being good at we what do and maintaining a technological advantage over our adversaries provides us a first line of defense. Those who commit unlawful acts would certainly face potential criminal liability for war crimes.
Physical Fitness (Score:5, Interesting)
by spacerog (692065)
General, You were recently quoted in Wired as having said "So if they can't run three miles with a pack on their backs but they can shut down a SCADA system, we need to have a culture where they fit in." Is this an accurate quote? As a former member of the US Army I must say that passing a PT test is not very difficult and the suggestion that some soldiers should be exempt from basic minimum requirements is rather upsetting. Are you actually advocating the relaxation of military physical fitness standards for 'cyber warriors'? Would this not create a double standard and animosity between the cyber command and other sections of the military? Surely there must be other recruitment incentives that can be applied to attract the talent you need.
ANSWER:
I don't disagree with you . . . and I am not advocating changing our PT test. What I am saying is that we, as a military culture, need to look beyond what we've traditionally recruited. The very nature of our military requires that we be able to work in combat conditions and be able to establish and protect our cyber/communications structures and networks in remote, even austere conditions. As anyone who has worked in these austere locations will tell you, being fit is critical to mission success, so I don't foresee or advocate for a relaxation of standards just to bring in this specific type of talent. But, as we know, some of what we do in cyber can be done at home station as well, so what will our force look like in the future? This is something we need to look at and evaluate as we progress in this area.
It is good war is so terrible... (Score:5, Insightful)
by MozeeToby (1163751)
A wise man once said "It is good that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it". If cyberwarfare ever becomes a reality, how do we respond to the fact that is isn't "terrible"?
The direct damage from such warfare would be primarily economic or data security related (rather than a cost in human lives) how do you feel we can prevent it from becoming a monthly, yearly, or daily occurance?
ANSWER:
The fact is we are dealing with this on a daily basis and it won't be going away anytime soon. Not for any of us. The way to shield ourselves from these attacks is to be at the forefront of technology, tactics and procedures relating to operating in cyberspace. We have systems and software that are protected by multiple layers of security and functional redundancy. We train our people to be on the cutting edge of this technology, and we find ways secure our information. We have to take this very seriously because we rely on our networks to conduct military operations all around the world. The person who hates war the most is the warrior who has to go to it ... we want to prevent that.
Criminal vs Warlike Actions (Score:5, Interesting)
by florescent_beige (608235)
General Lord,
Does the AFCC have a mandate to pursue criminals that use information infrastructure to commit crimes, or is your group intended to defend against warlike attacks only?
If the latter is true, how would you distinguish between criminal activity and warlike activity in cyberspace?
ANSWER:
The speed and anonymity of cyber attacks makes it very hard to distinguish what actions would be those of terrorists, criminals, nation states or just some lone prankster. Our command coordinates with government partners such as the DoD's Cyber Crime Center staff, who work with law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute criminal acts if necessary. A "war-like activity" can also include presenting misleading information to our battlefield commanders. So, we've got to be spot on about authenticating the trusted source of that information in the first place. But, generally speaking, if something is a coordinated attack that would cause disruption or an attack that required a high level of technical sophistication to carry out, that would cause us to take a closer look and recommend a proper response.
Legal Hacking... (Score:5, Funny)
by JeanBaptiste (537955)
Just post a list of the stuff you want hacked and the more patriotic hackers will enjoy doing it for free.
Due to the nature of hacking and what many people do to acquire such skills, they may not want to 'join up' and all that.
But if you post a list of IP's that are okay to bring down, and networks you want information stolen from, with the understanding that the US will not condemn any attacks, and I'm sure more than enough people would do it for free.
Is there anything like this already in place? Cause I got nothing better to do this weekend. Or most any weekend.
ANSWER:
YGTBKM! LOL! I like your enthusiasm, but you know the Air Force neither encourages nor condones criminal activity.
Could a Cyber Attack Trigger a Real War? (Score:5, Interesting)
by florescent_beige (608235)
General Lord,
I'm curious to know if you have have any criteria that would enable you do decide when a cyber attack is an act of war. Would it be possible for some kind of action inside a network to lead to a shooting war without some kind of overt physical threat occurring first?
ANSWER:
Within the Department of Defense, we are careful not to speculate about what would be considered an act of war. Our nation's elected officials are the ones who will decide what threats to, or actions against our national security will constitute an act of war against the United States. These same leaders will likewise determine what an appropriate response would be, and that could be diplomatic, economic or involve the military to demonstrate the nation's resolve. That's why it's my responsibility to oversee the building of a command that will provide our leaders, through the appropriate chain of command, with many options with which to deter threats in the first place or respond when necessary.
Why was the Air Force tasked with this? (Score:5, Interesting)
by Isaac-Lew (623)
Why should the US Air Force be tasked with this, instead of DISA or NSA, neither of which is tied to a specific branch of the military?
ANSWER:
Don't confuse the fact that we are standing up the Air Force Cyber Command to mean we are the lead for the nation, or the primary command to respond to a particular incident. We are just one part of a combined effort. Our first priority is to work with DoD to defend AF military resources, but many of those resources rely on civilian entities, so we obviously have a keen interest in protecting those items as well. We thought it was the right thing to do to consolidate our efforts and to align all the Air Force cyber-related resources so we can have better command and control. This command will be able to respond better to the needs of our commanders and be the focal point within the Air Force for cyber security and defense missions, as well as respond to emergencies and natural disasters. Make no mistake, we are partners with the other sister services--the Army, Marines, Navy--as well as with DISA, NSA and Homeland Security to name a few. We're all in this together.
Question about Existing Contractors (Score:5, Interesting)
by tachyon13 (963336)
General Lord, I currently work as the exact type of 'cyber warrior' you intend to recruit. But I already have a Top Secret clearance, already familiar with DoD systems, etc. The dynamic with what we call 'Information Assurance' is that of a constant struggle with our contractor management (stay within the contract, the budget, etc) and with our 'warfighter' higher ups (educating them on why they can't have full access from their home in the spirit of "operations are a priority, to hell with security"). So assuming you can get the type of expertise that are eligible for clearances, and that are willing to relocate to Offutt/etc, how are you going to address the core issue of security in the DoD: Operations/budget/schedule will always trump security. Or alternatively, security will always be back burner to 'hot' issues. Thank you for your time.
ANSWER:
Certainly the balance between having access to do our mission and having robust security is an issue where not everyone agrees on just how much to restrict or how much to allow. The Air Force takes the security of its computer networks very seriously and has taken several measures to educate our users and to provide secure means for them to operate. As with many other issues, the Air Force through its commanders, must assess the risks and make a decision. I don't agree or I maybe I just haven't seen where security is always a back burner item.
CyberCommand Location (Score:5, Interesting)
by Mz6 (741941)
General,
Can you explain some about the situation developing between Barksdale AFB and Offutt AFB as they try to fight over the eventual final location for CyberCommand? My thoughts are that finding and recruiting talent, and laying the foundation for such a large wired infrastructure in the Omaha, Nebraska area may be easier to accomplish than in and around Shreveport, LA. What types of things is the DoD looking for when they choose the final location for this new Command?
ANSWER:
The government actually has a regulation that covers the whole process for choosing a location for a command and it's a very defined, thorough process. The bases must meet certain criteria -- existing infrastructure would be just one aspect of many items along with communications or square footage requirements, but there are other considerations, such as the impact to the environment that the Pentagon will consider. I would hope that no matter where it was located, we would still be able to attract the talent needed to work in this exciting command and that all communities see the need to protect this domain.
and the answers are content-free.
Oh, well. At least they tried.
I, for one, welcome our William T. Lord overlord.
Both good questions and good answers.
Bravo to both and Kudos to Gen. Lord.
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
WTF?
What?
Some of those answers are obviously 'cleaned up' and somewhat evasive... but some are actually quite nice, and the man actually used 'text speak' in an answer... I'd say the questions and answers came across rather well, given that they had to be combed over. I'd love to hear more candid, off-the-cuff answers but I know that's not really an option when dealing with something of this nature.
The security clearance question was dodged. That's too bad. I would love to work for such an organization, and might even have signed up with the Air Force if I thought I could make it into that group when I was younger. However, I know that for silly reasons that have to do more with red tape than any actual wrong-doing on my part, a security clearance is out of the question. If he'd given people some hope that the typical rules regarding security clearances would be relaxed in favor of a more "are you a potential threat" based analysis, he might have won some hearts and minds.
YGTBKM! LOL! I like your enthusiasm, but you know the Air Force neither encourages nor condones criminal activity.
p.s. and we know where you live.
p.p.s. and we told the FBI, DHS and your state and local PD where you live.
p.p.p.s. and we all have guns.
The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
"Cyber Command"? What time does that show air on the Disney channel?
Q: Please g3ve u5 r00t to m133ile l3nche5!
... control ... fist .. of .. death ...]
A; No.
Q; You suxx0r!
A; I love my job! { must
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
We in the Army had Billets (dorm like rooms). Air Force personnel had what looked like apartments.
Our Billets were subject to inspection at any time, 24/7. Air Force living quarters were more of less off limits to their NCO's and officers.
We worked from 7:00am to whenever we were done, weekends were worked about 50% of the time. Air Force personnel worked from 9:00 to 5:00, with weekends off.
When we went to the field, we slept on our tanks. Air Forcer personnel stayed in air conditioned tents or hotels(!!!).
It seemed to me that those in the Chair Force had jobs. We were in the military.
Of course, this is all from my personal experience. There are some more lax army positions that the one I had and I'm sure that there are some hard-core Air Force jobs, but on average, the Air Force people had it so much better than we did.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
But I think your second point is most important - they tried. Assuming (hoping?) they really are reading feedback we can hope they will adjust their filters accordingly. being vague on questions such as roles and responsibilities between government agencies will only create a general sense on unease in the general population.
Furthermore, we should remember as a group of large agencies, there's bound to be politicking and may not be the level or coordination desired. Of some of this vague area may reflect reality, they don't really know where lines actually exist...
Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
The issue of Internet security and being on forefront of technology seems to me like it has much more to do with education and intelligence than with the military directly. If you want the country as a whole to be on the forefront of technology, you have to have the highly educated people who create and master said technology. To my mind, this issue becomes more of how we can improve abysmal public schools and the like than what the military can do.
I'm reminded of Foucault, who in Power/Knowledge discussed the idea of power in the context of a network or society. The military is embedded in the network of American power, and in the domain of Internet security and the like it seems to rely even more on other parts of the network than it does in other forms of operation like physical combat.
This is actually quite a traditional thing; what we used to call Letters of Marque were issued to pirates to 'legalize' their attacks on the enemy. While these were banned by the 1856 Declaration of Paris, the US is not a signatory to that treaty, and theoretically Congress could issues these permissions (it's a power specifically granted them in the Constitution).
You'll forgive me for posting this anonymously, for obvious reasons. Feel free to take it with a HUGE grain of salt.
In 2004 I was made aware of an effort by the Singaporean Military to hire a Singaporean national with an existing history of submitting code to the Linux kernel (I believe his main are was network card drivers for hardware made by various Asian manufacturers).
Their proposal was that in the middle of the normal patch stream he would slowly inject a very subtle bug that would introduce a remote exploit into the Linux kernel, that they could then keep to themselves for use if needed.
Whether or not this story was entirely true (I have never been able to confirm it, given the sensitivity and not wanting to risk trouble, but my source knew the person they tried to recruit) surely there must be potential risk of similar efforts by governments around the world.
Can you guarantee that you won't attempt to intentionally introduce exploits into Open Source projects in order to create your own private zero day exploits?
not a very fun game, as the only way to win is not to play.
how about a nice game of chess? no wait i suck at chess...
how about a nice game of paper-rock-scissors?
The General's answer to the third question ("Accept, Retain, Solicit good people?") clearly shows that his answer to "Usually the outside industry pays quite well for the good ones. Are you prepared to financially compete for the best?" is "No."
So, US Government, please let us know when you're ready to put your money where your mouth is, and we'll subsequently give you the best damn computer security on Planet Earth. Until then, you're just another employer trying to get more than he's paid for out of his staff.
From: Joint Chiefs
To: General Lord
Encoding: S00per Seekrit COd3 #5
Ixnay on the LOL-ay, mkay?
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
My God, how many stars is that?
I just got out of the Air Force after six years. I'm not making things up -- that was the response to suggestions that there were no better arguments against. Perfect example: the hot water in the dorms was brown (not tinted -- BROWN) for years. "We had it tested. It's safe." Um.. IT'S FUCKING BROWN! I sat at a computer 8 hours a day. Sometimes 6 if no one was looking. I lived in an air conditioned tent for 4 months. I lived in a closet, where I had the ability arranged my furniture only because I had played Tetris and I ate garbage served by the laziest, dumbest people I've ever met in my life for 3 years. The Air Force sucks, and I'm sure you're right -- the Army was worse.
Whale
If we were to make such an attack, wouldn't that just be doing our duty as part of the unorganised militia of the USA. I mean, since every male from the age of 18-40 is already part of it, wouldn't it be part of doing our part to do war upon the infrastructure of the enemies of our nation, as much as it would be to do war upon invaders?
That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
He has nothing to do with that. The only thing he could say is it up to elected official to determine financial questions; which would have been a correct answer, but worthless for this interview.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It is unfortunate that the General did not talk about his vision for the future, as several questions prompted.
Does the Cyber Command have a concrete understanding, and long term projections, of cyber wafare in the future?
For example, could this result in the creation of a new branch of the military, in a similar way as the Army Air
Corps spawned the Air Force? In order to instill confidence in our operations, it is important that we convey an
appropriate vision for the future. The disparity, for example, revealed in one response about distinct cyber
groups across the different branches of the military is counter-intuitive, to say the least! This reveals an operational, as opposed to a strategic role of IT in the military. While that may be correct today, ought we not be working towards a paradigm shift in the future?
On the issue of internet law, while a politically understandable response, it would have been good to have read a
more realistic grappling with these incredibly difficult problems. It is a fairly routine conception to refer to
the internet as the wild west, and this is a significant reality in terms of effectively addressing defense. In
particular, this contradiction is revealing:
"It's a complex issue, but [the] bottom line is that we won't need new laws to be able to fly and fight in
cyberspace." [....] "Those who commit unlawful acts would certainly face potential criminal liability for war
crimes."
Effective warfare exploits opportunity, and the lawlessness of the internet has been exploited ad nausea by
criminals and nations the world over. While it is not the role of the military to devise such laws, surely we can
see the strategic importance that it is in our best interest to encourage the establishment of such laws? This should be pretty
obvious: in the same way that a military power is want to fight insurgents/guerrillas, the US Cyber Command
shouldn't tacitly accept a theater that strongly disadvantages what should otherwise be a significant position of
power.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brian Basgen
Information Security Officer
01110101 00100000 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
=
u r a geek
http://www.theskull.com/javascript/ascii-binary.html
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
This indicates something of a culture gap between the kind of hackers who the general presumably wants to recruit and the generals themselves. Paul Graham states it well:
Such "prickly independence" is the opposite of the stereotype of the military that's lodged in my mind. Now, I know that stereotype is somewhat inaccurate, but nonetheless the rebel/renegade streak that runs through many -- though by no means all -- of the creative, intelligent people who often know technology well. I'm not sure I'd go as far as Paul Graham's "most," but I'm definitely going to use "many."
Finally, regarding the tone of the answers, remember too that it's easier for an individual speaking for himself (Neal Stephenson, anyone?) to answer candidly than it is for someone who represents millions, especially because the military sometimes has PR problems. If the general says anything forceful, it will be spun around the Internet, quoted -- perhaps out of context -- in newspapers, and generally leave the military open to the PR of others.
I'm not sure how to solve such cultural problems between hacker types who need direct unvarnished honesty ("Where is the mistake in this?") versus PR types in public ("How do I make sure my words won't be used against me?").
Am I the only one who can't help but think: he is the very model of a modern major general?
A lot of the questioners and commenter's seem to believe that the serious work of Network Security, technical counter espionage, and general "cyber" defense are done by folks in blue or green uniforms. This is simply not the case. Contractors and government civilian employees do the vast majority of this work.
It doesn't matter that the Air Force isn't changing its standards to recruit more "hackers" into the enlisted or officer ranks because the work is overwhelmingly being done by civilian contractors/GS/DOD civilians.
Just because the recruiting commercials talk about the high quality of military technical training doesn't make it true. Most of NETCOM's military folks wouldn't know a NOOP_SLED or SQL injection attack from a Carl's Jr. 6-dollar burger.
It isn't that they are unintelligent mind you; it is simply that the training is inadequate, their time is divided amongst too many tasks to stay on top of technical fields, and the culture of the military isn't very conducive to performance oriented tech tasks.
After all when a CERT geek is underperforming you can motivate them with the threat of job loss or outright fire their dead ass... the military just doesn't work like that.
Incompetence is rampant because it isn't grounds for termination. Ergo : contractor corps.Laborare Est Orare
4 groups involved in the command. In my experience, while Air Force IT enlisted (group 1) are the best among the US military, most get fustrated by group 2 and leave to join group 4. The officers (group 2) tend to be useless egomaniac bootlickers who see how much group 4 is earning and tend to favor one or two organizations in that group in return for management positions later. The federal employees (group 3) are almost all retired military who refuse to update their skills from the punchcard days. Worse, they are placed in leadership positions that 20+ years of sniveling have left them completely unprepared to do well. Only the contractors actually know anything about cybering and security. Of course, they are not supposed to do the former from government computers and are prevented from doing the latter by groups 2 and 3. The best they can do is pass on some skills to group 1 and recruit them when their enlistment is up. The biggest culprits are group 2 as officers they lie and lie about what they have done and kiss up to their higher officers and former higher officers. Then, as contractor management, they lie and lie about what they can do and kiss up to their higher management and their former higher officers.
I think given the type of forum and nature of the subject the answers were OK. Hey, they answered.
And I still think "General Lord" ranks up there in the top ten of title/name combinations.
Of nothing beats Staff Sargent Max Fightmaster, and nothing probably ever will.
If this really IS being followed at the highest levels, then I can't help but comment.
I worked at a certain major AFSPC base for almost a decade as a contractor. Back in the early days, when we first got a base-wide Internet connection, the local Comm Squadron was free to implement security systems as they saw fit, and we had some good stuff in place - we sorted out the Sidewinder mess that CITS dumped on us, added our own IDS, and made the best of our home field advantage, setting up tripwire alarms and things on hosts scattered throughout the network to catch internal scanning.
This was all done by contractors, mind you, and it got done because we liked what we were doing, took pride in doing a good job of it, and we had support from the squadron commander. The blue suiters had a very high turnover rate, with average retention at something like 6-9 months for the folks down at our level. None of them ever learned to do much besides process NOTAM paperwork and handle accreditation pacakges.
Once the MAJCOM started taking control of the security stuff, our defensive posture went to crap. What we'd done didn't fit with the overall plan, so it was all removed. We were left with poorly-implemented downward-directed systems operated by poorly-trained drones. Every week we'd have to explain to these people (mostly MAJCOM-level people, the AFCERT folks were usually a little better) basic concepts like IP spoofing (I wrote a 2-page form letter on the subject), and teach them how to read their own ASIM logs.
I have to say that the aggressor squadron teams that'd come in and attack the network knew their stuff. And of course they were able to break in every time. But it felt a little like being armed with a paintball gun and having the Marines sent at you. We KNEW how to help prevent, detect, and respond to these attacks, but we weren't given the authority, time, or resources to do anything about it.
If Cyber Command is going to do anything useful on the defensive side of things, then the best thing they can do, IMO, is to deploy a small garrison force to each base and give them the responsibility for base network defense. Let them interface directly with the BNCC, and plan on having them in one place for AT LEAST 18-24 months. Let all of these forces communicate with each other at the working level to share information and strategies. Some of our most productive contacts were those we made with other bases on our own initiative, and not through the chain of command. Keep the chain of command in the loop, but let the people at the bottom talk to each other.
Most importantly, make it clear that their job is security, and not paper pushing. Certainly there's always going to be paperwork involved, but when I left, the CND office did nothing BUT push paper, and paper that was largely worthless. Not a single thing they did would have ever helped to detect an attack from within the base network.
I don't mind saying all of this, and I'll be happy to say plenty more, because I don't work there any more, and I frankly don't care to ever get another penny of Air Force money. I WOULD like to know that the trend toward totally incompetent central management of base security is being reversed, though.
Generals don't typically take questions from random people on forums like Slashdot
When I was in the USAF I wrote a letter to president Nixon, and recieved a very nice and polite reply from a General. So Generals may not answer random people on the internet, but they do answer random servicepeople who write the Comander In Chief.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
It won't get in the way if you remember your cover sheet.
I didn't mean to imply that AF was not military, but from where I was sitting, it sure felt like it. Here is a story that explains why: We had just come back from the field and were cleaning our equipment at the motor pool. We had been in the field for three weeks, with no shower, bathroom, mess hall or any of the other comforts of the rear (that didn't sound right!). When we slept, we slept where we were. I was a tanker (M1A1 Heavy Common) so where we were was always on the tank. We got about 4 hrs a night, with one hour radio watch. We were in the motor pool cleaning our equipment because we were scheduled to back to the field in a week. In the two years I was in (the bare minimum... there was no way in Hell I was re-upping), we never spent three solid weeks in the rear. OSUT (One Station Unit Training... Basic + AIT in one shot) was actually the easy part for me. Anyway, as we were in the motor pool, some AF guys pulled up asking where they could fuel up. I sent one of them to my XO since maybe the LT might know. That was his job, after all. While waiting I was talking to the rest of these guys (three guys and one... female). I asked them if they spent any time in the field. One of them responded "Oh yeah! Lots of time." I explained that we slept on our tanks and asked what the living conditions were for them. Another responded, "Last year we spent three months in the field, total. One month was in an AC tent. The other two was in a hotel." I walked away, disgusted at my choice of branches! Now, of course, there were some Army units that had the apartment style barracks, and things were starting to lighten up for us when I got out. We got a new SGT Major who saw that re-enlistment numbers sucked and wanted to make life better for us. He was single and didn't like the idea that married soldiers had it so much better than us single enlisted non-NCO's. He allowed us... actually encouraged us to paint our hallways and rooms however we liked. He even dropped by one Friday evening to check out the work. He stopped by one room where they had a painted a stripe around the room. We were in there smokin', jokin' and drinkin'.. heavily. He walked in, we called "AT EASE!". He put us at rest, checked the place out and said he liked it. He did not mention the mess the room was in and ignored that fact that about half the guys in the room were under drinking age. He just said he liked it, told us we could do more to our rooms if we liked and left. He was also starting to make it so that NCO's in need of a detail could not just raid the billets looking for warm bodies at all hours of the week. "If those living off post are not available for details, then neither are these guys." Inspections were scheduled well in advance and "pop-inspections" were only for contraband and hygiene (nothing that would attract roaches and so on) So, yeah, it was changing for us combat arms types, but nothing near the point where we had our own rooms. Still, since we were never really in our living quarters, it didn't really make much of a difference. Not all units got the treatment we did and some had it better. I don't know what happened to 3/18 Cav when the SGT Major left, either.
Also, I understand that AF jobs like Forward Air Controller had it just as bad as us Army types since he had to be attached to us Army types. I'm also sure that Search and Rescue type jobs had it much worse than I did as they needed to be anywhere with no notice ready to fight their ways in and back out. But, on average, IMHO, only, the AF guys had it much easier than us USArmy types.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Bot networks have been shown to be very powerful, whether used to mass email or launch a DDOS attack. So I suggest creating an official defense botnet client that civilians can download to help our military from home.
Naturally, the military wouldn't use this every day, but if this effort were heavily publicized through major media outlets and made easy to download and install (initiates contact with home so it bypasses most consumer firewalls without port forwarding, etc). I think you would find the number of cyber patriots to be large indeed.
Of course, if the military ever attempted to tie a backdoor of any kind into this bot client it would create a serious backlash so I would recommend hard coding that this should never be done into the orders to create it as well as public statements. This will help reduce the possibility of a future commander doing so either.
The other possibility is that the bot net could fall into the hands of a third party. While this is possible, and it probably isn't possible to make it impenetrable all you really need to do is make it secure enough that its easier to establish your own illicit botnet. People are doing just that every day so that barrier can't be that high.
I've found that military/government culture is generally about a decade behind corporate culture. For example, when I was in the Navy they were pushing this "TQL" stuff, which was a bad rehash of the popular 80's TQM "Total quality management" initiatives. Corporate culture had moved past that particular management flavor of the week, but the military was just getting into it.
I see a similar thing with hiring practices. I'm a vet, and a talented senior developer and quite patriotic (in a libertarian/contstitutionalist sense). I decided a couple years ago to try to offer my services to the government.
I went to the usual places, such as usajobs and looked at or applied for various development positions. Most of the jobs were such a hassle to apply for, I didn't even make it past the first stage. You couldn't even talk to a human being until you had filled out a bunch of different forms, put together a "package", submitted it, had it rejected for some minor error, resubmitted it etc...
Many of the jobs had degree requirements and wouldn't even talk to me.
After going through all this for weeks, I didn't get a single response back. Nothing. So I figured "oh well, I gave them a chance" and I accepted one of the multitude of positions head hunters were clamoring for me to take, for a much better salary than was being offered by any of the government positions.
The punchline to this story is that about four months after all this (and after I was happily settled into my new job), I got a couple calls from those agencies saying that my package had finally passed review and asking if I was available for an interview. Four months!
With a process like that, how is the government supposed to hire talented people?
Drinking habits can be dangerous. You can choke on the cloth and the nuns will wonder where their clothes are.
General Lord,
What is going to be the policy for Open Source? As you probably know there is a great prevalence in the Black Hat community to use open source for their tools.
What is going to be the policy for use of tools that would be considered black hat in nature? IE: Is the USAF going to have the latest versions of MPACK with the full subscription?
In China, there is a cottage industry of hackers that are paid after they pull off hacks, is there going to be any situations where that occurs here?
What is your opinion of the paper "Unrestricted Warfare" by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui? Is this going to be part of the foundation for the USAF CC or is the program's posture going to be purely defensive in nature?
Thank you
Reading Lord's comments I couldn't help the feeling that I was listening to a service delivery manager from one of those outsourcing companies like CSC or Unisys. All that stuff about "we know money doesn't create loyalty" and "we leverage all the expertise out there" sounds painfully familiar. And after they run out of BS and the fog of confusion finally clears, you realize that all of your Unix servers are supported by two guys in Hyderabad, who share one Solaris 2.6 certificate and know less about Unix than my cat. The worst thing USAF can do is take advice from the outsourcing industry.
A good pay is how your employer shows you that your work and your experience are appreciated. And knowing that you are appreciated is what makes you a happy employee. And happy employees tend to be loyal to their employers. So, yes, money does create loyalty. Lord says that "in many cases we do offer compensation competitive with the commercial sector". While this may be true, working for the USAF as a civilian contractor is not like working in the commercial sector. There's a whole different level of crap that you need to put up with. So, if the USAF is serious about this Cyber Command business, they need to do a whole lot better than just salaries that are "competitive... in many cases". When hiring, don't go for the quantity - you are not planning a cyber-invasion of China - but go for quality instead.
Speaking of quality, while Lord understands that they "need to look beyond what we've traditionally recruited", he is still under the impression that the USAF can "bring them in from a general practitioner level and take them to expert level in reasonable time". Of course, this depends on their definition of "reasonable time", but somehow I don't think they mean 10-20 years. They are probably talking about a couple of years at most. I remember reading a resume of a guy claiming to have "reached the Unix guru level". I just had to bring him in for an interview: I wanted to see what a Unix guru looked like. Apparently, some time in the past ten years the minimum guru requirements have been significantly lowered.
Programming and system administration are not those fields where you can turn a rookie into an expert in reasonable time. The time required will be most unreasonable. For example, a good sysadmin is not someone with encyclopedic knowledge of "man" files, but someone with a big database in his head of stuff that broke down and how it was fixed. Theoretical knowledge is important - comp-sci degrees, training, certificates, etc. - but what really matters is experience - years and years of it. So hire the most experienced personnel you can afford and hold on to them as if the security of your country depended on it. Guys who are good, know they are good, so you need good ego-stroking skills to keep them around. Hint: pinning medals to their chests is not going to help, but a fatter paycheck might. So the approach along the lines of "we'll take what they have to offer, and in turn they might be surprised by what they get back" is not going to work. The people USAF needs are of that certain age where they don't like and can ill afford surprises.
"The U.S. military complies with all applicable domestic and international laws, and that will certainly apply equally within cyberspace..." And that's what everyone is afraid of. But, hey, as long as they wear uniforms while hacking networks, they should be in the clear as far as the Geneva conventions are concerned.
Because it was the job of the VOTERS who put him in office to VOTE him out.
You have the chance to eject the Republicans every election.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Despite complaints otherwise, these answers were not entirely content free. Clearly, in many cases they were worked over EXTENSIVELY by PR people to remove any information of a sensitive nature; both politically sensitive, as well militarily. While I certainly think they have no business censoring information because of political sensitivity (an act that works against the very foundations of a democratic society, so I find it rather offensive), that's not to say that NOTHING came though.
Some things I think I came away with:
- Overall, he seems willing to pursue candidates who might otherwise have not been "military material."
- They seem to be setting up a framework of SOME sort under which multiple intelligence agencies are able to cooperate effectively. According to my understanding, this is a drastic departure from the current state of affairs.
- They WILL be dealing with domestic targets, if only in cooperation with other domestic law enforcement bodies. This was the impression I got from their answers, but it might be reading too far into it (though I doubt it).
- Assuming the former is true, they are going to try to do an end run around domestic and civilian cyber law. The sense I got from the evasiveness (reading into what he avoided answering), was that they have no intention of abiding by the same laws that civilians and domestic law enforcement are forced to obey. My guess is it's going to be more of the same, "this is national security, those laws don't apply to us," bullshit we've been seeing for the last 8 years out of the painfully fascist leanings of the current powers that be.
While I often read too much into what isn't said, the real impression I'm getting is that they're going to try to parlay the military nature of this new cyber command into an excuse to avoid obeying the current legal restrictions faced by domestic agencies. If you thought this whole fiasco with AT&T was bad, just wait until the military gets their fingers in the cookie jar. (BEWARE the goddamn military-industrial complex. I may sound paranoid, but that's the greatest danger out there to our freedom.)
and I don't know what YGTBKM! means.
Well, from my decade of service in the USN Submarine Service I'd say that a significant (if not vast) majority of my fellow bubbleheads exhibited the traits of "prickly independence" and "rebel/renegade". From encounters and conversations with other parts of the Navy and other branches of the service over the years I'd say that (outside of the more elite branches, like the Submarine Service) the traits are present in what amounts to only a very slight minority.
Many in the military also tend to be more creative than you might think. Certainly we're trained as most people think, to treat The Book as something to be followed slavishly. What most people don't realize is that we are also schooled in the principles behind The Book so that when the shit hits the fan and The Book has to be tossed over our shoulder - we are ringing the changes rather than merely improvising. (And even when we do have to improvise, we've still got that grounding to work from.)
Which is why the military values those traits - someone who doesn't have them flounders when you have to heave The Book. And the military knows full well that in the real world things will go all pear shaped - its inevitable. (And, inevitably, leads to tension between 'the kind of serviceman you want in peacetime' and 'the serviceman you need in harm's way'.)
The difference between the typical creative person and the military mind, I think, lies in the ability of the military mind to 'switch modes' as it were. The discipline to stay in robot mode when needed, matched with the ability to operate creatively when needed. You can't have artistic tantrums when the bullets are flying, or even in peacetime in garrison.
1) Do you have any foreign connections? Obviously, the biggest security concern with classified information is foreign espionage. So, they want to make sure that you aren't under the sway for a foreign government.
2) Do you have anything that could be used as leverage to make you give up information? It isn't that the care so much what you are or what you've done, they care if you care. Your sexual orientation isn't important... unless you are scared about having it revealed, in which case it could be leverage.
That's what they are worried about. They want to make sure you won't give up the secrets you are supposed to keep. So the check is based around first making sure you are who you say you are, and then making sure that there isn't anything about you that could be used.
I have a friend who has an active secret clearance despite having used marijuana. They were actually more concerned about the fact that his mom was originally from Mexico. However, upon checking it out fully, they decided that she was just your standard immigrant, and thus her son had no special ties to a foreign power. As such he got his clearance and now works for General Dynamics.
They really don't give a shit about your life, beliefs, etc, unless they happen to be something that might lead you to betray the secrets entrusted to you. You would probably find that bad credit would be much more problematic than past drug use (since being deeply in debt makes you easy to bribe).
1a) The realspace laws that govern military activities apply to our cyberspace activities.
1b) The same people who oversee us to make sure we comply with the other laws.
1c) We do like we do with realspace things, we turn them over to the appropriate civilian authorities.
2a) We are doing our best to defend the nation's interests. As you can imagine, it is hard and complicated by politics.
2b) Good question, but the military doesn't make those decisions. Ask your democratically elected government.
3a) We are constrained by what Congress, the President, and the rest of the mucky mucks decree. We let in those we can. We also have little say over security clearances.
3b/c) We will attract them as we always have: patriotism, money for college, a chance to learn and earn, and even health care. We are an all volunteer service. Our people will stay because they want to stay. We may not pay the best, but we want loyal servicemen, not mercenaries. Our members will stay because they are making a difference as a part of a larger organization.
3d) We have had, continue to have, and will have a strong connection with the research/academic community.
3e) You are asking the wrong person again. We will work with them, but how much they do is up to the rest of the government.
4) Other people make those decisions. But, even if one is too old to enlist, one can always work for the military as a civilian employee/contractor.
5) We don't make laws and I really can't answer this question without getting my ass in trouble. That said, we will abide by the laws of war and those that don't will be punished.
6) I don't think we should lower fitness requirements, especially for people who are deployed. But, we may want to rethink some of the requirements and how they are measured. And, we should rethink what we look for in recruits. Fitness can be increased, but stupid is forever. And, for some posting, especially ones in the U.S. maybe we can use people who would not be deployable or who may be forced out due to health or weight. We might even want to consider converting those people into civilian employees/
7) You have just mentioned what makes my job hard. How to make cyberwar "terrible" so as to make it undesirable? Right now, it is a matter of a good defense. It may come to trying to isolate countries or enlisting other governments in the hunt for cyberterrrorists. We REALLY want to prevent a cyberwar because war sucks for us more than you will ever appreciate.
8)We are really for defending against outside groups attacking the U.S., but sometimes it is hard to tell that from civil crime. When we investigate, if we determine that it is outside our mandate, we turn it over to the appropriate civilian agency, such as the FBI, CIA, etc.
9)YGTBKM! LOL! I like your enthusiasm, but you know the Air Force neither encourages nor condones criminal activity.
10) We don't decide what constitutes an act of war. That is for the civilian government. We just fight the battles they pick.
11) We are tasked with defending military computers and networks. The other agencies defend other systems. We will work together, but they have their job and we have ours.
12) I don't see the mindset you are talking about. Maybe I am not exposed to it, but I don't think that is the way things are.
12) If I answered this it would be TL:DR. There is an entire process in place which I, and many people in the military, have little to no control over.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I just don't see an army of educated IT security people being able to fend off self taught hackers, let alone even detect them.
I am not worried about the veterans, unless they are self taught. And in that case I'd make sure not to do anything that would leave them feeling betrayed. Think about what Kevin Mitnick did to the FBI after working with them. People don't realize, there are far better then Kevin out there. The best ones are the ones you'll never hear about, they are ghosts.
The best ones also have a strong sense of right and wrong, it's just different from what most peoples views are.
As for myself, being told I can't do or accomplish something is the strongest motivator.
It's not a conscious thing, it's almost obsessive compulsive and no malice or desire for any gain what so ever, nether data or money.
Just thrill or fulfillment of some deep subconscious need.
In high school I couldn't help when walking by a row of locker in an empty hallway to unlock 20 locker in a row that had master locks on them, then re-lock the locks on upside down. And see how fast I could do it. I'd won many bets that way.
Same for teacher bathrooms, the school safe. (just opened the door 1 inch then closed it again) They ended up putting me in charge of the schools computers in my senor year since I already had full access and knew much more then the consultant that they had that barely could update there COBOL source code.
Over the years, I have built my own modems from scratch, build and sould the first PC sound devices, wrote the first code to play 6 Bit digital audio on the PC's internal speaker. Built early home made packet radios, spread spectrum radios on CB's.
Reverse engineered many BIOS/ boot ROM's, copy protection, viruses, crack games, AOL and Compuserve account, phreaked, security systems, vending machines, Cable TV, cell phones, GPS, you named it.
When one malicious hacker that messed with me later asked a friend to get a copy of 286 AMI Bios from me, I even put a defanged non-contagious version of Jerusalem B virus into it so that it installed the TSR portion every time he formatted a disk. Specifically so it would aways infect ever disk he touches. Specifically designed to get detected so no one would ever trust floppies from him. He used to be a big wares guy, but I put a quick end to that.
Over the years I have gotten into so many things and ever left a trace, just popped in, poked around, got board and moved on.
In the process I have learn so much and had written so much code, that I have become a seasoned kernel hacker in both BSD and Linux with a strength in networking.
Another thing people don't realize, Hacker don't aways have a specific target but meander, and see where it goes.
I think Bruce Schneider pointed out was they go the weak points, like don't open the lock but go in over the drop ceiling tiles.
The reality is that heavy lock is more likely to attract them if for no other reason then out of curiosity. What the hell is in there that requires so much security? It's like a giant puzzle and solving it, quenches ones curiosity.
Anyhow now that I probably said too much, just for the record, I stopped the illegal stuff a long long time ago, now that I have probably gotten myself on some watch list.
These days, I focus on understanding SPAM (towards blocking, tracing etc), defending DOS, P2P, ECIP and flow control, Video and data compression, mathematics, Cracking DRM and FOSS coding. It still fulfills the rebel side of me, and also accomplishes something useful.
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
I've got some questions, doubt they'll be answered(wish I coulda caught the original article).... or atleast answered with the nonanswers we got here.
I've been in IS now for over a decade, almost exclusively as a blackhat. In the past few years I've gotten into doing "unconventional" threat response - blackhats can be the best whitehats, y'know, learning through doing. Now tell me, why should I go in at an entry level paygrade when I can make more as a civilian? What gaurentees do I have of immunity? Why should I bring my tricks to your trade, when it's unlikely I'd be in an enviornment of trust anyways? As is I've got a juvi record and wouldn't get a sec. clearance anyways. I've got alot to lose by going in, including the trust and respect of those around me, whom I've been running with for 12 years -- but nothing of gain is apparent. What about the risk of being given a different AFSC? I've got some friends that went in 13D together, showed up to boot, and were told they were 11B now.
These are the thoughts on our minds. Personally, I've been considering enlisting for a long time now, but USMC. Give me some real answers(unlike those posted above), some gaurentees on paper, and maybe I'll consider USAF. 'Til then, no way.
www.isoHunt.com
So, US Government, please let us know when you're ready to put your money where your mouth is, and we'll subsequently give you the best damn computer security on Planet Earth.
He doesn't want to hire you. He wants people who aren't motivated only by money.
Because if you're motivated only by money, when the Ruskies (allow my cold war allusion) come by with a $40M bag you're going to tell them everything you know.
Now, you may be saying to yourself, "hey, I'm not just about the money, I've got my ethics, my morals, my values." OK, so then take a paycut for the Common Defense, if that's the right thing to do. If not, see #1.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Here are the answers. Before you ask: yes, his answers were checked by both PR and security people.
Warning, he will sound like a robotic overlord because his management folks don't understand how much this site's visitors value a genuine personal tone. So deal and try to extract the meaning on your own.
How do we prevent "mission creep" (Score:5, Insightful)
by Jeremiah Cornelius (137)
ANSWER:
A very good question. It's a complex issue, but bottom line is that we won't need new laws to be able to fly and fight in cyberspace. The DoD's role in protecting cyberspace is governed by domestic and international law to the same extent as its activities in other domains. Other U.S. agencies, such as the Department of Justice and the FBI, have important and, in many cases, leading roles to play.
Existing laws are fine. theres like a million of them. If there's a problem, we will hook up with Legal over in DOJ and the FBI, just like we do for everything else. It's not Different if it's Just On The Internet Now.
Attacks on the US and its Allies by China (Score:5, Interesting)
by Yahma (1004476)
ANSWER:
Yes, there are lots of news reports on that, but I'm sure you can appreciate the fact that there are other branches of the U.S. government that must answer your foreign policy questions. I can tell you that securing cyberspace is difficult and requires a coordinated and focused effort from our entire society - federal government, state and local governments, the private sector and the American people. The Air Force is working to improve our ability to respond to cyber attacks, reduce the potential damage from such events, and to reduce our vulnerability to such attacks.
You can't honestly expect me to start slinging mud at other governments. that's what you elect politicians for. We're just trying to keep our computing house clean, and be ready if a mission calls for something all hackery.
Accept, Retain, Solicit good people? (Score:5, Interesting)
by Lally Singh (3427)
ANSWER:
I believe even the most unlikely candidate, when working for a cause bigger than himself, turns out to be a most loyal ally. Young men and women come into the military for any number of reasons - education, health care, etc. - but end up staying because they believe what they're doing matters. We know money doesn't create loyalty--a sense of purpose does. We'll take what they have to offer, and in turn they might be surprised by what they get back. It's not just our military members either, it's all those who partner with us . . . academia and private industry, our civilians and contractors, too. In the cyber command, there is a purpose and sense of urgency to be ready. You can bet that we leverage all the expertise out there to help us do our job.
I know that a lot of folks think hax0ring is way anti military/establishment/uniform. But many times you can get real quality people from unexpected places. We can't pay the big bucks usually but we find that lots of people will do it anyway because they want the pride that comes with Protecting the Motherland. Lots of people work in nonprofits for less pay because they believe in the mission, too.
Older recruits? (Score:5, Interesting)
... and well before retirement age indeed! We train them with specific technical skills as well as overarching abilities required to lead in today's environment. You're right in that we couldn't compete in the cyber world without the experts in the civilian industries who give us the technology in the first place, provide the architectu
by rolfwind (528248)
ANSWER:
As I work alongside today's Airmen, many with very specialized skill sets in great demand outside the Air Force, I find them to be incredibly well trained and up-to-speed on current technologies. We bring them in from a general practitioner level and take them to expert level in reasonable time