Slashdot Mirror
US Cyber Command Wants Greater Attack Mentality
superglaze writes "Lieutenant General Robert J Elder, Jr, a senior figure in US Air Force Cyber Command (AFCYBER), has told ZDNet UK that communication issues are hampering the division's co-ordination. 'IT people set up traditional IT networks with the idea of making them secure to operate and defend,' said Elder. 'The traditional security approach is to put up barriers, like firewalls — it's a defense thing — but everyone in an operations network is also part of the [attack] force. We're trying to move away from clandestine operations. We're looking for real physics — a bigger bang resulting in collateral damage.'"
I think they should start out small by going after spammers all over the world. Just think of the positive publicity!
Could the US have any more of an "attack mentality" than it already does?
This is just what we need. Perhaps if things had been properly defended in the first place there wouldn't be so much of a need for the "Cyber Command" in the first place. Or, here's another idea, perhaps critically important systems
shouldn't
be
connected
to
the
INTERNET!!!
perfect security is impossible, somehow "bringing the fight to the enemy" isn't a solution. Changing the way you think about the internet is.
I can't wait until it's "you're on our side of the internet or you're on their side!!"
Every time a government, or especially its military, does something stupid in regards to the internet, I feel the strong need to drink.
Happiness does not come from having much, but from being attached to little.
...when you really need him?
random quote from forgotten source:
"Most wars could be prevented with 1 motivated soldier in the right place at the right time and a well placed bullet"It ain't what they call you. It's what you answer to. http://mylyceum.us/
You can only picture a teenager because for you, the implicit noun modified by cyber- is sex - arguably the default focus of a teen's attention. For the military, the implicit noun is war - that is the default focus of their attention. It is clear that cyber- is an adjective prefix that indicates computation. What it means when the noun is implied is in the mind of the beholder.
You misunderstand. "Collateral damage" means they want to kill your whole family too.
-mkb
Too many of the people that they'd want who are freakishly good at networking probably have a criminal record long enough to deter them from ever holding a TS, let alone a TS/SCI.
I would hazard to guess that the reason that China is able to keep its black hats at bay is the ability of their government to make you disappear in the middle of the night and wake up the next day in a labor camp if they even suspect you of compromising government systems.
Sorry, but the U.S. military just isn't going to get the best hackers around. The biggest problem is that the entire U.S. educational system actively discourages this type of education, in a hostile manner. Big businesses also work with the educational system to discourage creating knowledgeable and skilled people.
Someone posted about a class of theirs on Security issues that got shut down by one big corporation, who threatened not to hire any of their departments' students if they insisted on teaching that class.
So, the bottom line is that our Education system isn't turning out the skilled people that the Military is looking to hire.
This is compounded by the fact that the ones who DO get this knowledge, and have the right attitude, are snapped up by the Bad Guys. Crime is increasingly playing a big part on the internet, and those folks WILL pay good money for the right talent which can deliver results.
I suppose the Military could consider subcontracting out to the Mafia. That's really their only option if they are serious. Otherwise, the best they can get will just be second-rate talent, and more likely third-rate talent.
Good luck attacking, or defending, with that. As a US citizen, I find this frightening, but I've been saying it for years. I'm glad someone is finally waking up to the matter. But I doubt anything serious will ever be done until it's too late.
If all you do is defense, then eventually the enemy is likely to figure out, how to break you.
Attack is the best defense.
Spoken like someone who has no understanding of the art of war.
The first rule of war is: don't go to war.
The second rule of war is if you have to go to war make yourself invulnerable before you attack.
"Attack is the best defense" did not work for Germany in the 2nd world war. It didn't work in Vietnam or Korea. It's certainly not working for the US at the moment.
If your defenses are so strong that your enemy will require all his concentration in order to understand/penetrate them, he won't see that guy sneaking behind him and about to bite him in the ass.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
You're right. I guess Douglas McArthur, like you, really UNDERSTOOD the art of war. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor he withdrew all marine craft from the pacific and focused entirely on defense. The next several years saw Japan make several unsuccessful invasions of the American heartland, thankfully America's invulnerable defense ensured our safety. Eventually Japan became disheartened and gave up attacking America, thus ending WWII. Sure we lost the Philippines, Australia, and eastern China is still part of the Great Japanese Empire, but that's all history.
An attack mentality from an organization called Cyber Defense Command can only mean bad things are about to happen
The organization is call Cyber Defense Command for a reason, because they know that they should be "defending". If they were honest in their naming then perhaps it would be call Cyber Attack Command. Hmmm, I wonder what other countries would think of that.... It's probably the same reason that our Department of Defense isn't call the Department of Preemptive Strikes. It was called The Department of War until 1947. I know some here will say "the best defense is a good offense", but when you have organizations with "an attack mentality" they will always find someone and some reason to attack. War without End.
We are all just people.
Someday this guy will have a big component of his ships, missiles, and robot vehicles taken down by a friggin' virus spawned by two guys in a garage somewhere in Asia.
And he'll go "Oh my god! We were totally taken by surprise! Who could have ever imagined or prepared for something as astounding as this!", for about the 4,000th time in the history of this administration.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Collateral damage, by definition, is unintentional. The contradiction aside, why would the most technologically advanced (arguably, I suppose) part of the US military seek to cause more than the necessary amount of damage?
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Isn't it some kind of war crime to intentionally TRY to inflict collateral damage?
I thought there was an obligation to try to minimize collateral damage?
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
I completely agree. A lot of people stopped walking along the path that they were walking after age 18 because what they thought was, "Pretty damn cool." the government and law enforcement agencies thought was, "A federal felony punishable by time in prison." I was never into hacking System 75 and Audix because I wanted to take down companies... I just thought it was cool to give my friends free voicemail boxes on the end of a 1-800 number that they could access from anywhere. I never got into cloning cell phones because I wanted to eavesdrop on people and steal secrets, that was just a byproduct of the knowledge acquired by knowing how to do it.
This is a bit off topic, but there is a huge problem when it comes to creative/curious people and our legal system. I figured out in my late teens that the legal system is setup to protect stupid people from themselves. It is set to "level the playing field" to the absolute lowest common demoniator and punish anyone who exercises their natural, human instinct to push the boundries. It has been common knowledge for a couple of decades at this point that the government was presented with the "problem" of computer security. They had the option to either help to make systems secure by passing legislation to mandate good practices and levy fines against those who didn't follow them, or they could simply jack up the penalities for messing with the systems. It's obvious which route they took. Systems aren't much more secure than they have ever been and anyone with any inclination to figure them out and poke around at the holes is scared to do so for fear of ending up buried under huge fines and/or incarcerated in Federal prison.
While the NSA might get the best cryptographers, they don't get the best hackers. Or crackers. Anyone who confuses crypto with crackers doesn't know what they're talking about.
The best crackers don't work for the NSA. They are extremely good at what they do, breathtakingly so.
The NSA might get a better group than the military, but if you think they are the best, you are absolutely kidding yourself.
Oh, and the NSA doesn't even get the best crypto guys anymore, either. Google has been outcompeting them there lately.
As for changes at home - talk at the highest levels about how torturing people is OK, suspension of the rule of law in some cases for something a bit more Feudal and widespread hysteria awoken by things like advertising signs looks like a bit of a change.