Ask Lt. Col. John Bircher About Cyber Warfare Concepts
The Air Force is not the only U.S. military branch trying to come to grips with the electronic side of warfare, both current and future. The U.S. Army Computer Network Operations (CNO)-Electronic Warfare (EW) Proponent (USACEWP), located at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas — home to the U.S. Army's Combined Arms Center — serves as the Army's hub for cyber-electronic concepts and capabilities. This is the organization responsible for developing doctrine, materiel and training to prepare the Army for cyber-electronic engagements. For example, USACEWP has developed training teams to ensure that U.S. commanders and soldiers around the world are fully informed of cyber-electronic capabilities at their disposal. Leading the Proponent's Futures branch is Lt. Col John "Chip" Bircher; Bircher entered the Army in 1989 as an Infantry officer, then served in various command and staff positions, most recently Information Operations (IO). He was the IO Chief for the 25th Infantry Division (Light), Hawaii, and Director of IO for Combined Joint Task Force -76, Bagram, Afghanistan. If you want to know more about the realities and challenges that face an armed, global IT department in a time when electronic warfare is ever more important and dangerous, now's your chance to ask Lt. Col. Bircher some questions. We'll pass on the highest-moderated questions for Lt. Col. Bircher to answer. Usual Slashdot interview rules apply.
Good question, but I highly doubt he'll answer any questions directly relating to methods used.
I doubt that he'll answer ANYTHING with any details. This will be a recruiting and PR piece. His "answers" will be vetted by at least 3 different agencies and any content will have been removed.
There's a "material" tag on the story pointing out an apparent typo. I can't ever seem to get tags to behave for me, so I'll post a reply instead. In military talk, "materiel" is a specific term to refer to the stuff we need to fight a battle. It has specific and distinct connotations in supply management, and it used correctly in this article's summary.
++
Yeah, I've always found it hilarious that the IA (Information Assurance) guys tout the glorious impenetrable securities of Windows, even though nothing missions critical runs on Windows.
Ironically, the reason they are pushing Windows is not the security. It's the control. With windows you can remotely disable pretty much anything within a Domain. A person could have administrative access on their Domain attached work station and still not be able to do anything beyond what the Domain administrator allows.
If you have root access on a Linux machine, they can't do anything short of removing your physical workstation to keep you from installing, or even compiling, your own software. And with Linux, you can manipulate network communication that, while possible, is extremely difficult in Windows.
Most importantly though, with regard to control, is that the DoD knows most of the backdoors in Windows. Linux is watched over by millions of people. Chances are, the DoD doesn't know any more backdoors in Linux than you or I.
Resistance is futile. Your technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will become one with the morgue