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.

Comments

John Bircher?

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Wait a second. Aren't members of the John Birch Society called "John Birchers"? If so, I'd say this poor bastard has an unfortunate name.

Re:John Bircher?

[QRDeNameland]

His superior officer, Col. Kukla X. Clanner, wasn't available for comment.

Re:John Bircher?

[Dahamma]

I just looked at that wiki entry, and found this even weirder:

"It was named after John Birch, a United States military intelligence officer"

Technique?

[Manip]

Does the US Army take advantage of traditional misconfiguration and social engineering techniques in order to compromise a network or are the US government developing a home grown list of exploits to gain access to foreign government systems?

Re:Technique?

[dreamchaser]

Good question, but I highly doubt he'll answer any questions directly relating to methods used.

Re:Technique?

[notdotcom.com]

If by "social engineering" you mean "torture", then yes, I'm pretty sure the US excels at social engineering.

Legal Ramifications

[muellerr1]

How does the military ensure that it is operating within the law regarding online military offensive activities? Are there any laws or oversight, as such? If so, how are those laws and/or oversight affected by a declaration of war?

Re:Legal Ramifications

[tooler]

Since war never gets declared anymore, I doubt they've even thought about your latter question.

Re:Legal Ramifications

[Xaositecte]

In the military, there are legal assistants whose entire job is to ensure military actions are only carried out against legal targets. In theory, you would stand next to the commander and make the call when an important call has to be made. In conventional operations, this means making sure you know what's a hospital or orphanage, what is an acceptable target, what zones the politicians have declared off-limits for troops to go into, etc. Around 95% of the time, this actually works, and the military actually obeys the law!

This is a terrible job to have that other 5% of the time, because it makes you the designated fall guy when something happens. Especially when an order comes down from on high to ignore the law, and just get something done.

I imagine the same legal assistants will be present to inform commanders of whether a target is legal or not in regards to cyber warfare.

Why so many directly connected networks at all?

[BadIdea]

I'm interested in why so many sensitive networks are even hooked up to the internet in the first place, or why trivial systems are so often bundled with sensitive ones under the same security frameworks.

Why aren't there more isolated networks that would require physical contact or interception to get to in the first place? Do sensitive systems really need any connection at all to the conventional internet in the first place?

I know that many places in the DoD do take this approach (people having one computer for safe email and browsing, and a completely different computer for sensitive intel), and certainly it's more expensive and less convenient. But when the internet is basically just a big pathway leading directly to your backdoor, why take any chance at all, ever?

Re:Why so many directly connected networks at all?

[Lev13than]

I'm interested in why so many sensitive networks are even hooked up to the internet in the first place, or why trivial systems are so often bundled with sensitive ones under the same security frameworks.

Good point - I guess if the Internet had been designed by the military (or, say, by a military research group) it certainly wouldn't have ended up this way...

Re:Why so many directly connected networks at all?

[qbzzt]

Why aren't there more isolated networks that would require physical contact or interception to get to in the first place?

Maybe they have people who can go places and attach wireless / satellite access points to various networks. It's not a safe job, but the military has plenty of jobs that aren't safe.

Re:Why so many directly connected networks at all?

[BadIdea]

You probably meant that as a joke, but that actually might be a good point: perhaps the internet's origins in the military have led to some overexposure in modern use that wouldn't have otherwise been the case if it had its roots elsewhere.

Re:Why so many directly connected networks at all?

[Peter Mork]

It is often the case that the sensitive systems aren't directly connected to the Internet. Instead, the sensitive system gets inadvertently connected to another (less-sensitive) system that is connected to the Internet. The second systems gets compromised, which gives the attacker a way to attack the first system.

For example, as I understand it, a nuclear plant was taken offline by attackers. The control system was not connected to the Internet. However, the management system (payroll, timecards, etc.) was connected to the Internet so that managers could get work done via the Web. Based on some insider knowledge, the attackers subverted the management system, which was mistakenly connected to the control system (by the contractors responsible for the management system). Thus, the attackers were able to shut down the plant. So, the people responsible for the sensitive systems know to keep these systems off the Internet, but mistakes happen.

What is that?

[khasim]

What, specifically, would be a "cyber-electronic engagement".

Include examples.

Compare/contrast with traditional forms of intelligence gathering (wiretaps, listening devices, etc) and their counter-measures.

Interview Question

[Anonymous Coward]

With the political tilt as it is, a large part of the software development community is likely prejudiced against helping our country. With this in mind, how do you recruit the most creative and skilled people that this country has to offer?

Re:Interview Question

[Daniel Dvorkin]

With the political tilt as it is, a large part of the software development community is likely prejudiced against helping our country.

You made a typo there. Here's a correction:

With the political tilt as it is, a large part of the software development community is likely inclined against helping politicians use the Army as a tool to fight wars which harm our country.

Re:Interview Question

[flaming error]

a large part of the software development community is likely prejudiced against helping our country Say what?

If you mean to say lots of us don't support invading foreign countries without causus belli, or we start complaining at the suspension of habeas corpus and being jailed indefinitely without charges, then you're confusing "helping our country" with supporting the government.

Defending Liberty and Supporting our President are not necessarily the same thing.

Re:Interview Question

[qbzzt]

With this in mind, how do you recruit the most creative and skilled people that this country has to offer?

Probably he'd rather recruit people who will obey orders to the best of their abilities as long as those orders are legal. I don't think the military is interested in people who want an option to leave if they don't agree with their orders.

There are people who don't make good soldiers. I'm one of them. That doesn't mean that out of a population of ~300 million he won't find the people he's looking for.

Re:Interview Question

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he's pretty much right. I gave up DARPA contracts and the opportunity to work in the Defense Industry recently because I felt like I had blood on my hands. It wasn't because I thought that the war was bad for America. It's because I didn't want to program guidance systems which lead to the direct death and maiming of civilians. It's because I didn't want to write simulators that teach our soldiers to kill without showing them ramifications of that killing. It's because I don't want to have a hand in collateral damage, no matter how small.

Hacker war...

[Notquitecajun]

I doubt you could REALLY answer this, but Is the US military playing any sort of role in the semi-undergroung "hacker war" that appears to be going on between China and the US?

Increasing Complexity & Risk Management?

[networkconsultant]

With an ever increasing amount of information on the battle field, how would you limit risk when Murphy's law is not functioning in your favour?

For us geeks who'd be sitting behind a computer ..

[Anonymous Coward]

to fight. Will we have to go to basic training?

If so, would basic training be to train us to stay up all night, living on pizza, soda, Skittles, and porn?

If so, where do I sign up?!?

Relationship with the Air Force?

[El Cubano]

Since the Air Force is the U.S. military branch claiming dominance in "cyberspace" (along with air and space), how do you view the Army's relationship with the Air Force in "cyberspace"? Will the Army seek to take over all of the "cyberspace warfare", carve out its own niche in cyberspace, or peacefully coexist with the Air Force?

With respect to leadership in this area across the DoD, do you feel that the Air Force being denied the program executive role for all DoD UAV endeavors represents an opportunity for the Army increase its role with respect to UAVs (as many people see cyberspace and UAVs to be inextricably linked)?

Re:Relationship with the Air Force?

[HasselhoffThePaladin]

What you're talking about is similar to the question of who "dominates" the strategic warfare front. Rather than one dominating, each service has its own forces for that mission area, but they all typically fall under the respective Unified Command.

The US Strategic Command often, not always, has its commander come from either the Air Force or the Navy (with one exception, Marine General James Cartwright), as they have the preponderance of strategic nuclear weapons (AF with ICBMs and long-range strategic bombers and Navy with sea-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs)--the triad).

That all leads to my question: Do you foresee the eventual formation of another unified command like USSTRATCOM whose area of responsibility is that of maintaining US dominance of cyberspace--with each of the services providing their own forces to this unified command? How long until we have USCYBERCOM?

Attacks...

[Notquitecajun]

Without diving into details that compromise security, can you reveal anything about the types or quantities of attacks that the US military is able to fend off, and how often they are faced?

Re:Attacks...

[Sloppy]

Without diving into details that compromise security

Can you imagine what might have happened, if you had not so qualified your question? He might have let the cat out of the bag!

Personally, I would have phrased it this way: "Please tell us everything you're up to. (It's ok. We're cool.)"

Re:Attacks...

[legirons]

Personally, I would have phrased it this way: "Please tell us everything you're up to. (It's ok. We're cool.)"

Actually, that's probably a very good question to start the interview with...

China

[je ne sais quoi]

What is the U.S. Army doing to protect U.S. sensitive information from the frequent number of cyber-attacks originating from inside the People's Republic of China? Is it primarily defensive?

Re:China

[legirons]

What is the U.S. Army doing to protect U.S. sensitive information from the frequent number of cyber-attacks originating from inside the People's Republic of China? Buying and installing routers from there? ;)

Re:China

[ndogg]

On top of that, do you buy it when China says it lacks the skill to hack our systems?

Recruitment

[caljorden]

Does the US Air Force, or any branch of the armed services, currently recruit for cyber-related positions directly? Or is it a requirement that all members come out of the standard armed services personnel? If there is currently no system for recruiting the best and brightest CS/IT/Security personnel from the civilian population, would that ever be considered?

Re:Recruitment

[db32]

I can answer this one for you. Yes they do. The Air Force in particular has been getting much more active in advertising it's increasing need for the intel/cyber style missions. You basically go through the same process everyone else does.

1. Go to the recruiter and say "I want to do XYZ". If you are lucky you will get a recruiter that isn't a slimeball and will actually help you do specifically what you want. Hit or miss here, some are really amazing folks that know how to work things, others are asshats that know how to sleaze kids in. Do your research first. Non military and recruiters are about the last people you want to talk to for "how it really is" information, one is clueless and comes up with nonsense stories, the other has a clue and comes up with nonsense stories. Currently active or recently retired people will have the best information, though it will frequently be a bit dated. It is best to refine your questions with them and then ask specific pointed questions of the recruiters.

2. Go to the MEPS (Military Entrance Processing Station I believe) and do the tests. ASVAB being the big one here, all branches use these scores in one way or another to determine what jobs you are qualified to do. This isn't exactly a hard test by any stretch, more than anything it gives the military a guess as to how complex of a school they can send you to without wasting money on you failing out. You will also go through the whole physical thing, eye tests, piss tests, blah blah blah.

3. Go to the career manager folks. Each branch has a different name for them and this part will typically happen at the MEPS. Again, much like recruiters they are hit or miss. However, they have a bit better of an excuse. They aren't there to convince you to join so much as for you to tell them what specific job you want to do. These are the people that look up your scores and compare that to job requirements and then check for openings in that job. They process tons of people per day, many of which have no idea what they want to do other than "work on computers" or "fix planes" or whatever. The key to coming out of this is to do your research well before you go. Narrow down what you want to do to a few jobs and know their code for whichever branch you are talking to. These people are experts at human resources stuff, not the details of whatever career you want. They probably won't be able to answer much unless they came from that career or know someone in that career. The best bet is to get your recruiter to arrange some time to meet people in the career field you are interested in and get the answers that way.

4. Go to basic training. Everyone goes, no way past that.

5. Go to your school. Each branch does this a bit differently, but after basic training you will go to the school for your chosen job. This could be 2 weeks long, it could be 2 years long, all depends on the job.

6. Pray for your assignment. Now you are in, you have the career you want, and now it is a roll of the dice. You go where they need your career, period. There are a number of programs to finagle your way around to places you want, but don't expect any of them to help you much in your early days. Your best bet here is to do a damned good job, don't be a fuckup, and let your supervisors know what your goals are. Good supervisors will help you get where you want to go. Above all else, don't expect it to happen quickly.

National Guard units basically follow the same steps, except for the assignment process. With the Guard you will be joining a specific unit when you enlist. So you will already know exactly what your assignment will be. The Guard units are able to do much more targeted recruiting because of this. The Active Duty world you kind of go into a big pot and stay there unless you managed to get into special assignments (usually by being really good at what you do and leaning forward for opportunities).

Re:Recruitment

[fprintf]

http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/29/1733222

If you look at past interviews with the Air Force and Army, you will find that they work with a significant number of contractors. So you do not need to be "in the armed forces" to work on anti-cyber terrorism.

Obviously you need to be able to get a security clearance.

Re:Recruitment

[BadIdea]

This is a really important question going forward. A lot of military recruitment seems to still be somewhat centered around the sorts of "grunt"-based wars we were fighting decades ago. But there's no reason a fat out of shape guy who happens to be a brilliant programmer needs to go through boot camp and get shouted at by a drill instructor, or learn how to march, just to be part of a group devoted to fighting cyber-terrorism.

Obviously quasi-military operations need lots more in the way of security clearance and chains of command, but it seems like civilian-structured government organizations are better suited to many of these tasks than the conventional military. The NSA, DOD, CIA, etc. are full of bright people, many of whom have never done a push-up.

Is it the military that's going to change how it trains and retains, or will it be civilian-based government agencies that start to take over more and more of the functions of technological-based warfare?

Re:Recruitment

[TubeSteak]

1. Go to the recruiter and say "I want to do XYZ". If you are lucky you will get a recruiter that isn't a slimeball and will actually help you do specifically what you want. Hit or miss here, some are really amazing folks that know how to work things, others are asshats that know how to sleaze kids in. If it isn't part of the enlistment contract that you sign, the military can make you peel potatoes and wash dishes for the term of your enlistment and you have zero recourse.

"But the recruiter promised me" means absolutely nothing.
If it isn't in writing, don't expect it to happen.
The corollary to this is: if it is in writing and you have to sue, at best expect a Pyrrhic victory.

What limitations do you observe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Conventional military is bound by the Geneva convention. To date, there is no international law governing military info-war. Are you therefore no longer bound not to attack civilian targets? Is scrambling hospital records to create civilian deaths by mistreatment considered a valid attack?

Why does the Army have a love affair with Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

the worlds most insecure operating sytem? Seriously, I just had to go through the Army accreditation process at work, and all the guidelines basically say that Windows is the most secure according to the army. Several of the policies do nothing to increase security but are windows only features, a not so subtle hint that if you want to be "secure" you should be using Windows. The policies also states that since open source is "unsupported" you should use a commercial OS unless you can find "support" for the open source software. The scrutiny that the Linux/Unix machines are put through is MUCH more than Windows machines are. Windows machines are basically said to be "secure" if you apply all the patches and set a couple of settings. Its as if the Army considers Windows to be the most secure instead of the least secure. The whole security accreditation process seemed to be a giant push for us to move to Windows, which means that in my opinion the whole exercise was intellectually bankrupt. Why does the Army continue to push windows despite its absolutely horrendous security track record?

I have more doubts.

[khasim]

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.

Jurisdiction?

[Caerdwyn]

Given that the most likely targets for cyber warfare are civilian targets, and that the perpetrators will likely be either non-government organizations or non-military employees of foreign governments, how do you see the jurisdiction question playing out? In particular, at what point are there handoffs in investigation, arrest, and prosecution between the US military, the FBI, and local authorities of affected civilian targets?

Re:I would like to finally see people talking...

[maxume]

Just go down to your local Hippy Dippy Noodles.

Avoiding Redundancy or is it Necessary?

[introspekt.i]

What steps is the Army taking to avoid overlap with the Air Force's "cyber warfare" program(s)? Is avoiding overlap considered necessary, or is redundancy considered a good thing? Are there plans to collaborate on large scale with the Air Force, or keep the programs isolated from one another?

Source Code

[g0bshiTe]

In the event of a "Cyber Attack" (read we go after them) would the task force secure source code, to search for hidden vectors of attack?

I realize this is based on the assumption that we know what OS and programs they are running, but Windows for instance, it's reasonable to assume that most computer users use some form of it either legally aquired or illegally.

And if and if ...

[khasim]

And if there actually is a "Hacker War" between us ... and if our military is currently playing a role in such ... are there any civilian applications that will be released to help defend our non-military assets (corporations, education, etc)?

Example: the NSA has worked on SELinux.

Timing and relevancy

[zappepcs]

It's common knowledge that what we call the Internet was suckled by the military. Black-hat and white-hat security conferences and practices have been an active part of Internet security for over a decade.

Can you explain what seems to be the US Military arriving at the game in the third inning?

Having had TSEC and observed security processes and procedures, such as tempest precautions some time ago, I'm having trouble understanding why the 'cyber defenses' of the US Military only now seem to be actually realized.

Is the delay due to funding? Priorities? or simply to underestimation of what the rest of the world was up to all this time?

Please be as specific as you are able to be.

Thank you.

Re:For us geeks who'd be sitting behind a computer

[Daniel Dvorkin]

You know, you can go through basic training (or some other physically demanding training course) and get in shape ... and still be a geek. Seriously. Build some muscles, lose some fat, and you'll still be just as smart as you were before. I've done it, and so have lots of other folks on /. We didn't magically forget all our geek skills, or undergo some drastic personality transplant.

Are you running botnets?

[advocate_one]

no text

Slashdotter

[slotdawg]

Do you frequent slashdot often to read news and breakthroughs in IT? How does the government disseminate whether threats of attack are legitimate or just hoaxes?

Threat Assessment

[mykepredko]

As I understand it, every military in the world assess the threat its opponents pose by their capabilities rather than perceived intents.

How do you perform a threat assessment in the area of cyber-warfare where the physical weapons (as was pointed out in an earlier post) is the keyboard and mouse with much of technology being used as a threat being developed in the U.S?

Thanx,

myke

"Civilian contractors"

[faloi]

Do you foresee a high utilization of civilian contractors? Knowing that there are some restrictions on people that can be recruited into the Army for any number of reasons (asthma, medications, criminal records), do you see a need for either more lax recruiting guidelines for some of the "front line" troops in the cyber warfare field, or a higher use of civilian (or at least non-Army) personnels?

Re:For us geeks who'd be sitting behind a computer

[BadIdea]

Jooooiiiiiiin uuuuusss. It's bliissssss.......

Hurdles of Cyber Warfare

[Digital Ebola]

Greetings,

One issue to cyber warfare is linguistics. How does a military unit overcome this? Does the unit consist of people skilled at the various languages used in theater plus the technical concepts required to execute, or are you forced to cooperate with any other agency?

Also, agency cooperation: are there good relationships between the cyberwarfare units and the intelligence community, and can you say whether or not there are SOPs in place that would utilize cyberwarfare units in conjunction with a physical offensive, i.e. disable Three Gorges Dam right before an op.

Thanks for the time!

Peace is a valid concept

[circletimessquare]

however, due to human nature, peace is achieved only with a balance of force, not with an absence of force. In other words, to maintain peace, there will always be a need for armed forces in this world.

If you think it is possible to have a world where there are no armed forces, you are not adovcating for a peaceful world when you say that. You are in fact unknowingly advocating for a more brutal, injust and violent world. This is so simply because you have not yet made yourself acquainted with, or made peace with (no irony intended), certain ugly but unremovable aspects of fundamental human nature.

Or, you could try to remove those aspects of human nature in the name of peace. This sets you down the road to autocracy, and makes you an enemy of free will and free expression. If you wish to continue to respect the notion of free will and free expression, you must understand why a force of arms is always necessary to be at the ready, in the name of peace.

Computer Literacy

[AioKits]

What level of computer literacy do you feel the Commander-In-Chief and those reporting to them should have in order to comfortably and accurately convey the importance of a given situation/threat the USACEWP encounters?

Re:Why does the Army have a love affair with Windo

[gardyloo]

Interesting, because at the DoE- (mainly) and DoD- (partly) funded lab at which I work, Linux and Unix (and things like OSX) users are given much *less* scrutiny than those using Windows.

Daemon?

[Viking Coder]

Have you read the book "Daemon" by Leinad Zeraus? Or how about "The Footprints of God" by Greg Iles?
Do you think The Singularity is approaching, and if so, do you think you're prepared for it?

Materiel isn't a typo in the summary

[Starlet Monroe]

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.

Are We At War?

[Doc Ruby]

What is the "cyber command" doing to protect the US from current serious attacks on major Federal government sites, including the attacks on sensitive Congressional sites reported this week?

Is there any traditional military precedent for tolerating these attacks to the extent we do? Is that hesitancy making us weaker, so our eventual delayed military (or "cyber-military") response will be compromised from winning the conflict to our satisfaction?

At what point do these attacks constitute acts of war, does that need to be declared by Congress, and how does the "cyber command" change its response at that point?

What value does doign it in the Army add?

[scorp1us]

We already know that the USAF has a cyber-warfare division. Given that all network attacks are fundamentally based in IP Packets, it stands to reason that the Army and USAF would be duplicating work, while creating an opportunity for lack of communication.

Would you agree that a special, single cyber-defense branch should be created to assist all branches of the military as well as non-military?

Generally the armed forces are never known for technical prowess. (They are more consumers than creators) The role of creation comes from contractors. Why shouldn't we rely on contractors to perform these functions when contractors already obtain top-secret clearances? Contractors compete for projects which ensures a level of cost limitation (lets face it, Cost+ rips off the tax payer), continual advancement (beyond what the enemy throws at us).

Why should the armed forces be doing this in-house?

Re:What value does doign it in the Army add?

[TakeyMcTaker]

Mod parent up. A new "cyber-defense branch" is a valid answer to this new type of warfare. The NSA can't fill this role -- it is too strictly defined by secrecy. Part of warfare is calling the attackers out to the international public -- there's no other way to get international support for counter-attacks. The NSA is just too hidden for that. Obviously, the CIA can't fill the role for the same reasons. None of the existing military branches really fit the job.

Traditionally, the armed forces are separated by attack mediums or "turfs". Air force is obviously in the air, Navy is in the water, Army takes the land. The Marines seemed to bridge the water-land gap early on, though now they seem like some weird hybrid that is most defined by their crazy proud human-shield machismo. They all have devolved into overlapping hybrids by now, to varying degrees, but they are still defined by their central turf.

It makes sense that a new turf requires a new branch -- for now let's call them Infosec (I know, it's taken, but cyber-blah just makes me think of a bunch of half-skinned Arnie Terminators wandering around using IE). It makes sense to overlap efforts a bit (beneficial competition), but Infosec should definitely be the first stop at the Pentagon for any big network hacking jobs.

Reminds me of Barack Obama's proposition for a Federal CTO. I wonder if he's thinking of adding a similar position to the Pentagon as well?

A military brat asks:

[UncleTogie]

In your work as Director of IO for Combined Joint Task Force -76, what were your greatest challenges in Afghanistan? What technology threats other than IEDs were your greatest concern?

Damn!

[Colin Smith]

And I wanted to know the fastest way to level up.

Making defenses availible to the tax payers

[scorp1us]

Would you support the release of information and software (Like Security-Enhanced Linux from the NSA) regarding successful defensive configurations and strategies to the general public so that the tax payer can derive additional benefits from your work? Surely the private industries in this country are valuable and may be attacked in order to cause economic harm.

What limitations or rules would you use for release of such information?

Re:Why does the Army have a love affair with Windo

[0p7imu5_P2im3]

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.

Re:For us geeks who'd be sitting behind a computer

[Anonymous Coward]

to fight. Will we have to go to basic training?

If so, would basic training be to train us to stay up all night, living on pizza, soda, Skittles, and porn?

If so, where do I sign up?!?

Although the parent posted humorously it does lead into an interesting chain of thought:

Where can one look to educate "him/her"self on information warfare. When recruiting; do you look for a specific mindset, skillset or qualities in candidates for this line of work?

Are there sources of internet where one can start to learn about the subject?

your model of human nature is invalid

[circletimessquare]

the ego develops on its own, it is a fundamental facet of our biology. selfishness is very much a component of natural behavior in the animal world

without understanding this simple concept, your opinions, that you hold in great regard, are simply dysfunctional, and yet you cling to them anyway

how very egotistical of you ;-)

Egads! Where to start?

[rts008]

"Animals do not have ego. They never hunt more than they could eat. Period." Citations? Or is this just one of your fantasies made up to support your nonsense?
Ever watch a mountain lion kill a deer, eat it's fill, then wander off to let the bulk of the deer rot? I have. How about dogs that are not fenced in killing cats for fun, or wildlife? Yep, seen that too...many times. How about the cats killing stuff and bringing it home as a trophy? Yep, all the time again.
You have no clue here on this subject.

"Oh, and btw. I don't really care what anyone thinks about it." and (in the same paragraph) "But I'd really love to see more people discussing peace rather than war."
So, you don't care what anyone else thinks about it, just what you think is important. Right.

The rest of your clueless diatribe is not even worth discussing, so crawl back into your mom's basement and use some of that internet time to get at least a LITTLE education instead of trolling forums, you will benefit from it tremendously.

Re:Why does the Army have a love affair with Windo

[0p7imu5_P2im3]

Point taken; I stand corrected.

Let me rephrase:
Until SELinux, if you had root access on a Linux machine, they couldn't... yadda, yadda, yadda...

I'd still argue that there is a general lack of knowledge in the DoD regarding SELinux since it has only recently been added to RHEL. And this further supports the misguided notion that Windows Domains offer more control because the network admins in the military consider them easier to configure due to that lack of knowledge.

Just to satisfy my curiosity (and show my lack of knowledge): is there a way to configure SELinux remotely in real time? For instance, say I found out about a major vulnerability in Adobe Reader version blah.blah.blah. Could I disable versions equal to that and lower remotely the moment I found out, or would it not take effect until some amount of time until the next SELinux policy update (like a restart)?