Pentagon Cyber-Command In the Works

An anonymous reader sends word of a new cybersecurity project to defend US networks from attacks and strengthen the government's "offensive capabilities in cyberwarfare." Right now, the most likely candidate to lead the project is the Director of the NSA, Keith Alexander, who was quick to assert that the NSA itself wouldn't try to run the whole show (something they've been criticized for in the past). Quoting the Wall Street Journal: "Cyber defense is the Department of Homeland Security's responsibility, so the command would be charged with assisting that department's defense efforts. The relationship would be similar to the way Northern Command supports Homeland Security with rescue capabilities in natural disasters. The NSA, where much of the government's cybersecurity expertise is housed, established a similar relationship with Homeland Security through a cybersecurity initiative that the Bush administration began in its final year."

Comments

Re:Cyber Security is a job for the Airforce

[Jurily]

You know it's a bad article when the first comment is a troll and all the others whine about the overuse of a word.

Call it whatever you want

[mc1138]

I'm just glad they're finally taking this sort of shit seriously. With plans for fighter jets being stolen by hackers making front page news, reports that the pentagon spends boat loads of money at reactive threat defense, our [insert computer buzz word]-security at a national level is severely lacking. Even movies like transformers seem to think that the best hackers are still fat dudes living with their grandparents and no one at any national department is capable of anything.

NSA has an inherent conflict of interest.

[robkill]

When a group that exploits a communication network system for information is also in charge of its security, what happens when a weakness is found? Do you:

A) Keep the weakness secret so you can exploit it.
B) Publish the fix so your networks are fixed, but also allowing those you may be monitoring to fix as well, and cut off an information source.

Bruce Schneier has a great commentary on this at his blog.

Re:Cyber?

[Red Flayer]

Seriously, can we come up with something different, like "Network Operations" or something that doesn't remind me of bad movies from the 80's?

So, you'd rather have the jargon-of-the-month than to settle upon a standard term?

Seriously? You'll get over it, bub. In the meantime, I'm very thankful that they're not making up new buzzwords every 6 months.

Re:No it doesn't

[DrgnDancer]

Oh sure, just make stuff up. If it sounds paranoid enough, maybe some will mod you up. I've been an admin on two different DOD networks now, and in both cases I knew exactly who had full privileged access. In neither case was I even expected to provide our privileged passwords to higher headquarters, much less the NSA. could the NSA have GOTTEN the passwords to our systems? I'm sure, if they went through the proper channels and proved "need to know", but that's hardly the same thing thing as having "full privs on all DOD systems".

Re:As Great as This Is...

[DrgnDancer]

Personally I'd rather see the Pentagon running this than one of the three letter agencies. I don't exactly TRUST the Pentagon (giving one's trust to anything with that many moving parts isn't smart), but I've been around the military long enough in various capacities to feel that IN GENERAL, most military people are legitimately focused on external threats. Not to say that there aren't bad apples everywhere, and certainly the military is as capable of colossal screw-ups as anyone, but at least there is not the culture of "we control the vertical and the horizontal" that you get in the three letter agencies.