Slashdot Mirror
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."
It wants its buzzword back. Please stop using "Cyber-". Thank you.
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.
Politicians thrive on buzzwords. Thus, those who work for politicians thrive on buzzwords. The assumption is that people in general do not know more about a subject than the buzzwords themselves... unfortunately the assumption is usually right.
DISCLAIMER: I am very rarely serious. If the above comment seems asinine makes no sense, it is most likely a bad joke.
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.
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
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.
DMCA - Chilling free speech since 1998.
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.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
The other top contenders for the project is Cyberdyne Systems and a man calling himself "The Architect."
DISCLAIMER: I am very rarely serious. If the above comment seems asinine makes no sense, it is most likely a bad joke.
The only thing DHS is good at defending is its budget. Their own systems and networks are notoriously mismanaged and vulnerable. You have to go to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to find anything more inept.
The technical talent at NSA is the best in the world. It's their administrative and political leadership that could stand some fumigation.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Because we don't have a Tube Force?
Because the Air Force decided to add "cyberspace" into their mission statement to justify asking more money from Congress.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123013440
Being in the military, its very frustrating knowing a plethora of ways to make your job more secure but lacking the ability to change anything. Most of the branches, instead of pushing the envelope of computing like in the 30s, 40s, and 50s, have removed themselves from the business and contract it out (its not sexy enough and doesn't envolve tangable assets). Reminds me of the notorious deal in the 70s when IBM contracted Microsoft to build its disk operating system...
Yes, please take another huge gob of my money to fund yet another huge government bureaucracy in order to fund the closing of the barn door now that the horse has run out.
I don't see us getting too much useful info from hacking into China/Russia.
We can go in there and get our information back!
Well, in this case, we're talking about the government. But I think most buzzwords come from marketing people. These are people who are *paid* to come up with buzzwords... and if someone else comes up with a good one, they all jump to use it.
Heaven forbid a company is seen to be behind-the-curve because they use outdated verbiage... surely that means they use outdated tech, right?
Anyway, thinking by typing here... I bet there's a measurable business buzzword cycle that makes it seem like there are new buzzwords every six months. Just like urban buzzwords. Differentiation is the key... so once everyone is using the term, it's time to find a new term.
Remember when all the whiteys started sticking out their tongue and saying "Wazzzzzuuuuuupp?!" Once Larry in purchasing starts using terms like "leverage our core competencies" it's time to find a new corporate buzzphrase. Once every Tom, Dick & Harry webdev starts splashing "Web 2.0" on their sites, it's time to find a new marketing buzzword.
The nice thing about government, in re: buzzwords, is that not only are they slow to adopt new terminology, they are even slower to change. So something they get hold of tends to stick around for a long time... hence instead of "cyber" being a buzzword, it becomes accepted usage, simply because the government is a sluggish monolith (though many libertarians might consider it a monstrous Shoggoth instead).
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
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".
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
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.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.