Mock Cyber Attack Shows US Unpreparedness

An anonymous reader writes with word that the outcome of the large-scale cyberattack simulation promised a few days ago isn't too rosy. From the Help Net Security article: "During the simulated cyber attack that took place yesterday in Washington and was recorded by CNN, one thing became clear: the US are still not ready to deflect or mitigate such an attack to an extent that would not affect considerably the everyday life of its citizens. The ballroom of the Washington's Mandarin Oriental Hotel was for this event transformed into the White House Situation Room, complete with three video screens displaying maps of the country, simulated updates and broadcasts by 'GNN,' an imaginary television network 'covering' the crisis."

Comments

Re:Oh - of course its not

[Arthur Grumbine]

I found this on floor after you left. Do you need it? ---> </i>

Mock cyber attack == Real media circus

[drinkypoo]

This was not a mock cyber attack, but in fact it was a media event hosted by the U.S. government.

1. "The entire scenario was thought up by Michael Hayden, the former CIA Director" — 'nuff said.
2. "A bevy of former top US officials were given various roles to play" — note that none of these people were the actual officials playing themselves. Thus this "test" proves nothing.
3. "a free March Madness application for smartphones. Once activated, it spread fast and first incapacitated cellphone networks, then landlines" — You shut off the cellphone networks and this problem ends. And given how crap they are, they'll probably go down by themselves before they actually take out the land lines. Further, military communications (including governmental backups) are not dependent on either.
4. "aided by mock bombs exploding in a couple of gas pipelines and power stations" — What does this sentence even mean? Mock bombs exploding does nothing except make smoke and a noise. Mock bomb attacks on these items takes this out of the realm of a "cyber" attack.
5. "When the servers serving the malware were "discovered" to be located in Russia, "National Security Advisor" Chertoff immediately began inquiring about the possibility of shutting them down and the implications of such an action." — But since there's only a few choke points for traffic to enter the country, this is a stupid and deliberately provocative question to ask. Anyone suggesting doing this in the event of an actual attack should be eliminated from the chain of command for incompetence immediately.
6. "Regarding a possible shutdown of the cell phone and Internet service to prevent a cascading effect, the group found out that federal agencies actually don't have the authority to do so," — So what? That's what declaring a state of emergency is for. Then they "magically" get the authority for the duration of the emergency.
7. "Another thing that might prove to be an issue is the Governors' reluctancy to put their power in the hands of the federal government, which would possibly lead to a nationalization of the National Guard." — If the federal government doesn't have any power, how would that help anyway? To create a larger clusterfuck? Also, what does this sentence mean? Which power? Which part of the federal government?
8. "Federal Times reports that "Attorney general" Gorelick mused on the idea of introducing laws that would allow the government to seize broader power for the time it takes to suppress a nation-wide cyber attack." — But since no such laws were needed, the true purpose of this exercise was revealed.
9. "When the "exercise" came to an end, the likelihood of such a scenario was discussed. "Secretary of State" Negroponte declared that the attack seemed very plausible to him." — Because otherwise the whole thing would be revealed as either a direct manipulation or a big jerkoff waste of time, and we can't have either of those things coming out, can we?
10. "Will a real cyber attack of these proportions be required to wake the government up? Probably. In the meantime, war games such as these can start the ball rolling into the right direction." — And apparently that direction is towards greater fascism.

Seriously, this is the prelude to new legislation that will in practice be used to justify terminating all kinds of service to clamp down on free speech, in the name of prevention of terrorism. And if you try to discuss it, you'll just lose your connection to the internet. When will we wake up and build a mesh network permitting an end-run around the Powers That Be?