Slashdot Mirror
White House Declassifies Outline of Cybersecurity Plans
An anonymous reader writes "The Obama administration on Tuesday declassified part of the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative created during the Bush administration, outlining offensive and defensive strategies for protecting information networks. The initiative was originally intended to unify efforts of a number of government agencies into a comprehensive strategy to protect the nation's computer networks. 'One area in which the government did officially disclose new details was Einstein 3, a program to protect civilian government systems from intrusion by deploying sensors on the networks of private telecommunications companies. For the first time, the government disclosed officially that the program would use technology developed by the NSA, the nation's largest intelligence agency. It also said that the Department of Homeland Security, which would run the program, would share malicious code data with the NSA but not the content of communications, such as e-mails.'"
Yes, the threats are real, but the solution that the "Cyber Warriors" came up with is crap. A much better solution than working around all the holes and patching them quicker is to simply rip out a bad design and replace it with a better one. Its not easy changing everyones OS, but it's cheaper in the long run.
If your neighbor is worried about the Red Menace, he might be inclined to put a ABM launch site in his backyard, or even ICBMs as deterrent force.
You probably don't want that.
There are some very good reasons for centralizing physical warfare under a single political authority. It's not just that the constitution says this is a federal executive job (i.e. not something you leave to the states or the people); it's a good idea. If it weren't in the constitution already, I think almost all people would support an amendment making it so.
But even so, there are limits to that. There's no legitimate reason the federal government should be able to have any sort of authority at all, over whether or not people are allowed to build bomb shelters. A bomb shelter isn't a particularly good way to deal with the threat of nuclear holocaust (the best thing to do, is persuade the Russkies to not attack in the first place), but it doesn't really endanger your neighbors or usurp the president's negotiating power.
The same applies even to 18th century threats. If your neighbor is worried that the Brits might try to retake the colonies, it's ok for him to stock up on musket ammunition, but that's not really a good solution either. You want a single political entity to deal with the Brits, hopefully at a point long before anyone has to worry about redcoats marching through their farms.
With cybersecurity, the situation is pretty different. The analogy to relatively ineffective private bomb shelters and relatively ineffective musket ammunition stockpiles, happens to be the best solution to computer security problems. If you decide to have a policy of not executing malware, you are pretty much invincible except for Denial of Service issues related to overwhelming traffic. (And the private network providers are able to deal with that.)
We don't need any sort of central authority for dealing with computer security. That doesn't mean a central plan would be totally useless, but the payoff is pretty low. A president in charge of cybersecurity is about as an effective solution to cybersecurity, as bomb shelters are an effective solution to nuclear war.
People can already deal with this; they just don't bother to. That's their problem.
Now, TFA is actually not all that stupid-looking. He's mostly talking about the government protecting goverement systems. That's a no-brainer. But we don't need them to protect private networks, and I hope people keep an eye on any bullshit that moves in that direction.