Aussie Gov't Won't Help Fight Cyber Attacks

mask.of.sanity writes "Days after the Pentagon's #2 called for a NATO cyber-shield, the Australian government has announced it won't lift a finger to help the country's businesses to defend themselves against cyber attacks unless it presents a high risk to national security. Instead, Australia's security agencies will forge a response based on the 'pathology of the problem,' incorporating the risk the attack poses to government and the community. A senior security official said the government 'struggles to defend its own systems from the current threats,' let alone that of other industries. He went on to rubbish claims that existing military force strategies can be applied to cyber warfare, noting that the demarcation between civil attacks, such as domestic hacking, and those against nation-states, such as espionage, is blurry. Former US counter-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke said the US government has taken a similar line."

Comments

CYBER TECHNOLOGY

[BitHive]

I am so sick of the term "cyber" being used by people to make their ideas sound sophisticated. It drives me mad to see this not having the opposite effect.

SO YOU SEE, WITH CYBER TECHNOLOGY....

aaagghh

Cyber shield sounds like a bit of a wank

[orin]

Cyber Shield? Is this like SDI for the internets? Zapping the rogue packets in the boost phase before they approach the systems that they target? How about instead of creating Cyber Shields, people are just reminded to read security bulletins and keep their software up to date?

What good would the government do anyway?

[SuperKendall]

Sure if power plants are being attacked, the government would step in.

But if a lot of private businesses are being attacked, what good would the government do anyway? Such an attack would be far more skillfully handled by the IT personnel at various companies, who have shown the ability to band together as needed for serious attacks.

Re:What good would the government do anyway?

[dakameleon]

In some states, the power infrastructure is still a government-owned asset, so they'll be the ones being attacked in the first instance.

I think you'll find most governments have been building "cyber" defence teams, which would be filled with people whose job it is to stay on top of security issues, attack techniques etc, and so you'd presume has as much if not more expertise than your average IT department.

Ah, the slashdot mind

[SmallFurryCreature]

Small government! The state should stay out of my business! Private industry can take care of everything!

Waah, something is happening, the state should step in! Save us oh mighty government! Regulate them! Control our every action and thought!

You can't have it both ways. Remember a while back when the US government announced that it could under emergency rules take control of networks? 99% of Slashdot was up in arms. No government spooks on your private network.

So, now the demand is that Australian soldiers walk into private business and secure the network?

So, bad for US soldiers to take control over private networks, bad for AU soldiers not to take control over private networks?

Or maybe they should put up a firewall around Australia to protect business, but not to actually filter anything because an internet filter is bad?

And people wonder why politicians don't listen to their voters. Because it is IMPOSSIBLE. The very same voter will insist that the speed limit be dropped and mile high speed bumps be raised in front of the fire station to stop those devils from driving to fast. The same voter will want green power but no wind mills, tidal station, solar farm or hydro dams because they don't look nice.

We want cheap labor to pick fruit but no immigrants. Free markets to sell OUR goods, import tariffs on THEIR goods.

It is impossible and so politicians stop listening and listen to the lobbyist instead who at least know to be consistent within each single plea.

Or as Douglas Adams said: People are a problem.

I say we nuke them from orbit. It is the only way to be sure.

Re:Ah, the slashdot mind

[FriendlyLurker]

So, now the demand is that Australian soldiers walk into private business and secure the network?

So, bad for US soldiers to take control over private networks, bad for AU soldiers not to take control over private networks?

Or maybe they should put up a firewall around Australia to protect business, but not to actually filter anything because an internet filter is bad?

And people wonder why politicians don't listen to their voters. Because it is IMPOSSIBLE. The very same voter will insist that the speed limit be dropped and mile high speed bumps be raised in front of the fire station to stop those devils from driving to fast. The same voter will want green power but no wind mills, tidal station, solar farm or hydro dams because they don't look nice.

We want cheap labor to pick fruit but no immigrants. Free markets to sell OUR goods, import tariffs on THEIR goods.

It is impossible and so politicians stop listening and listen to the lobbyist instead who at least know to be consistent within each single plea.

Or as Douglas Adams said: People are a problem.

I say we nuke them from orbit. It is the only way to be sure.

I think a lot of this cognitive dissidence is coming top down as troll stories trying to drum up support for minority lobby pressure, rather than from the population (or Slashdot readers minds) as you suggest. Take this news article that Slashdot has posted for instance: Complete crap, an obvious troll piece to try and pressure the Aussie government to toe the US line when it comes to it's invented "cyber warfare" rhetoric. Little more than a thin veil of fear to give itself permission to Secure, Clamp, Contain the internet against we the people. To SCC effectively of course you need to coordinate other countries at the same time, or it won't really work - so now the lobby pressure begins to reach us via these puff pieces - this article is asking if your on side with it? Read Most uprated comments on the topic from Slashdot and people are calling it what it is - a farce. So how the Fsk did slashdot editors pick this drudge piece to get posted - Is Geeknet's policy to reeducate geeks... or perhaps the firehose full of lobbyist brigades?

Either way, where your seeing cognitive dissidence of individuals - I am seeing the divide widening between what lobbyists behind Gov policies want you to think, and what increasing number of people are actually thinking.

Re:Ah, the slashdot mind

[sumdumass]

You are mistaking the actions of the government for the reactions of the people. They are not one in the same and often bear no resemblance to each other.

Sounds fairly realistic to me

[Jeeeb]

I'm not sure what all the upset in the summary is about (Other than pulling eyeballs). This guy sounds like he actually knows what he is doing. He hasn't jumped on the panic bandwagon. In fact he's said a number of very logical things:

- Not all cyber attacks are a matter of national security. Even attacks on government infrastructure aren't necessarily matters of espionage.
- Conventional military strategies have nothing to do with maintaining a robust IT infrastructure.

That seems fairly level headed to me. Rather than all this panic about cyber-warfare as a broad collection of laws I'd like to see:
- Liability for corporations who fail to take basic security steps to protect customer data. E.g. you're in-house system gets compromised by an SQL-injection then you're liable. There is no reasonable excuse to still be running system vulnerable to SQL-injection. Or your un-patched systems are compromised then you're liable.
- Liability for software makers who sell software with easily preventable flaws. E.g. SQL-injections. I raise the point of SQL-injections because automatically checking code for insertion of strings into SQL statements should be trivial.

P.s. Sorry for the first and second halve of the post being only somewhat related.

Re:But that's all that is the security agencies' j

[Anonymous Coward]

here, here.

Hear, hear!

FTFY

Oz?

[WinstonWolfIT]

What's so God damned interesting about Australia's internets? We're half the size of California for Christ's sake. Who really gives a toss what we do?

Re:Sweet!

[c6gunner]

Also, we dont just hand out guns in this nation so you'll have to get mighty close ...

It's really cute that you think that :) It's like you've never heard of criminals. Naiveté can be so adorable!