Slashdot Mirror
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."
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? 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?
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
What do you expect? Half-baked ideas usually come from fifth-columnists.
Yes Dr Conroy, I said "erect", you insecure tosser.
As amusing as that is, Senator The Hon. Stephen Conroy isn't a Doctor. No need to accord him an unnecessary honorific.
Tosser (or wanker, or variations on the same) on the other hand is a perfectly valid qualification to identifying the man.
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
This isn't the government saying it won't pursue prosecution if there is accusation of a crime within its jurisdiction, just that it is not the government's duty to provide protection against the specific instance of a crime possible occurring. On your twisted extension, that means they won't provide every citizen with a kevlar vest, though they do so for the military.
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
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.
It's 'hear, hear', not 'here, here', you retard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear,_hear
You're clearly not familiar with Australian banks.
If you broke into the network of the Westpac bank, they'd be more likely to steal from you than the other way around. They've had a lot more practice, and have far lower scruples than the average cracker.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
What about if you come home while the thiefs are still their taking your stuff? Should the cops come and stop them, or wait until it's all done and take your statement?
I mean seriously, no defense shield is going to be able to autonomously say "they are attacking here, lets guard the doors". What they will likely do is be ready when company X says, I'm getting attacked at these ports by these IP's, then respond similar to a cop being called while the thieves are still cleaning out your house. But what it would do in addition to this, is create a centralized office in every government so that when thieves are tracked down, they can be pursued legally and don't escape the current conundrum where varying laws and unspecified places to report internet crimes typically get looked at funny and ignored once they cross international boundaries. In worse case scenarios, the government could probably access the router code and start dropping packets for the confirmed IP's making the attack much more difficult. It's not like the zombied PCs are normally visiting those sites.
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?
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!