Aussie Spies Spooked By Cyberwar

An anonymous reader writes "Wikileaks cables released overnight revealed that Australia's top cyber spy agency (akin to the NSA) was unprepared for cyberwar in the view of other intelligence agencies in 2008. Australian agencies were so concerned they asked US intelligence to provide the framework to defend the country's critical information infrastructure, modelling on the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative. Spooks also discussed how Israel was preparing to take down Iran's nuclear program and how to stay relevant when so much information that was classified was now open source and available to anyone."

Comments

This isn't surprising.

[Pax the Evil]

We have the only submarines on the planet that can be heard from Alpha Centauri. It's not surprising we're sh*t-scared of cyberwar.

Re:This isn't surprising.

[naz404]

Uhh... Does this mean Australia could have been taken down by Anonymous? They should have asked for help from Amazon instead :P

Re:This isn't surprising.

[MichaelSmith]

Actually I think the subs are pretty good. Didn't they pwn a US carrier fleet a few years back? But I wouldn't trust the DSD to secure my backups or lock my front door. That would be silly. Describing them as our top cyber spy agency is a bit like describing the Victorian public transport corporation as our top electronic ticketing agency.

Re:This isn't surprising.

[dwarfsoft]

Australia would freely admit that they could be taken down by Anonymous, and therefore Anonymous would leave us alone.

It's only if we were to taunt them that we would be in real trouble...

Re:This isn't surprising.

[syousef]

Australia would freely admit that they could be taken down by Anonymous, and therefore Anonymous would leave us alone.

It's only if we were to taunt them that we would be in real trouble...

Sounds like Anonymous Cowardice to me ;-)

In retrospect...

[gandhi_2]

...asking the US for tips on information security wasn't probably the best idea.

Re:In retrospect...

[rtb61]

If you compare the news article to the secret document released, the journalist really, really stretched one paragraph. To quote "Australian intelligence would need to stay engaged with its US counterparts to share lessons learned in the cyber arena", certainly the US has demonstrated many things not to do and Australian Intelligence has likely learned from them.

Likely Australia is far better off expanding the role of ACMA http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/HOMEPAGE/pc=HOME, to investigate 'cybercrime' and make use of other authorities, State Police for local action and Interpol, ASIO and ambassadorial staff for overseas actions.

Internet security is really a civilian thing and done largely in public as a shared effort, firstly to protect people from attacks and secondly to prosecute those carrying out those attacks.

As far as defence is concerned the US after Iraq has proved that it can't really be trusted where the financial interests of it's defence and oil industry can readily outweigh it's defence treaties and the value it places upon honouring the shared trust with allies. So the big cyberdefence thing is the localised production of electronic components to be used in critical infrastructure as well as the computer software required to make it run, basically in the internet age, 'NO' other country can be trusted. You don't want to be drawn into someone else's idiotic cyber war because an ally decided to compromise your systems to make it look like someone else did (something the US has proved it is quite willing to do with it supplied false intelligence data about the threat from Iraq).

Re:In retrospect...

[TapeCutter]

At least the US knows where to find the documents, one of our MP's is still trying to locate them.

Re:In retrospect...

[thegarbz]

Sorry but we don't need ANOTHER group with idiotic authorities. The typical evolution of the idea would be:

1. ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority - the FCC of Australia) starts investigating cybercrime.
2. ACMA lobbies government for more powers to more effectively investigate cybercrime.
3. ACMA granted powers to wiretap in the name of national security.
4. ACMA lobbied by the ARIA (Australian Record Industry Association - self explanatory) to investigate copyright infringement.
5. ??? 6. Profit. For everyone except the people who the original idea was supposed to protect.

I mean the AFP (Australian Federal Police) have the authority already and also have a dedicated department to handle the issues called the AHTCC (Australian High Tech Crime Centre). What benefit do you gain by moving everyone in that department to the ACMA and passing yet more legislation to give yet another government body more authority to do the same things another government agency already does?

My head hurts.

Heh.

[Black Parrot]

Spooks also discussed how Israel was preparing to take down Iran's nuclear program and how to stay relevant when so much information that was classified was now open source and available to anyone.

Well, they got *that* part right.

Re:Complete solution in five words

[MichaelSmith]

I think the root cause with the DSD is that they don't pay very well. I looked at it as a grad and it wasn't too bad. These days grads are probably pretty good in the crypto department but I doubt they get listened too inside the first twenty years. By that time the good ones have left.

Ask yourself: why didn't they hire Julian Assange? I am sure the cultural reasons will fill several pages for a start.

T'was noisy pollies not noisy subs

[dbIII]

The subs are expensive things that whoever is in opposition likes to complain about and whoever is in government likes to use for pork. Minor problems were blown out of proportion, sometimes even after they had been fixed. Then there were things like expensive modifications were done to allow for extremely dodgy procurement deals which kept the subs out of the water. "Free trade" talks with the USA were not going well and it was difficult to get access to some people in US government, then suddenly there was a plan to buy a lot of surplus torpedoes of a size nobody makes anymore and modify the subs so that they will fit. The talks then went ahead and it was a problem for a later government to modify the subs again once that lot of torpedoes is unusable.
It's not just subs, there was the purchase of the sprightly old Sea Sprites which were not safe to fly over water and had been considered obsolete in the 1970s. It had to be corruption because stupidity of that level would be inconsistant with making it to an adult age alive.

Re:T'was noisy pollies not noisy subs

[LeperPuppet]

The problems with Australia's Defence procurement aren't due to corruption, but systemic managerial incompetence, paired with a continuing parade of Defence ministers who believe anything said incompetent managers tell them.

Re:Commit Crime with Impunity

[Merls the Sneaky]

There is more than enough talent being trained in Australia, what we lack is a communication and "digital economy" minister that actually knows something about IT. They guy got locked out of his own iphone FFS.

http://apcmag.com/how-conroys-daughter-wrecked-his-unsecured-iphone.htm

They guy is clueless and just keeps pushing his censorship agenda. Oh and the useless NBN.
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/154249,nbn-useless-without-subsea-investment.aspx

Re:Complete solution in five words

[MichaelSmith]

Ask yourself: why didn't they hire Julian Assange? I am sure the cultural reasons will fill several pages for a start.

Wait... Julian Assange has actual skills?!

Yes [1] [2]

Re:Complete solution in five words

[Anonymous Coward]

why didn't they hire Julian Assange

Any organization that deals with information security has an obvious (and paradoxical) problem when hiring talent: The most talented (if not experienced) people in information technology as well as security are hackers. Hackers are young, curious, idealistic, independent and anti-authoritarian. The very traits that comprise their talent also make them a potential liability in a rigid command structure.

Re:Complete solution in five words

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask yourself: why didn't they hire Julian Assange? I am sure the cultural reasons will fill several pages for a start.

He most likely never applied?

Intelligence agencies are arguably disadvantaged with hiring because of the high level of secrecy involved. Some thoughts on why this may be the case:

• Candidates have little knowledge of their role and responsibilities until they've completed the application process and ~12 month vetting process.
• Other organizations can offer scholarships and internships to attract new graduate talent with little cost and risk involved. Intelligence agencies on the other hand will have a lengthy wait for security clearances and will be exposed to the non-recoverable processing costs.
• Applicants have a degree of uncertainty about career progression in an intelligence agency due to the lack of public visibility.
• Applicants may incorrectly assume that something in their past would disqualify them from a position.
• The application processes used by intelligence agencies are lengthy and invasive. It is much easier for candidates to apply for related jobs in a no/low security environment.
• There exists a perception in some circles that public sector workers are inferior to their private sector counterparts.
• Successful applications are making a life long commitment.
• Successful applicants are limited in what they can discuss about their job and skills in public (and to acquaintances in the private sector). There isn't much glamor or fame to be had.

Note that many of the points I highlighted above may in fact be desirable in their ability to filter out undesirable candidates. These issues may reduce the size of the pool of talent available when compared to a private sector organisation so there may be less talent to pick from.