Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pentagon To Spend $500 Million On Cyber Defense

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the thats-a-lotta-copies-of-mcaffees dept.

hostedftp found a story about the Pentagon's plan to shell out half a billion dollars on cyber defense in the next year. The article says, "The $500 million is part of the Pentagon's 2012 budget request of $2.3 billion to improve the Defense Department's cyber capabilities."

43 of 55 comments (clear)

  1. Well... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing that HBGary Federal won't be seeing too much of that...

  2. They plan on spending the $500 million... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...on upgrading all their trial copies of Mcafee.

    1. Re:They plan on spending the $500 million... by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      +5 hilarious

    2. Re:They plan on spending the $500 million... by rcamans · · Score: 1

      Uhm, $500 million wouldn't cover that cost...

      --
      wake up and hold your nose
  3. 500 million here by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    500 million there. Pffft chump change...

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    1. Re:500 million here by Idbar · · Score: 1

      So the Pentagon posted on facebook "'I got 500 on cybersecurity who wants that bread?" or what?

  4. sonds good by SpinningCone · · Score: 1

    sounds like a good use of the money. I mean that's only half the cost of a single stealth bomber to improve security so that we don't get p0wned by some hacker.

  5. Am I missing something here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Unplugging the computer from the network is free. It's also free to not invest in wireless.

    1. Re:Am I missing something here? by bberens · · Score: 1

      Neither of those options line the pockets of "consulting" firms. Ergo, they're non-starters.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
  6. AKA by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 1

    Pentagon to spend $500 Million on Cyber Defense

    ...Otherwise known as the internet kill-switch.

  7. "Network-Centric Warfare" by Securityemo · · Score: 2

    People sneer at "cyberwarfare", but once i came across this I sort of rethought the concept. If they're aiming to basically network everything and everyone to increase reaction times and information availability, it really makes a bit more sense.

    --
    Emotions! In your brain!
    1. Re:"Network-Centric Warfare" by HungryHobo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the term "cyberwarfare" is still stupid.

      it's espioage, sabotage or disruption of communication.

      spending 500 million to defend yourself against espioage, sabotage or disruption is a very good idea.
      Calling it "cyberwarfare" though conjours up far too many images from bad movies.

    2. Re:"Network-Centric Warfare" by mangu · · Score: 4, Funny

      That article gave me an idea for a new wikipedia warning: "this article contains too many buzzwords".

    3. Re:"Network-Centric Warfare" by bberens · · Score: 1

      Meh. Give me a call when this supposed increase in efficiency results in a net reduction of costs of our military spending.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    4. Re:"Network-Centric Warfare" by radtea · · Score: 2

      People sneer at "cyberwarfare"

      Sure, because using the tools that could create a prosperous and peaceful world to inflict dead weight losses on ourselves and others is retarded.

      The War Model of conflict resolution is moronic: it involves infliciting massive dead weight loss burdens on your own economy so you can try to destroy your enemy's economy. The War Model has dramatically failed to end poverty, drug use and terrorism in the past forty years. Anyone who invokes the War Model today is an idiot who hasn't noticed how massively it has failed every time it has been applied.

      The Germans went to war in 1914 to support Austria-Hungary, which failed anyway. They went to war again in 1939 to create a colonial empire in Eastern Europe and ended up with barely one brick still resting on top of another. The Japanese went to war in 1941 to create a Far Eastern economic empire, and ended up not much better off than Germany, with the added bonus of two cities that didn't need streetlights, what the with landscape glowing in the dark and all.

      The Tigers of Tamil Elam declared war on the Sri Lankan state, Basque independence fighters declared war on the Spanish state, the IRA declared war on the English in Northern Ireland, the Shining Path declared war on the Peruvian state... the list of failed War Model revolutionary and independence movements goes on and on and on. Observing that the vast majority of War Model approaches fail while peaceful, non-War Model approaches like the Gandhi-ist movement in India, Solidarity in Poland, the recent uprisings in Tunis and Egypt, and so on, anyone with two brain cells to rub together would conclude that the War Model is only promoted by self-interestred profiteers who want to funnel a larger slice of a smaller pie into their own pockets.

      Ergo: "cyberwarfare" is a stupid concept. Cyber-policing might make sense, as plain, ordinary police work is generally the highest level of violent intervention ever justified by a rational evaluation of actual (rather than imaginary) problems.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    5. Re:"Network-Centric Warfare" by jbeaupre · · Score: 2

      No worse than naval warfare. Conjures up images of sumo wrestling.

      And don't get start on air combat.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    6. Re:"Network-Centric Warfare" by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      I'm still waiting for my peace dividend check!

      The phrase like a drunken sailor never fit so well.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    7. Re:"Network-Centric Warfare" by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I've actually seen a warning similar to that, I can't find any examples right now but it says something like "this article reads like an advertisement, it contains too many marketing terms."

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    8. Re:"Network-Centric Warfare" by PNutts · · Score: 1

      Agreed. These are people who have lived it and understand that there are different flavors. If it wasn't "cyber" it would be some other buzz prefix that could be even more irritating.

    9. Re:"Network-Centric Warfare" by gratuitous_arp · · Score: 1

      it's espioage, sabotage or disruption of communication.

      Actually, the book the OP was referring to, Network Centric Warfare (NCW), does not take the stance you are describing -- I think that's why he brought it up. The discussion of the use of communication networks in war extends beyond what public discourse usually touches on.

      It's basically about the use of communication networks to increase situational awareness, plus everything else we tend to talk about.

      Anyone used to be able to request a free paperback copy of NCW from some govvy site or another. It's over 10 years old now. Not sure if that has changed, but you can find it online in PDF form as well.

    10. Re:"Network-Centric Warfare" by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Yeah but where are we gonna get our jokes about hacking the gibson then?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  8. It's always good to have large sums of money... by sarkeizen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ....attached to vaguely defined requirements. It's what makes the consulting industry work!

  9. Since you know... by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

    ...our debt isn't big enough. Let's spend $500 Million on something that will be rendered useless by some idiot employee who clicks on banners.

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
  10. As long as the DHS isn't in charge of it....... by Dega704 · · Score: 2

    Doesn't sound like an unreasonable price tag, but that is assuming the money actually gets spent where it accomplishes something. This has the potential to become another profiteering complex where hundreds of different(and/or redundant) cybersecurity firms exist that nobody can keep track of.

  11. Palantir probably will. by wiredog · · Score: 1

    They're pretty big in that space.

    --

    Best Slashdot Co
  12. Re:sonds good ... until you read it. by khasim · · Score: 2, Informative

    From TFA:

    The effort is part of a âoecomprehensive cyber strategy called Cyber 3.0,â he said.

    Hey, it's even cooler than Web 2.0 'cause, you know, it's like 3.0.

    Anyone got the spec's for "Cyber 2.7"?

    The military is reaching out to commercial companies for the latest technologies and technical experts to safeguard the Pentagonâ(TM)s computer networks from attacks and espionage, Lynn said.

    Here's an idea. You can have it for free.

    How about you have a department of nothing but hackers who try to crack your systems. As they get through, they report what they did and you fix it? No 3.0 needed.

    Lynn told the conference that he had met with Intel Corp. and Google Inc., and planned to meet with Microsoft Corp. âoeThey all think there is technology that can be deployed, both hardware and softwareâ that can adapt technologies to better defend against attacks.

    Of course there is. The problem is whether that technology is just a band-aid for core problems in the systems.

    You need to identify what can be done with the technology you have today.

    That will tell you the flaws in that technology.

    Which will tell you what you need to band-aid tomorrow UNTIL you can get the core problems FIXED.

  13. $500 billion for Cyber Toilets by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Funny

    The government is planning on spending $500 billion on Cyber Toilets. A spokesman stated, "It is our goal to get 90% of America's asses covered with Cyber Toilets within the next ten years." A DARPA study revealed that Americans spend an average of 15 minutes on the throne each and every day. Advances in wireless and tablet technology mean that this could be utilized as productive time to leverage the ailing economy. The spokesman continued, "The Japanese not only have shitters that can wash and dry your tush, their potties can roll excellent sushi's, too. We can not, as a country, afford to fall behind in this important technology sector." Recently, a special test program involving US Air Force UAV pilots, proved that pilots were perfectly able to hit targets while taking a dump.

    A member of Congress stated, "We can not say 'no' to any spending bill with the word 'cyber' in it. Oooh! 'Cyber' . . . it makes me feel so macho!"

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  14. that's nothing by spongman · · Score: 3, Informative

    How about John Boner's $450 million earmark spending the Pentagon's budget on a project it doesn't even want?

    1. Re:that's nothing by radtea · · Score: 1

      From TFA:

      the House bill would seem to significantly tarnish the commitment of Rep. Boehner and his colleagues in the House to spending cuts and the end to earmarking.

      When has the party of Big Government Conservatives ever actually reduced spending? They did co-operate with the fiscally-responsible Clinton Administration to reduce the size of the pork barrel at that time, but I can't think of any case in the past generation when the Big Government Conservatives have ever voluntarily worked to reduce the size of government. Reagan grew government dramatically, as did both Bushes, the second even more rapidly than the first, and both with the support of Republican-controlled Congresses.

      So why does anyone anywhere think that the Big Government Conservatives have any commitment to spending cuts? Surely not because they SAY SO? No one would be stupid enough to take a politician at their word, would they? That would be like some idiot thinking Obama's ever meant his promise to close the illegal prison camp at Guantaunamo Bay!

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    2. Re:that's nothing by objectdisoriented · · Score: 2

      That's simply how things work in the American form of Hypocrisy...er, Democracy.

      Spend months firing up the base, build the level of anger and hate, and when it pays off at the ballot box, immediately proceed to violate every promise made.

      This is not the exclusive domain of any one political party, but happens when fear, hate and an uninformed populace form a perfect storm in voter polling.

      There are a couple of reasons the whole system doesn't implode. First, every "side" is guilty to some extent at some point of everything they accuse others of doing. Everyone does it which makes it somehow okay. Perhaps more importantly, there is a certain about of robustness built into the system, and there is only a certain range of movement allowed by an "average", ie. simple majority, vote of the citizenry.

      Coupled with the fact that legislative action involves compromise, the system maintains a certain set point around mediocrity. The only way to stray far is to have majorities across the board.

      The US had two years of this very situation with across-the-board majorities. There was the potential to make significant movement for the better or for the worse. One party used rare parliamentary actions like they were candy to throw a wrench in all legislative action. This took the situation from where there was an equal chance of making things better and making things worse, to guaranteeing that things would be worse.

      It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Throw your country under the bus for potential future political gain. Ignoring the morality and patriotism aspects of it all, you have to admire the stone cold brass ones it took to make this your strategy.

      A person could get their undergarments in a twist if the system didn't have this built in never-be-far-from-average aspect to it.

      --
      Performance must be inherent in every aspect of the system. It is not an afterthought, but always thought. - me
    3. Re:that's nothing by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      Umm, someone needs to start reading news more. It's been canceled today by the Republican controlled house. Obama wanted to cancel it before, just like Dubya did, but couldn't do it while Democrats were in charge in congress. Defending this program purely because it provides jobs in his state is definitely a stain on Boehner's credentials as a fiscally conservative guy (though he wants to be seen as one) but it's a victory for Tea Party and true conservative Republicans.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    4. Re:that's nothing by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      Increasing spending (mostly on defense) while cutting taxes is called starving the beast, that was a strategy for Republicans under Reagan. It didn't really work though.

      You want to talk about cutting spending for real, there is a plan for that: http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/ It can't be talked about because it touches the sacred cows of Social Security and Medicare, and without them there can't be any meaningful cuts.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
  15. $500M Fine... by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

    take it from a less merit worthy program. You've already got nearly $700B tax payer dollars. If you'd like some suggestions how about starting here:

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    1. Re:$500M Fine... by gtall · · Score: 1

      Peanuts. To really cut defense you must cut defense systems. That means cutting jobs in Congress-Critters states. Don't forget, government doesn't create jobs...errr...unless it is related to defense spending in your district.

  16. Re:sonds good ... until you read it. by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

    Here's an idea. You can have it for free.

    How about you have a department of nothing but hackers who try to crack your systems. As they get through, they report what they did and you fix it? No 3.0 needed.

    Out of curiosity how does one form an entire department of highly skilled and reliable workers AND perform security clearance background checks on them for free?

  17. The Best Encryption On Earth! by Chardansearavitriol · · Score: 1

    Febuary 17, 2011: The Pentagon loses billions as bored college kid subverts defense systems with a black magic market and some shiny tape.

  18. PFSense by Bengie · · Score: 1

    That is a lot of PFSense boxes

  19. $500M of tax money to improve Windows security? by Shompol · · Score: 1
    Seeing how everything at the government runs Windows, they will just hand it over to MS consultants:

    The military is reaching out to commercial companies for the latest technologies and technical experts to safeguard the Pentagon’s computer networks

  20. Naval surgeon by mangu · · Score: 1

    Old joke:

    "What kind of job do you do?" a lady passenger asked the man seated next to her on the airplane.

    "I'm a naval surgeon," he replied.

    "Goodness!" said the lady, "How you doctors specialize these days!"

  21. Here you go... by Killer+Eye · · Score: 1

    Hmm, okay: if it's important to security, don't put it on the damned Internet, and rip the network and wireless cards out of any device that has the data. Station armed guards around the building. Better yet, scribble the information on a napkin in an ancient native language and make it look as unimportant as possible.

    You're welcome...please send my 500 million dollar check. Hey you know what, I'll even make it half price and charge you 250 million.

    --
    "Microsoft killed my company, I hold a personal grudge. I don't use Microsoft products and neither should you."-JWZ
  22. Cisco to offer 500 Million Dollar Firewall by gratuitous_arp · · Score: 1

    Update, 16 Feb 2011: Cisco to offer 500 Million Dollar Firewall

  23. 1.3 for cyber attack? by Voltas · · Score: 1

    0.5 billion on cyber defense and 2.3 billion total for the cyber program. That means 1.3 billion on cyber attack?

    --
    -- Disclaimer: I can't really back up anything I post on /. --
  24. Actual security by AG+the+other · · Score: 1

    They could give two million, I could do a study for them and actual security would be just as good as before.

    --
    Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro