Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NATO Awards Largest Cyber-Security Contract To Date

Posted by timothy on from the well-sir-it's-certainly-big dept.

Sara Chan writes "NATO has awarded its largest cyber-security contract to date, in a move that is expected to prompt member states to augment their own cyber-security capabilities. The contract, for €58 million ($76 million), is to design and implement NATO's Computer Incident Response Capability. NCIRC will enable NATO to monitor computer networks from its headquarters in Brussels and detect and respond to cyber threats and vulnerabilities at about 50 NATO sites in 28 countries. The project is intended to meet the requirements of a declaration by NATO Head of States at the Lisbon Summit, in November 2010, which called for the achievement of NCIRC Full Operational Capability by end of 2012."

45 comments

  1. Yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...please continue throwing money in bullshit contract for 50+ millions EUR. For that price, it's *gotta* protect you, right ? except one guy with a proper zero day and extensive knowledge will still be able to take you down. At the point we're at (or close by), complete societal changes or conscious AIs is the only thing that's gonna offer any sort of protection at all (captcha: nonsense, haha).

    1. Re:Yes... by jhoegl · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yup.
      I was thinking of all of the "over budget" crap and PR made security companies that have failed over the years.
      That money would be better spent on education and strong rules to control security.

    2. Re:Yes... by rtb61 · · Score: 0

      It seems like 'Anonymous' did the job that was required to ensure the flow on off multi-million dollar contracts. A new corporate protection racket is born, what's the bet anyone who doesn't pay get a visit from 'Anonymous'. Don't forget we are talking contracts in the ten's of millions, even hundreds of millions.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    3. Re:Yes... by mvar · · Score: 0

      This is another excuse to push tax payer's money into the big wallets. Cyber-security? If you have a system that must not be compromised, then don't connect it to the fucking Internet. And what does NATO run anyway? SNMP on its missile launchers for remote management? *duh*

    4. Re:Yes... by Sepodati · · Score: 2

      >> If you have a system that must not be compromised, then don't connect it to the fucking Internet.

      Those are called secret or top secret network and they are removed from the Internet either logically, by inline encrypters, or physically separate networks. At some point you have to be on a network connected to the Internet if you want to communicate with people outside of NATO, though. How else would I deal with contractors, state departments or national military users?

      We can argue that €58 million is too high and I'd probably agree, but in the end, NATO still has a network that needs security measures applied to it.

    5. Re:Yes... by Sepodati · · Score: 2

      Do you propose NATO sets up a network with no security? If €58 million is too high, what would you have bid on it?

    6. Re:Yes... by Sepodati · · Score: 2

      How much would you have bid, AC? Make sure you follow the bidding instructions and show how you can deliver for an order of magnitude less.

    7. Re:Yes... by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      We don't know it's a bullshit contract until we have the name of the contractor to research some background (please include those details in the summary in future). I'm admitting that I haven't RTFA, but as soon as I read headlines like these I want to research the contractor.

    8. Re:Yes... by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

      €57 million of course :-D

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

    9. Re:Yes... by Sara+Chan · · Score: 3, Informative

      We don't know it's a bullshit contract until we have the name of the contractor to research some background (please include those details in the summary in future). I'm admitting that I haven't RTFA, but as soon as I read headlines like these I want to research the contractor.

      I am the story submitter. The contractors are Finmeccanica and Northrop Grumman. Some research background is given in the last link in the summary.

    10. Re:Yes... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      but then it wouldn't work as employment tool.

      that's what throwing 70 million extra to something that's already budgeted for is.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    11. Re:Yes... by tqk · · Score: 1

      We can argue that Euros 58 million is too high and I'd probably agree, but in the end, NATO still has a network that needs security measures applied to it.

      How much is 40m pounds stirling?

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    12. Re:Yes... by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      That's why these are often judged on "best value" versus "lowest cost".

    13. Re:Yes... by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      ~47m euro to the contractor and 58m euro "in total" could very well be the same contract, depending on perspective. There is a cost to developing, evaluating, awarding, monitoring, etc. these contracts outside of what goes to the winner.

    14. Re:Yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, with ironclad household names like that, we can expect this to be delivered a decade late and 300% overbudget.

    15. Re:Yes... by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      Thankyou.

  2. Wish they can defend army of Chinese cyber hackers by ben4528 · · Score: 1

    If Chinese hackers can be stopped by this costly project, they are in good hand.

  3. Democratic oversight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, who gets to decide exactly *what* constitutes a "CyberThread"?

    1. Re:Democratic oversight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      So, who gets to decide exactly *what* constitutes a "CyberThread"?

      The CyberThreat Czar of course. For a country founded in part of ridding itself of a monarchy, the United States of Amerika seems Hell bent on establishing its own monarchy given all the czars named over the past twenty years. May I be Czar of Sarcasm, please?

    2. Re:Democratic oversight? by Rizimar · · Score: 1

      Awful lot of czarcasm in that post!

      ...

      I'll just let myself out now.

  4. Where will the hardware be made? by BenJCarter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What do you want to bet most of the hardware the UN purchases will be manufactured behind the Iron Firewall?

    I'll bet I don't think this is a good idea...

    --
    For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
    1. Re:Where will the hardware be made? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      pay no attention to the man behind the curtain ...

    2. Re:Where will the hardware be made? by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      What do you want to bet most of the hardware the UN purchases will be manufactured behind the Iron Firewall?

      I don't know, but I can ask our outsourced procurement office in China :)

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
  5. Done! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The CyberThreat Czar of course. For a country founded in part of ridding itself of a monarchy, the United States of Amerika seems Hell bent on establishing its own monarchy given all the czars named over the past twenty years. May I be Czar of Sarcasm, please?

    You are certainly deserving of the position as evidenced by the abundant use of sarcasm in your application!

    1. Re:Done! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All hail to the Czar of Sarcasm!

  6. cyber-security: in a (wal)nutshell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to employ and aphorism:

    think of a circle
    with a fiiiiiiiiiiine split in it
    on one end is insecurity
    you go around the circle to security
    and on the other end of the circle
    close to insecurity
    but not insecurity
    is unsecurity

  7. Large governmental software projects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Large project, governmental work, aggressive schedule?
    Be ready for an humongous cost overrun.

  8. Why NATO? by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I'm sure the bureaucrats in Brussels like their $1.5 billion headquarters... but really, does NATO still need to exist? Warsaw Pact is dead. Soviet Union is dead. Whatever NATO is doing, they can hand it off to the UN.

    Talk about a bureaucracy existing for bureaucracy's sake.

    I suppose 50 years from now we'll all still be stripping down and bending over at TSA checkpoints.

    1. Re:Why NATO? by Securityemo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      NATO is a military alliance between a subset of UN members - it would exist as long as the member states found it useful to exist, would it not?

      --
      Emotions! In your brain!
    2. Re:Why NATO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Talk about a bureaucracy existing for bureaucracy's sake"

      The UN, even more useless bureaucratic uselessness than NATO!

    3. Re:Why NATO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure the bureaucrats in Redmond like their $1.5 billion headquarters... but really, does Microsoft still need to exist? Bob is dead. Clippy is dead. Whatever Microsoft is doing, they can hand it off to the Apple.

      Talk about a bureaucracy existing for bureaucracy's sake.

      I suppose 50 years from now we'll all be paying $499/year to Apple and only able to make money as a developer if they approve of our software.

    4. Re:Why NATO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      NATO is not a function of the UN... while members of NATO may be UN members, NATO is an independent organization of member states that formed after WWII to contain and defend against the USSR.

    5. Re:Why NATO? by Securityemo · · Score: 1

      Yes, that was my point.

      --
      Emotions! In your brain!
    6. Re:Why NATO? by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      I hope you will agree that there are some international issues that can be handled without bombs, this is why UN is useful.

  9. Centralized monitoring and control by subreality · · Score: 1

    Guess where the bad guys are going to focus their efforts.

  10. Rated W... by datorum · · Score: 1

    ... for what the fuck they were thinking...

  11. Didn't Ike Warn Us? by retroworks · · Score: 1

    About the nerd-hacker code-writer industrial complex? The more money goes into this, the more incentive to take courses in hacking, the more people study code, the more hackers they create? Isn't that how the theory goes? Or are we expected to only fund and educate the "freedom hackers"?

    --
    Gently reply
  12. Successful bidders by Woogiemonger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If anyone is curious (I was), the successful bidders were Finmeccanica through SELEX Elsag and VEGA (based in the United Kingdom) together with its partner Northrup Grumman Corporation team. So it looks like that involves Italy, the UK, and the US: http://www.defpro.com/news/details/33224/?SID=45a71f6bf4374255010ce6a71de99974

  13. Local Echelon by phulax · · Score: 1

    So NATO is the new nickname for Echelon. Interesting.

  14. Easy by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

    1. Nuke Brussels (not much of a loss)

    2. Let the viruses do the rest.

    3. Profit $$$

  15. Who said this was for network defense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gentlemen, Ladies...
    all the bickering. Really?
    Nowhere in the bid does it say anything about "All" the money going to penetration prevention. That's kinda like saying all those Nukes the US deployed were about keeping the Russians from sneaking across the border.

    We're in a world of Stuxnet and DuKu now. These projects don't come cheap ya know.