Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Deputy Secretary of DHS On Agency's Role In Cybersecurity (csoonline.com)

Posted by samzenpus on from the take-your-agent-to-work-day dept.

itwbennett writes: In an interview with CSO's Ira Winkler, Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas discusses the agency's cybersecurity role, breaking it down into 2 broad categories: helping protect .govs, and assisting .coms. When asked whether DHS is prepared to handle the additional responsibility that Congress is looking to give the agency, including insider threat detection and mitigation, Mayorkas said the agency has a 'current capacity' to assist .gov and .com to a 'very great' degree. But when asked whether the agency planned to outsource a lot of the capability it has been mandated to perform, as it recently did with intrusion detection, Mayorkas demurred, saying 'it's not a one-size fits all.'

19 comments

  1. DHS security? LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    By DHS security for .coms, I assume that means assisting in preventing and mitigating intrusions from entities other than the NSA while simultaneously aiding the NSA in intrusions. We'll help secure your .com from everyone else as long as you let us add a few NSA backdoors. It's patriotic, after all!

  2. Dear Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dear Americans: for all that it's worthy to you, please disband this sprawling thing that the DHS is before it destroys all the good things your society has.

    And don't take this as snide critique: other parts of the world (the one I live in most certainly!) have their versions of the same challenge.

    Don't let fear kill all the achievements our ancestors have reached, with much blood, sweat and tears.

    1. Re: Dear Americans by TheReaperD · · Score: 4, Interesting

      DHS isn't the disease, it's a symptom of a much larger problem. Large money interests now almost entirely control the federal government and now are turning it against its own citizens to keep the plebeians in check, while at the same time, shoveling money into their pockets.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    2. Re: Dear Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > DHS isn't the disease, it's a symptom of a much larger problem.

      Original AC here. Yes, I agree totally. Still, sometimes the symptom is so threatening that you gotta figth it. Besides, it exacerbates the disease: if I have an immune deficiency (the disease) and get an infection (secondary), I have no choice other than fight this infection. Or die.

    3. Re: Dear Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Large money interests now almost entirely control the federal government and now are turning it against its own citizens to keep the plebeians in check

      In check from doing what?

    4. Re: Dear Americans by TheReaperD · · Score: 1

      Touche. Sometimes you have to fight the symptoms and the disease at the same time, whether you want to or not.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    5. Re: Dear Americans by TheReaperD · · Score: 1

      Anything that the oligarchs really don't like or anything that would remove them from their self-created seats of power or otherwise diminish their power in any way. Sorry, I took for granted this would be obvious.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
  3. DHS's cybersecurity role is to say "cybersecurity" by waspleg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    as many times as necessary to get increased funding as another pseudo military branch of the US gov't. Do we even know how many TLAs there are at this point?

    Apparently they get $55.1 billion How about a cost/benefit analysis, cause they've apparently got the money to write a fucking march.

    I mean, shit, we could have 10 new Navy destroyers instead!!

    Or, I don't know, maybe no homeless people. I bet no homeless would do a lot for "homeland security". I think well fed/housed/employed people are less likely to shoot up theaters and bomb things, just saying.

  4. He just doesn't care by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    About identity theft. foreign countries, or anything else. Because if he did, he would stop suggesting that we purposely destroy the only thing between us and them: encryption. I don't think he's just stupid and doesn't understand that making "holes" will also allow others to get into them; he either doesn't care or actually wants this to happen. I'm now leaning to "want this to happen", because this would actually help his own political agenda.

    1. Re:He just doesn't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... suggesting that we purposely destroy the only thing between us and them ...

      "It's not illegal when the President does it.", RM Nixon.

      A law banning X does not apply to the government, ever. It applies to everyone under the government, which the USA government believes includes the entire planet. Why do you think corporations promote fascism? It's pork-barreling, particularly in a country that believes corporations must make and do everything; it's the power to write the laws, to the benefit of those very corporations; it's the power to ignore laws that are inconvenient, such as labour laws, EPA laws (which applies to few industrial sectors anyway), even taxation laws. Never forget, the first duty of the law is protecting the wealthy and the elite.

      Any politician demanding the government do X usually means "you're the problem" and rarely means "the government owes you". This increases the power divide and the role of the people in serving the government, instead of the government serving the people.

  5. Fuck it up, like they do everything else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, radicalized terrorist-wanna-be wants a fiance visa for a woman using the name of the MAN who conquered Spain for Islam a thousand years ago?

    Sure, no problem!

  6. pretty clearly stated. by nimbius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    translation: as an agency thats evolved from a knee-jerk response to a terrorist event, we're now doing goddamn near everything. border protection? yep. those flunkies at the airport that touch you? we still technically handle that. but did you know? we handle such cyber security events as:
    1. whenever sudo reports an unauthorized root user? it gets emailed to us. cathy specifically. unless its friday then she takes a long lunch so its kennith in the guard shack when he takes breaks from marmaduke
    2. connection tracking in iptables? jack handles most of that with a spreadsheet he keeps in his desk drawer. i swear. hes got a spreadsheet for darn near everything.
    3. Deep packet inspection. Most of your packets get dumped into an abandoned rural swimming pool and we have a few folks down there sift through with their 'smellin hounds' for any terrorism.
    4. we're in charge of adding the word cyber. Cyberterrorism? yep. cybercrime? another one we coined. Cyberwatermelon and cybertoilet arent really catching on though but we've got others. janice is brutal at boggle so we put her on it.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:pretty clearly stated. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... we handle such cyber security events as:

      Having worked in corporate customer service, I know this is closer to the truth than one thinks: An entire department frequently consists of 3-6 people. Okay, for technical products there may be a department for left socks and another for right socks, but customer service units are tiny. A large reason for this is computers; a few keystrokes can change the way an entire corporation treats a customer.

  7. They've done some good, such as these courses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm no fan of the current huge US federal government in general, or the DHS comcept in general. However, as a career security professional, I have to acknowledge they have some good programs. For example, they fund a set of 16 or so courses in information security, meaning they are free for anyone who wants to take them. The courses are surprisingly good and they have tracks for management, for IT people, for the general non-techies, etc. Similar training from SANS or a similar organization would be very expensive.

    We taxpayers may have paid too much for what DHS does, but since we've paid we may as well take advantage of whatever good things that funding has produced.
    https://teex.org/pages/program.aspx?catid=231

  8. MAFIAA Enforcement by Varenthos · · Score: 1

    They also seem to be the puppets of the MAFIAA when it comes to enforcing copyright.

  9. LOL.... cyber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cyber cyber cyber cyber hahaha

  10. Border - DONE! Airports - DONE! Cybersecurity - by gavron · · Score: 1

    not done.

    Yes, the US Department of Homeland Security, famous for having given guns to drug smugglers that kill US people http://www.washingtontimes.com... and have been leering at naked pictures of US airport travelers http://www.wired.com/2012/05/b... can't even stop weapons from going onboard http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/... now want to give us advice on cyber[sic]-security.

    I'd rather take security advice from the seventeen year old kid next door. He is probably more up to date, in better shape mentally and physically, less corrupt, hasn't let any terrorists cross the border, armed them, or allowed them into airports. And finally, I KNOW he's actually made it through high-school.

    Ehud