Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Military To Create Separate Unified Cyber Warfare Command (securityweek.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the separate-command dept.

wiredmikey quotes a report from SecurityWeek: President Donald Trump has ordered the U.S. military to elevate its cyber warfare operations to a separate command, signaling a new strategic emphasis on electronic and online offensive and defensive operations. "I have directed that United States Cyber Command be elevated to the status of a Unified Combatant Command focused on cyberspace operations," Trump said in a statement Friday. The move would expand the number of the Defense Department's unified combatant commands to 10, putting cyber warfare on an equal footing with the Strategic Command, the Special Operations Command, and regional commands. Until now cyber warfare operations have been run under the umbrella of the National Security Agency, the country's main electronic spying agency, with Admiral Michael Rogers heading both.

6 of 56 comments (clear)

  1. Combat action? by Pikoro · · Score: 2

    So if you get a papercut or spit coffee on your keyboard, do you get a purple heart?

    --
    "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    1. Re:Combat action? by sheramil · · Score: 2

      You get a purple heart the first time someone hacks your email account. still:

      "separate"

      "unified"

      whatever.

  2. Irrelevant by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As long as you keep insisting of shitty pay and have hard-ass requirements (strict drug screening and physical requirements) then you are going to continue getting people that just aren't that great. On top of that having to take orders from some asshole or face prison time isn't appealing in the least.

    The problem here is that they are trying to fight a war of creativity using the most creativity stifling environment.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Irrelevant by dbIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As long as you keep insisting of shitty pay and have hard-ass requirements (strict drug screening and physical requirements) then you are going to continue getting people that just aren't that great. On top of that having to take orders from some asshole or face prison time isn't appealing in the least.

      The problem here is that they are trying to fight a war of creativity using the most creativity stifling environment.

      It's the way these things seem to be heading everywhere due to increased risk aversion and HR getting too much power in large corporations in grubby office political games.
      The company I work for is in a field where explosives get used every now and again, so the shot firers have been drug tested (on the demand of the clients) for years. Then the clients insisted anyone driving vehicles should be tested. Then the guys running out cables. Office staff going to the office buildings near the site have been drug tested. The clients HR weenies have even pushed for office staff in the city far away from the site (and in a different company FFS!) to be tested but thankfully their management have not backed them up on the several times it's been pushed back on - so far.

      If it was a tighter market for potential employees then such stupid intrusive shit would be less likely to happen. If it's difficult to replace someone then there is less tolerance for stupid wasteful power games that really have nothing to do with job suitablity in nearly every case.

    2. Re:Irrelevant by avandesande · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This would be the one branch where you would have really good career prospects when you get out.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
  3. Meanwhile, the solution goes ignored by ka9dgx · · Score: 2

    Capability based security could render all this stuff moot. Operating systems that trust everything the applications do are inherently insecure.