Slashdot Mirror
Homeland Security Unveils New Cyber Security Strategy Amid Threats (reuters.com)
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security on Tuesday unveiled a new national strategy for addressing the growing number of cyber security risks as it works to assess them and reduce vulnerabilities. From a report: "The cyber threat landscape is shifting in real-time, and we have reached a historic turning point," DHS chief Kirstjen Nielsen said in a statement. "It is clear that our cyber adversaries can now threaten the very fabric of our republic itself." The announcement comes amid concerns about the security of the 2018 U.S. midterm congressional elections and numerous high-profile hacking of U.S. companies.
Hottie-in-chief! Aside from Kellyanne Conway, there's nobody cuter in the Trump admin.
Enacted the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The act was passed in a Democrat-majority Senate 93-5. Trump only crosses the aisle when it hurts America.
Job creation program
Nielsen said the government “must think beyond the defense of specific assets — and confront systemic risks that affect everyone from tech giants to homeowners.”
So....people themselves.
(((dB)))
So far I'm seeing it reported as 'there are crimes going on. we need to do something about it.'
is there more to the 'strategy'.
The report underscores the fact that not every little thing needs to be connected. Paper Ballots are just fine - outside of Florida, where apparently, they can't figure them out.
Just because the Democrats in the House and Senate and the Democrat President previously approved this doesn't mean it is right for Trump to do. Trump has caused a serious cyber security problem for the US.
Wow, that's the first time I've heard *that* one.
Mathematically speaking, from the "game theory" part of mathematics, what is the are the costs of the "serious cyber security problem" that Trump has caused, and which didn't exist prior to moving the embassy, compared with the costs of *not* moving the embassy?
(Hint: Take the current amount of cyber threat, subtract the amount from before moving the embassy, and discount the cost due to economies of scale. IOW, battling 12 threats isn't that much expensive if you're already battling 10.)
Extra credit: How does enacting something that was made law by Congress and a prior president (in 1995, by Democrats) somehow make us weaker, damage our credibility, or reflect poorly on Trump? Include in your discussion the ramifications of Trump's campaign promise to do this.
Would the cyber threats not have existed if Trump hadn't moved the embassy? Didn't those guys already hate us?
Is this one of those "If the shooter realizes his victims are unarmed, he will put down his gun and surrender - it's just human nature" things that Liberals keep talking about?
That would be a GREAT start.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
This new strategy must be why the con artist eliminated the top cyber adviser post.
After all, what better way to counter cybersecurity threats than eliminating the person in charge of overall cybersecurity.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The whole act was a charade, Trump was just the only President dumb enough to do something that only manages to achieve a useless outcome.
So you're saying that a Democratically controlled congress and a Democratic president got together and *agreed* to pass a law but not enforce it?
And that subsequent presidents were "in" on it, and agreed to abide by the decision?
In that scenario, how many people would have had to get together and agree to this secret pact?
Or is there a simpler explanation?
(I'm curious to hear your views on the moon landing, the assassination of Kennedy, and what actually took down the 9/11 towers. Care to enlighten us?)
Will you all still be excited about giving Trump a Nobel Peace prize when some terrorist settles the Jerusalem problem once and for all by detonating a dirty bomb outside the new embassy, rendering all of Jerusalem uninhabitable for the next 10,000 years?
Probably not, but they said the same thing about North Korea.
I'm willing to let the situation play out and see what the outcome is.
Apparently the "fabric of our republic" consists of a worn thin cotton gauze if all it takes to unravel it are Russian dank memes placed through Facebook ads.
DHS said in 2016 that 21 states had experienced initial probing of their systems from Russian hackers in 2016 and that a small number of networks were compromised, but that there was no evidence any votes were actually altered.
But whattabout IG probing alleged DHS
snooping in Georgia election network
A government watchdog agency is investigating allegations that Department of Homeland Security officials improperly attempted to breach the Georgia secretary of state’s internal elections network last year [2016].
In a Jan. 17 letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, DHS Inspector General John Roth said his office was probing “a series of ten alleged scanning events of the Georgia Secretary of State’s network” that may have originated from DHS-affiliated IP addresses. ...
The alleged effort to penetrate the secretary of state’s firewall was traced back to an IP address at DHS’ Southwest D.C. office -- and did not succeed in breaking through.
But DHS has argued that what Georgia detected was simply a contractor performing routine duties.
UH-HUH.
“Could it be normal web traffic that triggered a red flag? Sure, but when you look at the dates there are some interesting correlations between my calendar and when the contacts were made," Kemp told Fox News.
The nine other alleged incidents flagged by Kemp correspond to key election dates and times when Kemp was speaking out against DHS’ plans to designate elections systems as “critical infrastructure.”
What ever happened to that investigation?
What if the so-called Russian probes in 2016 were actually originating from DHS except that when scanning Georgia's network the "contractor" forgot to route scan through a proxy or vpn in a Russian IP domain?
But now that RUSSIA is doing it's BAAAAAADDDD!
Don't tell me he's got Bindas full o Bitches too?!?
Your comment reminds me of this old meme:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals...
Anyway, anyone have anything to say about cybersecurity policy?
figure.
Boots on the ground need the latitude necessary to decide how cyber-risks are handled as they happen. We can't have due process, warrants, or privacy getting in the way of the Truth after all. Cyber is moving too fast for that. Why it is moving so fast the legislature just can't keep up legally with it. That is why our cyberwarriors must be above the law. So they can do what others can't. Without our brave cyberwarriors and their extrajudicial license, all will be lost.
^ The above was intended both as satire and a grim example of what will actually be used when they protect such individuals or push for the legislated latitude I describe above. I don't think there is a bilge pump operating that is big enough to keep this ship from sinking into the endless tides of ethical decay this country is slipping into.
The military-industrial complex hard at work to keep the re$ources coming in at the cost of everything else.
First, force the TLAs to reveal every goddamn hole they know about so the vendors can fix them and we'll all be safer.
Second, if a site gets hacked via a known vulnerability the entire CXX suite goes to jail and, when released, are barred from an executive position for 10 years. If people are killed (power plant "accidents", etc) they go to jail for life. This will change the "it's too expensive to fix" calculus.
Too bad neither of these will ever happen.
Probably should have people who know how to operate a computer beyond sending email to lead that strategy.
Or not
Maybe this cyber minefield is an attempt to make a better capitalist democracy. Or maybe it's a sign of a government so broken, their problems so complicated and so convoluted, that security, freedom and democracy have been circumvented.
Then again, freedom from privacy doth 1984 make, and cyber weaponry makes for one macabre dystopia.
As long as the state emphasizes its ability to make cyber war at the expense of real security, we're boned.