New Pentagon Branch to Fight Wars in Cyberspace
By Susie Madrak Friday May 29, 2009 5:00pmIt's about time, since we've seen several successful hacks into top-level government computers lately. Of course, there's also something a little Big Brother-ish about the idea, too, since the feds will always find a reason to put us under surveillance if they want to:
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon plans to create a new military command for cyberspace, administration officials said Thursday, stepping up preparations by the armed forces to conduct both offensive and defensive computer warfare - or even shut down the internet.
The military command would complement a civilian effort to be announced by President Obama on Friday that would overhaul the way the United States safeguards its computer networks.
Mr. Obama, officials said, will announce the creation of a White House office — reporting to both the National Security Council and the National Economic Council — that will coordinate a multibillion-dollar effort to restrict access to government computers and protect systems that run the stock exchanges, clear global banking transactions and manage the air traffic control system.
White House officials say Mr. Obama has not yet been formally presented with the Pentagon plan. They said he would not discuss it Friday when he announced the creation of a White House office responsible for coordinating private-sector and government defenses against the thousands of cyberattacks mounted against the United States — largely by hackers but sometimes by foreign governments — every day.
But he is expected to sign a classified order in coming weeks that will create the military cybercommand, officials said. It is a recognition that the United States already has a growing number of computer weapons in its arsenal and must prepare strategies for their use — as a deterrent or alongside conventional weapons — in a wide variety of possible future conflicts.
Login or Register to post comments.
Like anything. good if used properly and scary if used by the likes of another Bush junta.
............. because it will never be used 'properly', 'cause Cheney's moles will have lots of influence, that no one knows anything about.
Obama and the democrats are starting to scare..
Boooooooooooosh/Cheney are NOT GONE!!!! Wake up, fella! The moles they left behind are the most scary to me. I think O-bought-ma has been bought by your friendly, NOT!, local Junta for the Rich. It's obvious! The so-called 'Dims/DINOS' are the party of greed, a sub-division of the Rich, which can only be labeled the PUKIES.
talk about the republicans following the elected Corporate-republicans and their criminal activities...
Why are we letting Obama continue and broaden Bush's criminal activities.. You and I know d... well if this was Bush or any republican committing the crimes (yes crimes) we would be raising h...
I am starting to believe this is why Obama is where he is. So Americans which have been raising h... about our constitution , freedom and democracy being destroy would be silence..
Shut down the internet? My God, can you imagine the American rage if such a step were taken? I hope they don't mean "shut down the internet" but something else.
They'd better find the world's best hackers to catch other hackers out to break through government and corporate computer barriers and leave the rest of us schmoes free to do our thing.
lets be honest here...there already have been some hacks that have taken down large chunks of the net
and you are right...they better be hiring the hackers
dont leave this to the pentagon idiots to do
god...wish i could remember his name...but there is a hacker who has already proven that the current internet can be taken down with just some simple code...he needs to be the first hired
Yea, welcome to the information age. Control of information = control of the world.
Propaganda hand in hand with control of the $$$$$$$$$$$. Zionists, want to bet???
Lord Rothchild is NOT a Zionist???? Sure!
Find a new schtick. Better yet, do some research on the Rothschilds. They don't have an empire to speak of any longer. They've got as much power as anyone else with some aristocratic title does in the 21st century.
The answer is WASPs- the old Ivy League, backslapping Protestants.
The courts have held that free expression, diversity, democracy, and culture require "an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will prevail" - a marketplace where there is a "wide diversity of viewpoints from a multiplicity of sources."
This monitoring is not enough. They have to limit what the internet user sees and hears, in order to control what he thinks, says, and votes.
Prior to the internet, this was accomplished by restraint of competition in broadcast media, which drove up the price of mass communications so that only wealthy interests (corporations) could purchase communications.
We've seen the first step with internet communications. There was interests that advocated that since the "last mile" of telephone wire was built during the telco monopoly era, that this "last mile" should be available to competing dsl providers. However, during the Bush II administration, the FCC didn't agree, and alternative dsl resellers have no protection from incumbent telco pricing schemes, leading to a duopoly between telco and cable. Seems the incumbent telcos are getting into the same old television that is corporate controlled, and cable has always been there. So, we don't really have a pure internet supplier.
The next shoe to drop is the end of network neutrality, where sites like C&L will have to pay AT&T to connect its users to the site, pay Verizon, pay Comcast, and so forth. The pricing structure will be set up so that only moneyed interests can pay. Then, internet sites are set up like a channel lineup on cable television.
There would be a big outcry, and therefore, this scenario is probably unlikely. But, the only way to put the genie back in the bottle is to copy the broadcast model and restrain the availability of alternative ideas. So, they have no choice but to try, as far as I can tell.
Broadcast television still has a grip and control over what Americans think and say, but that is eroding due to the internet. Nowhere is that more obvious than in the current health care debate. Hillary tried for health care reform, but with no net-roots, there was no analysis of the cost benefits, and as a result, there has been corporate price gouging in the costs of health care since.
Now, television still is in control, but at least on the internet, we can point out that by not copying the systems employed in Europe, Japan and Canada, we're getting ripped off to the tune of $600B/year. There is no cost comparison between foreign approaches to health care and the domestic approach on television. It's this kind of pointing out on the internet that the government of the Corporation needs to nip in the bud in order to control what you think and say.
End of net neutrality is the thing to pay attention to.
Please don't declare a war on porn.
They already outlawed violent porn.
You can depict violence and murder towards a person, so long as you are NOT having sex with them at the same time.
I understand that you can show one person spanking another, but neither can look like they're enjoying it.
and it continues getting worse
what they banned was acts of s and m being combined with hardcore sex acts...but the producers work their way around that too
like it's a bad thing
Late last year the DoD placed a ban on all periphrial devices, thumb drives and external harddrives, because of a computer virus that was attacking all DoD computers world-wide. The move made my own work downrange harder to compleate ( I was working my battalions graphics section in Iraq), and the ban is still in place today (world wide). The Pentagon has not apparently bothered to try and cure the virus, opting to only keep banning the use of thumb drives and anything else that plugs into a USB slot. I am interested in where this eventually will lead, although I have no faith that they will lift their ban anytime soon.
I think that is in response to the Conflicker Worm, which, among other methods can spread via USB device. Protection from external vulnerability is a lot easier than internal vulnerability. The biggest weak link is the well meaning/not so well meaning employee.
They have to keep secure networks apart from unsecured networks, and that includes separating devices that have been connected to unsecured networks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAcEzhQ7oqA
We already keep our secure networks seperate, we have our NIPR computers which are non-secure and used for internet surfing, and then we have the SIPR side for our secure and secret networking. USB devices are not shared between the two sides, but I do believe the worm program you mentioned is the one they are worried about. As far as I know they are not really looking for a way to defeat this worm other than banning USB, the difficult part of that is that while we can use CD's in place of USB (and CD's CAN be shared between NIPR and SIPR), not all of our computers had optical drives, and the external optical drives for those computers would not work through the USB drives (the ban was not simply not using a device, it was a command entered into all computers via the network that disabled the USB function compleatly).
“It's about time, since we've seen several successful hacks into top-level government computers lately.”
These government computers shouldn't be publicly accessible in the first place. There's still a lot of darkened fiber that could be used. To the extent they want to use public networks, they should be using VPN tunnels and so forth. There should be no military vulnerability.
As far as commercial vunerability is concerned there is the issue of DNS poisoning, where DNS servers are hacked to redirect traffic to a rouge site posing as a site engaged in commerce.
I have the ultimate solution, end network neutrality. People only need a little news, so allow the Fox News web site only. Email to your ISP and updates from Microsoft and that's it. 3 sites - that's it. Can't get hacked if your computer can only contact 3 sites. It'll protect the children, and isn't that what it's really all about???
The government has been using internet gambling, porn and now security to juxtapose themselves into the people's internet. We've had restraint in competition to reduce competition to a dsl and a cable supplier. You have to worry when the government of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation wants to "protect" us.
for not blindly following the current administration. Keep questioning!!!!
If one explores the naughty sites on-line
Does that make them a cybernaut?
Better in Obama's hands than his simian predecessor.
We had EPA. Once it got to Bush's hands, Exxon's lawyer ran it.
Once this new infrastructure is set up, and the precedent established, who's going to run it after Obama? I don't know and you don't know either. Newt? That's my ticket in 2012 - Newt/Limbaugh. Change you can believe in.
They need to monitor talk radio. All of my a.m. stations are getting hacked into by the craziest bunch of rightwing assholes you ever heard.
I can't find any channels without them.
... assholes. They drove the independent educated voter into the Democrat camp. The only ones listening to them are the morons.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obam...
"Obama Taps 5th RIAA Lawyer to Justice Dept."
Now, we have this security threat. Hm'mm....
You knew they would never let go of that idea. And, given Obama's demonstrated callous, even contemptful, disregard for the Constitution - as demonstrated by his support for FISA and his recent attempts to retain and expand the imagined prerogatives of the imaginary Divine Right of Unitary Executives, his assurances today that privacy rights will be respected ring pretty damned hollow to my ears.
disregard for the Constitution
__________________________________________________
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
because we all know how much his predecessor loved the constitution...dont we
go away
It distresses me to see that Obama's regard for the constitution approximates Bush's. If anything, it looks to me like he is not only trying to consolidate the multiple harms that Bush committed but expand them even further. It's a continuation, pretty much without pause, of Bush's agenda. It doesn't bode well for the cause of continuing liberty.
Obama really likes this power of being president of America.. Not only does he seem to really love Bush's illegally spying on Americans and continue using it , but gave immunity to it to cover his a.. also.... Now he is broaden this illegal spying to thoroughly cover the internet , where most Americans are chatting..
Wake up American we have no representation to protect us..
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/05/enter-st...
“National commitment to cybersecurity is welcome, but government control of the internet is not. This morning's White House-issued cybersecurity proposals seem to recognize this distinction and are therefore vastly preferable to the Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity Act introduced into Congress last month.”
Didn't even know that there was an alternative plan. So, I guess the devil is in the details, which I'm going to have to learn.
“Contrast this with the Rockefeller-Snowe bill introduced in April, which includes exaggerated proposals that do little to address the root causes of network vulnerabilities and much to undermine private rights and civil liberties. The bill purports to give the Commerce Department absolute, non-emergency access to "all relevant data" without any privacy safeguards like standards or judicial review. The broad scope of this provision could eviscerate statutory protections for private information, such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Privacy Protection Act or financial privacy regulations.”
I'm not really up on all of this. I thought Rocky was dead.
Encryption of messages with PGP, plus on-the-fly encryption/decryption of drives, such as provided by the free truecrypt seem good places to patch up keyholes.
EDIT: Didn't intend as reply to you, NoBuddy, but your offhand ideas about this are most welcome.
You can take my interweb-tubes when you pry them from my cold Cheetos-orange covered hands in my efficiency apartment!
Sigh.
They could even shut down the internet? Really!? I voted for Obama and all, but this could be GREATLY abused by ANY administration. What purpose would it serve to shut it down even other than to: 1) Do what terrorists could only ever dream of doing or; 2) stop the free flow of ideas because it is beginning to hinder the government in controlling "the message".
Maybe there's a 3rd reason that I'm just not seeing, but again, this can be abused by any leadership. There should be some serious protections in place before the program hits the extreme of "shutting down the internet".
Now lets hope they go after the people they're suppose to go after and not all those 'pot lovin hippies'.
Something has to be done with cyber wars. It's too dangerous to ignore it. The infrastructure could be shut down in cities. The electrical grid could be messed with. The banking industry could be shut down. Medical records could be messed with when it is critical in saving someone's life. Everything is going cyber. It is the perfect way to disable a country with just a tiny army of fingers marching across a few keyboards.
Spoken like a true laymen. Unlike the movies, the actual electrical distribution grid is not heavily data interconnected -- nor are the FAA systems -- nor are electronic medical records. In the real world -- as revealed in several books by former law enforcement officers and in the 9/11 commission report -- the FBI doesn't even have an e-mail system that works, there is no usable national database of criminal activity, and most government agencies have non-interconnected systems which are years out of date.
Of course, there are regular risks which should be evaluated and addressed. But so much of what's being profligated in movies, on TV, and by DoD cronies, is simply fea mongering through hyperbole. The vast majority of risk that does exist is due to poor engineering practices and ill trained users, and poorly written software. There really is no need for a NSC level 'czar' to fend off cyber attacks; rather, the emphasis by the civilian technology officers on best practices needs to be made a priority. Additionally, the DoC needs to establish an information clearing house for private IT managers to aid them in implementing good practices within private networks. As these are the correct measured approaches to the existing problems they will be ignored in favor of generating Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt, and Large, Large, Private Contracts.
Completely agree.
As a former federal IT technical manager, I agree that our government infrastructure is in terrible shape due to poor management practices and ill-trained users. But I worry that the top-down approach will simply result in a centralized authority primarily designed to protect its own as* and erect barriers to proper oversight from the public.
There are many good people running IT for the feds. Unfortunately, large vendors and contractors carry more weight at the political level and this often leads to conflicts of interest that put the entire network at risk.
If the interactions between vendors, contractors, federal IT managers and politicians were more transparent (ie public), much of our problems would be naturally resolved to the benefit of the public and our national security.
Here's hoping the Obama team can wade through this morass and lay out a new path. The current path leads to chaos.
"It's about time, since we've seen several successful hacks into top-level government computers lately."
I don't think the Pentagon's cyber war initiative will help this. Virtually all so called "hacks" into government and corporate computers are enabled by lazy or ignorant system administrators who take short cuts around security procedures. We don't need a cyberwar division to stop them. All we need is to enforce proper security policies, procedures, and technology on government sites. In my experience government servers in general are much worse than corporate when it comes to proper security. Just as with the war on terror the cyber war efforts will make our information technology less not more safe by inventing new ways to attack servers or the net in general. I'm a lot more concerned that such tools would eventually be used against us than I am about a few mostly harmless apolitical hackers.
Scare them into thinking the boogie man is behind the computer screen and they'll give up more of their rights. You mean to tell me the most powerful country in the world is getting "cyberattacked" by a few hackers, here i thought the government "could handle just about anything". that was sarcasm people.....lol.
I wonder what the next one will be, let see i have a few ideas, (1)Your neighbor is a terrorist so report them to the state
(2)Breathing is causing ozone de-pletion and that need to stop
(3)Too many useless eaters maybe population control in next
got hacked today by "The Tunisian". I had to restart my pc because the sound of a chicken clucking "charge" would not stop even though I shut down my browser!
Sounds like the 'W' virus to me.
Login or Register to post comments.