Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Who Protects the Internet?

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the guarding-the-tubes dept.

The Internet 177

strikeleader writes "TechCrunch has an article from an interview with General Kevin Chilton, US STRATCOM commander and the head of all military cyber warfare. Who protects us? 'Basically no one. At most, a number of loose confederations of computer scientists and engineers who seek to devise better protocols and practices — unincorporated groups like the Internet Engineering Task Force and the North American Network Operators Group. But the fact remains that no one really owns security online, which leads to gated communities with firewalls — a highly unreliable and wasteful way to try to assure security.'"

cancel ×

177 comments

Editorialization (3, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#25984943)

Meh. The question really should be "Who protects the Internet from being used as a military asset?" Cause that's all this guy is talking about.

Re:Editorialization (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25985673)

Yep. TechCrunch is lame. Slashdot, no need to perpetuate U.S. government propaganda.

if the military does not regard it as an asset... (4, Insightful)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985861)

"It had to be destroyed to be saved."
Several governments are already making progress on this game plan.

Re:if the military does not regard it as an asset. (2, Interesting)

foobsr (693224) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986419)

"It had to be destroyed to be saved."

Save Humanity NOW!

Decode: Another hint to the proposition that technological progress has to be accompanied with (say) 'social evolution' in order to be fruitful. Mankind has failed (epically) ever since.

CC.

Re:Editorialization (1)

davidphogan74 (623610) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986007)

Mammals are better than military.

Secure .mil by changing the whole net? (1, Funny)

Eganicus (1374269) | more than 5 years ago | (#25984975)

What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Secure .mil by changing the whole net? (1)

Kooty-Sentinel (1291050) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985327)

Don't worry ma'am, I am from the internet.

Re:Secure .mil by changing the whole net? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25985369)

Lies. If you were from the internet, you would never address anyone on /. as ma'am.

Duh! (3, Funny)

line-bundle (235965) | more than 5 years ago | (#25984981)

Al Gore of course. After all it's his baby.

Re:Duh! (1)

c_forq (924234) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985233)

I guess if you ignore Manbearpig's reign over the darknet.

Filling the tubes (2, Funny)

amclay (1356377) | more than 5 years ago | (#25984987)

I destroy the interwebz everyday by bittorrenting, and filling the tubes.

Re:Filling the tubes (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25985701)

I fill your mom's tubes.

Internet doesn't need protection (4, Insightful)

ZDRuX (1010435) | more than 5 years ago | (#25984991)

Who protects us? 'Basically no one...

And thats the way I like it. Please keep the government's greedy and controlling hands out of this.

Re:Internet doesn't need protection (5, Insightful)

xs650 (741277) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985071)

I wish I had mod points today, I would mod you insightful.

It can't be protected without having control of it.

The single best thing about the internet is that no one has full control of it. Had it been controlled by government or industry, it would be a miserable little shadow of what it is today.

Re:Internet doesn't need protection (5, Insightful)

LoRdTAW (99712) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985275)

Its like the old days of the wild west. No one really controls the land and you are free to roam and *almost* do as you please. If someone misbehaves a posse is rounded up to take care of the problem, the community helps itself. OSS is the same way.

Hopefully no one entity or group ever takes control of our virtual land.

OT: Your sig (1, Insightful)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985397)

Basements are SO overrated. The attic is where its at.

Attics are terrible, all the heat gets trapped there! Just think of how many fewer computers you can viably run.

Re:OT: Your sig (4, Interesting)

sowth (748135) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986459)

I had the same problem as you. Living in my parents attic, it was so hot..even in winter. One day while playing doom, I had an idea: Use the chainsaw to free the heat. It took some blood and sweat, but I got the job done. Fly Mr. Heatie, fly!

Back on topic: With all these people trying to control the internet and the FCC auctioning off all the airwaves, I'm ready to become a freebander. Why not just create a radio networking card which uses the analog TV freqs the FCC took away. ...okay, that would be a bad idea, they'd probably just track us all down.

Then again, maybe playing with pringles cans and "legit" wireless networking, we can interface with our neighbors. Something has to work, or am I just a kook?

Re:Internet doesn't need protection (2, Interesting)

JeanBaptiste (537955) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985281)

not that I'm any kind of expert... but I would think that one could argue that once certain technologies got up to a decent level to allow for things like network cards, long distance communications, encryption, personal computers, etc... something like the internet would be inevitable.

Re:Internet doesn't need protection (4, Interesting)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986593)

not really that certain.
If the internet hadn't grown up from under the radar it very well could have been treated like traditional media.
Want to run a server? You better have a liscence just like the TV broadcasters.
Want to connect at all? WEll first you have to authenticate with the central government servers so they know who's doing what on the network.

Our greatest defence for years was that nobody knew enough about it to make laws on it. Now that there's real money involved of course the legislators want to make rules even if they don't have a clue what's going on- kinda like with every other situations that governments touch.

Re:Internet doesn't need protection (3, Insightful)

ReedYoung (1282222) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986607)

not that I'm any kind of expert

Neither is General Chilton, or he would not be talking with a straight face about using the public Internet for secured transmission of military data. He's a fucking idiot if he believes what he's saying and you should not take him seriously just because of his uniform. You're a voter and a taxpayer, right? Don't trust him, treat him as an employee.

... but I would think that one could argue that once certain technologies got up to a decent level to allow for things like network cards, long distance communications, encryption, personal computers, etc... something like the internet would be inevitable.

Yes. What was not inevitable is that military personnel would choose to use publicly available, privately-owned hardware on basically an "honor system" set of customs to transmit mission-critical data. Truly, the barbarians are not only at the gates, they have sauntered lazily through unguarded gates, and now the barbarians control the Gates. DARPANET was based on sensible use of redundancy. Once it was available to the public it ceased to be a sensible thing for the military to use, but somebody decided that instead of a discreet military network, what the United States really needed was a diffuse military-industrial complex, blurring into academia, commerce, and eventually all of public life. Now, even responsible military officers trying only to do their jobs but encumbered by duties and procedures that constrain them to depend on the www, are routinely whining to us that they must infringe on our unalienable rights to free speech and security against unreasonable searches and seizures, in order merely to effectively protect our lives and the so-called "liberties" that in fact we don't have. This infrastructure is not our enemy, the military's infantile dependence upon it, is. But until they're weaned onto their own, physically separate DoD.net, we're all effectively under martial law. Al Gore was an idiot to voluntarily take any "credit" for the worldwide web.

The problem is that it isn't clear who has the remit for comprehensive defense of the internet.

What horse shit! One does not comprehensively defend an open network. For applications requiring military-grade comprehensive defense, one makes a physically separate closed network. VPN doesn't cut it and never will, by any name.

Re:Internet doesn't need protection (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25985425)

I wish I had mod points today, I would mod you insightful.

It can't be protected without having control of it.

The single best thing about the internet is that no one has full control of it. Had it been controlled by government or industry, it would be a miserable little shadow of what it is today.

Aw, how sad. Here let me fix that for you. :-)

I wish I had oranges baking, I would bake you tastefully.

It can't be peaches without cookies of chocolate.

The single best tasting peach about the oven is that no grape has full squish of itself. Had it been fried by tangerines or pears, it would be a tasty little waffle of what it is today.

There, fixed! :-) No need to thank me! Have a nice day! :-)

Re:Internet doesn't need protection (1)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985491)

The only sort of "control" that should be allowed is the enforcement of network neutrality.

Re:Internet doesn't need protection (1)

rdnetto (955205) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986207)

The single best thing about the internet is that no one has full control of it. Had it been controlled by government or industry, it would be a miserable little shadow of what it is today.

And then the government comes along with they're mandatory internet filtering, and we have ourselves a miserable little shadow.

Re:Internet doesn't need protection (5, Interesting)

grunaura (659065) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985107)

Your actulally quite right. The internet is a collection of networks not necissarily IP based. A majority of attacks exist on the IP side. Wide area networking technology carries all traffic regaurdless of the payload. If there is an attack on the border of your internal IP network the WAN cares not. If your border is penatrated and a connection is made to create another network, again the WAN doesn't care. Can the internet be taken down? Not if you have skilled and knowledgeable Information Security officers maintaining the network you reside on.

Re:Internet doesn't need protection (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25985493)

More importantly, there's nothing to stop someone else from handing out IP addresses and startin their own internet if they want to. You'd have to build your own backbone, but, if you've got the hardware and the inclination, you could totally do it.

Re:Internet doesn't need protection (1)

cerberusss (660701) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985907)

Not if you have skilled and knowledgeable Information Security officers maintaining the network you reside on.

In A.D. 2101
War was beginning.
[...]
CATS: You have no chance to survive make your time.
CATS: Ha ha ha ha ....
General Kevin Chilton: Take off every 'Information Security Officer'!!
General Kevin Chilton: You know what you doing.
General Kevin Chilton: Move 'Information Security Officer'.
General Kevin Chilton: For great justice.

Net Neutrality: Gov't regulation for the Internet (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25985355)

I hope you don't support Net Neutrality, because that is the Trojan Horse for government regulation of the Internet.

Mod Parent Up (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985429)

Net neutrality is anything but.

Re:Net Neutrality: Gov't regulation for the Intern (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25985463)

It's either the governments, or ISPs, or Corporations...

The best and only way to shake the control is to misbehave, en masse. Perpetual Renaissance.

Re:Net Neutrality: Gov't regulation for the Intern (5, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986879)

I hope you don't support Net Neutrality, because that is the Trojan Horse for government regulation of the Internet.

And the opposition to it is led by those companies who want to be the looters instead. However, as commonly known, the government is inefficient; so it is also inefficient in censoring the Internet. Thus, government control is preferable to corporate control, because it is less likely to be effective.

It's (1)

taucross (1330311) | more than 5 years ago | (#25984993)

Batman.

Re:It's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25985051)

Chuck Norris. He doesn't have a chin under his beard, just a big-ass router with some serious ACLs.

Re:It's (1)

enoz (1181117) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985305)

Chuck Norris

Unfortunately this internet is vulnerable to the BruceLee attack.

Re:It's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25985307)

That's not Chuck Norris, that's Bruce Schneier. Get yer meme straight.

Re:It's (1)

droopycom (470921) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985367)

That would be Bruce Schneier not Chuck.
Chuck has another Fist under his beard.

Here are the Chuck Norris Facts: http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com/ [chucknorrisfacts.com]

And here are the Bruce Schneier Facts: http://geekz.co.uk/schneierfacts/ [geekz.co.uk]

Please dont get confused people!

Easy (2, Funny)

tuxgeek (872962) | more than 5 years ago | (#25984997)

This is an easy one
Uncle Ted himself, who else understands the internet as well as he
Although now he may be doing it from his new base in cell #1576 Cell block E

Re:Easy (1)

Jimmy King (828214) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985081)

Until I got to the cell block bit I was wondering what Ted Nugent had to do with the Internet.

Re:Easy (1)

tuxgeek (872962) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985409)

I was wondering what Ted Nugent had to do with the Internet

Ah yes, I remember seeing him in concert 33 years ago. Good show! I would never refer to him as Uncle Ted though, maybe reefer Ted ...

Our network can b hacked, let's make a new www! (5, Funny)

Eganicus (1374269) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985013)

Military Intelligence is truly a ridiculous concept. Anyway, who's playing quake with me on NSA supercomputers tonight?

Re:Our network can b hacked, let's make a new www! (0, Redundant)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985789)

Military Intelligence is truly an oxymoronic concept.

There! Fixed it for you!

Firewalled networks wasteful? (4, Insightful)

Kaz Kylheku (1484) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985035)

What's the alternative? Globalized security, courtesy of Big Brother?

Don't good fences make good neigbors?

I suppose it's wasteful, in code, for module entry points to validate parameters, too. :)

Re:Firewalled networks wasteful? (4, Insightful)

scatters (864681) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985085)

Even if the government could offer some form of protection online, I'd be a fool not to protect my own network to the best of my abilities. Using Jonathan Zittrain's logic from TFA, doors must be ineffecient and wasteful too; obviously he has never heard of the concept of defense in depth.

Re:Firewalled networks wasteful? (1)

m50d (797211) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986337)

Firewalls are inefficient and wasteful because of the amount of trouble they cause legitimate use, and the little they do to prevent illegitimate use. It's like putting six padlocks on your flimsy wooden door.

don't try to draw too many real world analogies... (5, Insightful)

PhantomHarlock (189617) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985041)

I don't think you want to centralize anything like that, at least not to the exclusion of everyone having local protections. Your firewall is under your control and you can make it as secure or unsecured as you want it.

If you want the cyberspace equivalent of a national army, you're just asking to have lots of power taken away from you and given to someone else. That being said, I think there is a case for prevention of nations attacking other nations en large, or 'war by other means'.

but carry it too far and you end up destroying the global feel of the internet - you'll end up with cyber borders as bad as our real borders - checkpoints you can't cross without 'your papers please'.

Re:don't try to draw too many real world analogies (4, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985211)

If you want the cyberspace equivalent of a national army, you're just asking to have lots of power taken away from you and given to someone else.

All those spammers building botnets, eventually, they're going to become "security companies". Nice web site you've got there, it'd be a shame if no-one could get to it. Once they start collecting taxes from a large enough group of people, they become a "legitimate" police force. After all, they don't want anyone else building a bigger botnet than theirs.

Re:don't try to draw too many real world analogies (2, Insightful)

Dr. Hellno (1159307) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985377)

I find your rampant speculation refreshing

Solution (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25985067)

Easy. Anonymous is the guardian of the internets.

CMR Taco! (5, Funny)

mbaGeek (1219224) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985069)

I thought that was Slashdot's job ;-)

Re:CMR Taco! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25986919)

Nope, 4chan.

Evolution, baby (5, Insightful)

Niobe (941496) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985093)

The idea that 'someone' 'owning' 'security' would somehow provide us with more online protection I find unbelievably stupid and ignorant. If you open your eyes you'll realise we wouldn't even have the internet if it weren't for essentially random collections of like-minded people each contributing a piece of the puzzle - it's called evolutionary process, and nothing any businessman or politician has ever invented has come close to it's effectiveness.

Re:Evolution, baby (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985133)

It's no more ridiculous than believing that a centralized government can provide more physical security. . .

Re:Evolution, baby (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25985611)

Yeah, and that's stupid too. How is stripping us of our rights protecting us?

Re:Evolution, baby (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985647)

That's my point.

In the Wild West.... (1)

Zymergy (803632) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985095)

...People carried guns for protection.
And individuals who learned to best use their 'protection', with faster assessment of threats and the resulting execution of such with precise accuracy, found they had a satisfactory level of self-protection.
I say, legalize some offensive capabilities for "Internet Users" and set up some general universal use rules. After all, when you point a gun to shoot at someone else, you are tacitly giving them permission to shoot back at you (or even preemptively), hence the deterrence of pointing a gun at someone else WHO IS ARMED.

I truly hope this is not just FUD for setting up a new government great-firewall bureaucracy in order to big-brother those of us lucky enough to still have open unfiltered Internet.

Re:In the Wild West.... (1)

enoz (1181117) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985337)

I say, legalize some offensive capabilities for "Internet Users" and set up some general universal use rules.

That sounds like Cold War 2.0

After all, when you point a gun to shoot at someone else, you are tacitly giving them permission to shoot back at you (or even preemptively)

Were you infact an advisor for the Iraq War?

Re:In the Wild West.... (1)

Zymergy (803632) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985717)

You missed my point, I was making (or at least attempting to make) a fundamental analogy. Not some type of geopolitical statement.
Also, it had nothing to do with the country of Iraq. (And apparently, you have never been held at gunpoint and robbed before.)
There *are* very bad people out there, and some of them use the Internet and do very bad things there too.
Some believe that an individual Internet User should be filtered, 'protected', and passively controlled by bureaucrats, in a fully rubber-padded and hand-railed world, leaving only the police having any legal power and authority to protect individuals (hit-back). (As in "For Your Protection", yes think Douglas Adams)

Others believe in self-protection, self-regulation, and self-defense and embrace the concept of personal responsibility for one's safety and personal accountability if you threaten or harm another. (I lean that way...)

If someone breaks into my home and threatens me or my family with a weapon, they die.
(This is a valid and appropriate example of Self-protection and deterrence to any others from making attempts to attempt to do the same.)

There are many who believe I should not have right to have the tools of my own protection (because someone out there might misuse the same tools or whatever) and therefore only the police (government) should have such tools and they will be the only ones with said 'protection'.
Classic gun-control fallacy. The world does not work that way. People do not work that way. Deterrence works.

I was suggesting that some offensive capability be permitted/granted to those who are attacked on the open Internet as a deterrent. Something with teeth.
To my knowledge, all we can do legally is filter/firewall and block an attacker (as we have walls and locks and doors on our homes) on the Internet who is harming/attacking us.
It would be nice to have a honeypot full of coded hurt at the ready for attackers to steal or a botnet ready to flood them into leaving me alone. (I am sure the DOD has these and many more effective 'protection' tools at their disposal.)
It was an argument against the concept that the Internet should be policed only by the government/military/police and rubber-padded and filtered for its users.

I do realize that the Internet is not built that way and there is no good analogy in the real world to best explain it, but a nice protective capability like a DNS kick-ban or remote forced system reboot on my attacker would make me happier knowing I *could* do that to some bad and harmful user who is attacking my system on my side of the demark.
I would wager some companies on the open Internet have some off-shore 'contractors' on call to dish out some digital hurt to attackers.

Re:In the Wild West.... (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986603)

If someone breaks into my home and threatens me or my family with a weapon, they die.

Zymergy shot first!!

Thats *your* fallacy. You're assuming that you get a chance to shoot first.

Classic gun-control fallacy. The world does not work that way. People do not work that way. Deterrence works.

Deterrence works, but leads to an arms race.

It'll work as long as there are unarmed homeowners, as they will be "burglars choice" (easier targets). But as soon as everyone has a gun... do you really thing burglars will be extinct? No.. they'll just keep on trying to break into your house (without tripping any alarm) and shoot you while you're still sleeping. Better safe than sorry, you understand.... It's not their fault.. you forced them to do so, to protect themselves.

Re:In the Wild West.... (1)

Rod Beauvex (832040) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985339)

I wish they'd let us do this in the real world. Manners would suddenly come back in vouge.

Re:In the Wild West.... (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985739)

"giving them permission to shoot back at you (or even preemptively)"

yeah, I call this the small-Bush doctrine. Shoot preemptively, search for a reason later.

Re:In the Wild West.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25985793)

Once you start the regulation, you're on the way down the slippery slope to That Firewall.

Re:In the Wild West.... (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986367)

People who carry guns for protection get shot

If guns are seen as devices for killing and so shunned then anyone with a gun is seen as a criminal and also shunned and soon the problem disappears

A better protection is defence.... give me a firewall over a killer botnet anyday

Missing the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25985111)

It seems that the article author and the poster are lacking ideas just as gen Chilton. Why then shoot down somebody's strategy without offering something better?

I suppose the actual moral of the story is the cash that goes on TSA, DHS - or at least part of it - could be better spent elsewhere?

Makes better sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25985115)

Why have ONE type of defense when you can have a multitude of defenses that people may or may not know anything about?

Better not to have the internet "protected" (1)

Sepiraph (1162995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985123)

"But the fact remains that no one really owns security online, which leads to gated communities with firewalls -- a highly unreliable and wasteful way to try to assure security."

Actually, it is far more secure that way, if one organization did somehow owned all security online, the internet as a whole would be much less security because now you have a single point of failure. Once someone exploited that vulnerability, the entire Internet as a whole would be affected. Also I get the feeling from the article that what they are really after is not necessarily security, but CONTROL of the Internet. Lastly, that man DOES NOT protect the Internet in any way, shape or form. He might be responsible for the USA military Intranet, but that's about it. Stop the fear-mongering already.

* Messed up the tag from my last post* (5, Insightful)

Sepiraph (1162995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985143)

"But the fact remains that no one really owns security online, which leads to gated communities with firewalls -- a highly unreliable and wasteful way to try to assure security."

Actually, it is far more secure that way, if one organization did somehow owned all security online, the internet as a whole would be much less security because now you have a single point of failure. Once someone exploited that vulnerability, the entire Internet as a whole would be affected. Also I get the feeling from the article that what they are really after is not necessarily security, but CONTROL of the Internet. Lastly, that man DOES NOT protect the Internet in any way, shape or form. He might be responsible for the USA military Intranet, but that's about it. Stop the fear-mongering already.

Uh oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25985163)

Hopefully they are just asking for funds for some kind of military abomination. But we all know where this kind of talk usually ends up. Public surprise buttsecks!

Nobody owns security offline either (5, Insightful)

registrar (1220876) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985167)

Nobody owns security offline either, and nobody should. If you own something, or care about something, you protect it. Some things have additional protection from the police or the military (e.g. I have a reasonable expectation that the police will prevent me from getting beaten up in some circumstances), but in the most part "the authorities" have a fairly punitive deterrent role. But anything that needs special protection gets it: got valuables in your house? Alarm, strong doors, insurance. All privately paid-for and provided. Got valuables on your computer? Backups, firewall, antivirus. Also privately provided.

Basically, the people who care about things know how much they're worth protecting. It isn't sensible to have military-grade security around my old Corolla, but my laptop's pretty secure because it's got a few worthwhile things. If the good General has infrastructure or secrets worth protecting, he should protect them. If it makes sense to exploit economies of scale and worth with other branches of the community, great.

It's also not true that there's a loose confederation of people (Vixie & co) protecting the internet. There are plenty of people around who want to protect or improve their own reputation, and security is one of those ways. If the military wants contact points in the wider security community, they shouldn't be looking for an owner, but they should be working with reality: getting out there making those contacts.

Normally I think such anarchy is stupid, but in this case it actually is common sense.

Redundancy in security is not wasteful (1)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985175)

a highly unreliable and wasteful way to try to assure security

I disagree. It's a terrible thing that we do not have a force dedicated to cyber security, but I wouldn't call the individual security nets "wasteful".

Is it wasteful to have both an enterprise firewall AND anti-virus software? No, you should have a net at every point possible - especially if we're talking issues where the government would start to be concerned. In that case, the person sitting on the other side of an attack is likely as sophisticated as the highest paid engineers on our side. Redundancy is essential in that case.

Re:Redundancy in security is not wasteful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25985713)

I call redundancy in the feces of male cattle.

Re:Redundancy in security is not wasteful (1)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985905)

Hmm, good job in making me spend more than the typical 2 seconds reading a stupid AC quote. This one is so odd, I just had to sit and see if there was any meaning whatsoever - I still haven't found any. But again - compliments!

Who Protects the Internet? (1)

The Munger (695154) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985191)

I look forward to Stephen Conroy [wikipedia.org] protecting my internet [myspace.com] from unwanted material.
</sarcasm>

C'mon guys, read TFA to the end... (5, Informative)

pegdhcp (1158827) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985213)

I guess the whole point of article, aside from being a scarecrow, is in following part. They probably put it there, in order to hide it from /. crowd...

When Obama appoints a white house CTO, there will at least be an official figurehead in charge of this matter. Proposed candidates for the role currently include Eric Schmidt, Steve Ballmer, Jeff Bezos and Julius Genachowski from IAC.

Emphasis is mine, please be kind to your new -potentially- M$ loving uber-CTO and use only approved root kits, that utilized security holes those are already hot-fixed by people who put them there in the first place, from now on...

Re:C'mon guys, read TFA to the end... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25985535)

The day you find a real hacker that is a Republican piece of crap sore loser like you, I will laugh of your pathetic no-fun joke.
Get over it! You lost it big time, landslide, and in 2010 it is going to get even worse, because you going to lose again... We got 59 senators, think about 70 in 2010...
I don't care about some M$ Balmer crap, or some Buffett crap, I care about eliminate the Republicans out of the US map, one town after another... Our volunteers won't be disbanded. Now is time to build an even bigger organization than the one that got Obama in the White House. There are too many pathetic losers like you, still trying to spread hate and lies. Is the war for Americans' minds, and we won't lose it.
And you can compare it with whatever you want to compare. No organization in history can be compared to Obama's volunteers, and they are growing in number every day. Everytime a hate-filled loser like you try to spit your venom, we gain 100s more of volunteers. So, go cry at your bed cuz there is warm...

Re:C'mon guys, read TFA to the end... (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985605)

Everytime a hate-filled loser like you try to spit your venom, we gain 100s more of volunteers.

Did you know that many Republicans feel the same way about Democrats? Both sides are so entrenched in groupthink it's incredible that the government can get anything done at all.

Two-party system leading do divisive-ness? (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986199)

Both sides are so entrenched in groupthink it's incredible that the government can get anything done at all.

Who would have thinked it: that a two-party system leads to a greater concentration of an us-or-them, with-us-or-against-us mentality?

Re:C'mon guys, read TFA to the end... (1)

pegdhcp (1158827) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985759)

Interesting thing is that I am not an American and my political ideology, while my post was not about politics, is far left than the new President's party. I am happy that, idiots like you, who are conforming derogatory "low IQ average American" image are only a minority, according to my experience with USA citizens. This minority is unfortunately is more visible and louder than the rest of population.

Re:C'mon guys, read TFA to the end... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25985783)

I thought it was McCain who had proposed Ballmer as the CTO and Obama who was looking more at someone like Lessig?

You can have my firewall when you pry if from my (1)

CranberryKing (776846) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985225)

Cold Dead Hands!

Yes, my network is just fine, thank you for asking. No assistance needed here. Goodbye.

Metagovernment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25985253)

Looks like the internet is ready for Metagovernment [metagovernment.org] . National boundaries seem so pointless in this day and age.

Stange analogy (2, Interesting)

Bevilr (1258638) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985261)

This is a really weird analogy, but this reminds me of snow crash - individual areas secured by their owners, and huge unprotected wastes and everything in between. Too far fetched a nerd reference?

Re:Stange analogy (1)

jtolds (413336) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985381)

No, I totally thought the same thing.

Like a mother protecting its baby (1)

Lije Baley (88936) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985313)

Al Gore?

Who Protects the Internet? (1)

mrv00t (858087) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985405)

The secret guild of Internet protectors?

Propaganda .. slashdot please (1)

tg123 (1409503) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985407)

Slashdot please put this under Propaganda classification. according to wiki - "Propaganda is the dissemination of information aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda [wikipedia.org] While I don't mid a bit of propaganda for a good cause . I think you have to call a spade a spade. Information wants to be free.

In Soviet Russia... (1)

InSovietRussiaTroll (1282606) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985415)

...the party protects you!

Every network is different... (2, Insightful)

qwertphobia (825473) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985439)

and the "internet" is the chaos that arises from connecting all these networks together.

My organization needs to make its own decisions on what policies it need to implement on its network.

Communications between my college and many strange corners of the globe occur daily. If I dropped kerberos at my borders, Xbox wouldn't work anymore, and I would be risking bodily harm from the rioting mobs.

Now, if a federal department had such traffic crossing its borders, they'd have a rapid deployment team there within minutes to figure out what happened.

Anyone who tells you that security can be solved easily is probably trying to sell you something...

Isn't it obvious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25985469)

Bob protects the internet. "To mend and defend"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ReBoot_characters#Bob

Next stop: anal probes (1)

harrisben (823301) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985499)

This sounds a lot like fear-mongering designed to convince the uninformed masses, because the informed minority like things the way they are, that a new level of beauracracy needs to be introduced to save us all from the evil internets. It's for the children. We must save them.

me (1)

weirdo557 (959623) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985549)

me

who watch the watchmen ? (1)

Atreide (16473) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985609)

As always who watch the watchmen ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmen [wikipedia.org]

Re:who watch the watchmen ? (1)

alabandit (1024941) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986051)

re:Sig

i wait up for the early rises then pounce... let the mil try take over, there are many out there ready to pounce

Duh. (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985615)

IT, of course.

And not to forget (1)

RandomInteger() (1384515) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985995)

Who protects the outernet?

He who protecteth, (1)

andreyvul (1176115) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986145)

censoreth.

yeah, wasteful ... (1)

DerWulf (782458) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986515)

... sure, we REALLY do need a massive government agency to babysit the internet. They'll guarantee security and do it for pennies. Right!? Right?? Even better, let the army do it. THEY really know efficiency ... What a joke!

Looks like any other international security (1)

Numen (244707) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986557)

But the fact remains that no one really owns security online, which leads to gated communities with firewalls -- a highly unreliable and wasteful way to try to assure security.

And I'm not seeing how this international security issue is much different from any other which pretty much as long as theres been human history has involved patchwork alliances and federations to stipulate, review, and enforce.

There's nothing to lament here folks, move along please.

For whom the bell tolls... (4, Insightful)

Genda (560240) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986795)

The "Internet" has become something of a quandry. It's humble beginnings were brilliantly designed to propogate information, provide a powerful environment for collaboration, and provide an extensible virtual universe for spreading and preserving human thought, and projects of discovery. It's one weakness was that it was designed by intelligent, responsible, and compassionate people expecting that in the vein of collaboration and workability, that future users would be likewise intelligent, responsible, and compassionate.

Much to the chagrin of humanity, a vast hoard of virtual Mongols (or equally apropos "mongrels"), have used the internet as their personal toilet, slim-jim, bludgeon, and/or weapon of mass destruction. Sadly in a free environment, you have to cope with the worst in people, to support and empower that which is best.

The first problem is to get crystal clear about what doesn't work with the current system. Whether the available cures are(n't) worse than the disease, and how we might implement meaningful solutions without breaking, impeding, or prevent those things which are best about the internet. Security means different things to different people. Protecting people from stupidity, laziness, or the worst in their own natures might well render the broad networks by which people collaborate and invent the future, functionally unusable. Making the worst of what people do very difficult, while preserving the general freedom, and clear capacity for people to share ideas, impart mutual wisdom, and promote what Shakespeare referred to as "Our better natures", demands vision, foresight, and a profound commitment to integrity.

The first and most essential thing we can and must do, is create an environment that promotes human enterprise, without selling off the very things than make the internet valuable to people.

Who Protects the Internet? (2, Insightful)

nomad-9 (1423689) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986829)

" Who Protects the Internet?" No one yet. And thank God for that.

Sounds good to me... (2, Insightful)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 5 years ago | (#25987053)

Who protects us? 'Basically no one. At most, a number of loose confederations of computer scientists and engineers who seek to devise better protocols and practices

I.e. the talented people who developed the technology in the first place, and their successors.

â" unincorporated groups like the Internet Engineering Task Force

You mean the people who managed one of the most staggeringly successful collection of interoperability standards that, post-OOXML, makes the ISO look like a bunch of clowns?

I think we're in safe hands - we'd be in even safer hands if the gubment got on with its job of enforcing the anti-trust laws and fixing the patent system leaving the IETF et. al. to get on with thiers.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...