×

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!

Pentagon Cyber-Command In the Works

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the too-many-chiefs dept.

United States 90

An anonymous reader sends word of a new cybersecurity project to defend US networks from attacks and strengthen the government's "offensive capabilities in cyberwarfare." Right now, the most likely candidate to lead the project is the Director of the NSA, Keith Alexander, who was quick to assert that the NSA itself wouldn't try to run the whole show (something they've been criticized for in the past). Quoting the Wall Street Journal: "Cyber defense is the Department of Homeland Security's responsibility, so the command would be charged with assisting that department's defense efforts. The relationship would be similar to the way Northern Command supports Homeland Security with rescue capabilities in natural disasters. The NSA, where much of the government's cybersecurity expertise is housed, established a similar relationship with Homeland Security through a cybersecurity initiative that the Bush administration began in its final year."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

90 comments

Never been first (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27674307)

first

Dick "High Crimes and Midemeanors" Chaney (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27674511)

I should have been impeached for disgracing my office an my country in a massive 8 year crime spree.

I'm ignoring the fact that I totally ruined American credibility and turned our foreign policy into a self-destructive joke.

Instead, I'm throwing stones at Barack Obama, who is cleaning up my mess.

I'm a dick, and I left the White House in a wheel chair because I threw out my back lifting a box of karma.

Cyber Security is a job for the Airforce (0, Flamebait)

Maarek Stele (7770) | more than 4 years ago | (#27674311)

Cyber Security for the NSA will turn into Cyber Spying on everyone in the US.

Re:Cyber Security is a job for the Airforce (2, Interesting)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#27674341)

You know it's a bad article when the first comment is a troll and all the others whine about the overuse of a word.

Re:Cyber Security is a job for the Airforce (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27674487)

Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet. It may be ready for the web servers that you nerds use to distribute your TRON fanzines and personal Dungeons and Dragons web-sights across the world wide web, but the average computer user isn't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can get a workable graphic interface to check their mail with, especially not when they already have a Windows machine that does its job perfectly well and is backed by a major corporation, as opposed to Linux which is only supported by a few unemployed nerds living in their mother's basement somewhere. The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf (haha) providing me my OS.

Re:Cyber Security is a job for the Airforce (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27674593)

It may be offtopic, but it's clearly true. You're being censored by the elite communist team of Slashdot police whose goals include the destruction of capitalism and the total annihilation of American values.

Re:Cyber Security is a job for the Airforce (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27674837)

It's spelled websites (or web sites), not "web-sights".

Also, Mac OS X is also backed by a major corporation. One that knows what it's doing, as opposed to Microsoft.

Re:Cyber Security is a job for the Airforce (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#27674443)

Umm, why is it a job for the Air Force, as opposed to the Navy, Army or some other Governmental agency? Offensive cyber-warfare may be a role for the air force, as in blowing up the computers of our adversaries by dropping bombs on them.....

Re:Cyber Security is a job for the Airforce (4, Funny)

z80kid (711852) | more than 4 years ago | (#27674577)

Umm, why is it a job for the Air Force...

Because we don't have a Tube Force?

Re:Cyber Security is a job for the Airforce (1)

PapaSmurph (249554) | more than 4 years ago | (#27674617)

OK, while I agree that cyber- anything has been over used, the Air Force has already stepped forward ahead of the other services to stand up a "Cyber Command". However, USSRATCOM has Cyber warfare and defense in its mission statement. A joint task force is the most likely form of any cyber-related activity, either offensive or defensive. The big problem is, how can you defend against something when it's already inside your walls? The Pentagon's networks have been infiltrated more times than I can count with bare feet and my pants down (more than 21). Not to mention DOE computers. All networks are vulnerable if they are connected to the Internet. No one service can do the entire job.

Re:Cyber Security is a job for the Airforce (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27676233)

I'm staying anonymous for a reason. All i will say is this. USTRANSCOM was way ahead of the Air Force in terms of network and system security. They made the Air Force look plain sloppy and probably still do.

Re:Cyber Security is a job for the Airforce (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27674645)

Because the Air Force decided to add "cyberspace" into their mission statement to justify asking more money from Congress.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123013440 [af.mil]

Being in the military, its very frustrating knowing a plethora of ways to make your job more secure but lacking the ability to change anything. Most of the branches, instead of pushing the envelope of computing like in the 30s, 40s, and 50s, have removed themselves from the business and contract it out (its not sexy enough and doesn't envolve tangable assets). Reminds me of the notorious deal in the 70s when IBM contracted Microsoft to build its disk operating system...

Re:Cyber Security is a job for the Airforce (1)

angelasmark (856143) | more than 4 years ago | (#27675969)

You've obviously never seen hackers. You have to fly through the system to find the files.If theres a branch of the military that can fly its the air force...

Re:Cyber Security is a job for the Airforce (1)

tsm_sf (545316) | more than 4 years ago | (#27677007)

No, man, you have to have someone to fly the carbon black Briggs-Daimler ultralights past Soviet security so the console jockeys in their Zeiss-Braun helmets can release our Mole VII virus from the Sinclair-Nixdorf decks strapped to them with micropore tape.

He was trying to troll, but... (1)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 4 years ago | (#27677733)

Umm, why is it a job for the Air Force, as opposed to the Navy, Army or some other Governmental agency? Offensive cyber-warfare may be a role for the air force, as in blowing up the computers of our adversaries by dropping bombs on them.....

The parent was trying to troll, but the Air Force DID try to hog the "cyber warfare" mission [wired.com], and SecDef Gates slapped them down for it. The Army and Navy protested, and they had a valid point: since all the services rely on computer networks, why should one service have a monopoly on "computer warfare"?

Re:Cyber Security is a job for the Airforce (1)

dov_0 (1438253) | more than 4 years ago | (#27675191)

Whether the Air Force, NSA, FBI, or whatever agency gains the specific monopoly of offensive cyber warfare in the US is irrelevant. The real question is why the US wants it and the US government wants offensive cyber capabilities for one reason and one reason alone...

China got there first.

Oh, and to 'protect American interests at home and abroad'. Maybe two reasons...

Re:Cyber Security is a job for the Airforce (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27676869)

flamebait? This is how the goverment works. the NSA doesn't have a domestic charter, yet they have deep packet inspection [http://tinyurl.com/c59puz] unconstitutional deals with AT&T walking on the 4th amendment.

Government programs are like a leaky API. (time of crisis) Agency1 has private data. (It's getting close to the release date), Agency2 sneaks in there and pokes around so they can get it out the door. It's crap, all the programmers (congress) know it's crap, but they release anyways because of promises to the american people. Then when the bug reports start coming in, the revision history is magically rm -rf'd. (oops, We can't find those emails senator) It's a nightmare, but unavoidable due to human nature. With the government's monopoly on force there is no accountability and there never will be - even through chasms of mind bending injustices.

1995 called... (5, Funny)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 4 years ago | (#27674317)

It wants its buzzword back. Please stop using "Cyber-". Thank you.

Re:1995 called... (4, Funny)

notarockstar1979 (1521239) | more than 4 years ago | (#27674665)

I like that word. It reminds me of my first girlfriend....a cute young girl from Idaho with a husky, manly voice named Jim. YES I'M SURE IT WAS A WOMAN! STOP LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT!!!

Re:1995 called... (2, Insightful)

qbzzt (11136) | more than 4 years ago | (#27675139)

Our government is slow and inefficient. In takes it 14-15 years to move from buzzword initiation to actual planning.

That is not a bug, BTW. It's a design feature. The constitution was written by a bunch of rebels who fought with the previous government and won. They were not inclined to want to fight again.

Re:1995 called... (2, Funny)

llManDrakell (897726) | more than 4 years ago | (#27675527)

It wants its buzzword back. Please stop using "Cyber-". Thank you.

Would you prefer iCommand?

Re:1995 called... (2, Funny)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 4 years ago | (#27676807)

Would you prefer iCommand?

That's soooo 2000. Nowadays, it would be YouCommand.

Re:1995 called... (2, Funny)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#27679341)

Nah. Already outdated. Now it's "YouTweet"

Re:1995 called... (1)

Kristoph (242780) | more than 4 years ago | (#27683137)

Would it not be 'TweetCommand'?

On second thought, I am not sure how safe I'd feel being defended by 'TweetCommand'.

1995 called 1984? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27677111)

1995 called 1984?

Cyber cyber cyber (-1, Redundant)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#27674323)

Can these people do anything without inventing meaningless buzzwords?

Re:Cyber cyber cyber (2, Insightful)

Mendoksou (1480261) | more than 4 years ago | (#27674423)

Politicians thrive on buzzwords. Thus, those who work for politicians thrive on buzzwords. The assumption is that people in general do not know more about a subject than the buzzwords themselves... unfortunately the assumption is usually right.

Cyber? (1)

Lockblade (1367083) | more than 4 years ago | (#27674397)

Why is it that EVERYTHING that tries (and usually fails) to connect itself to the net label itself "cyber?" Seriously, can we come up with something different, like "Network Operations" or something that doesn't remind me of bad movies from the 80's?

Re:Cyber? (2, Interesting)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#27674445)

Seriously, can we come up with something different, like "Network Operations" or something that doesn't remind me of bad movies from the 80's?

So, you'd rather have the jargon-of-the-month than to settle upon a standard term?

Seriously? You'll get over it, bub. In the meantime, I'm very thankful that they're not making up new buzzwords every 6 months.

Re:Cyber? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27674597)

So, you'd rather have the jargon-of-the-month than to settle upon a standard term?

Yeah, I'd rather have a Pentagon department of Cloud-Command. I'd feel much safer ;)

Re:Cyber? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#27674671)

But they do seem to make up new buzzwords every 6 months.

I'm not sure exactly who 'they' are, but buzzwords must be coming from somewhere.

Re:Cyber? (2, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#27675809)

I'm not sure exactly who 'they' are, but buzzwords must be coming from somewhere.

Well, in this case, we're talking about the government. But I think most buzzwords come from marketing people. These are people who are *paid* to come up with buzzwords... and if someone else comes up with a good one, they all jump to use it.

Heaven forbid a company is seen to be behind-the-curve because they use outdated verbiage... surely that means they use outdated tech, right?

Anyway, thinking by typing here... I bet there's a measurable business buzzword cycle that makes it seem like there are new buzzwords every six months. Just like urban buzzwords. Differentiation is the key... so once everyone is using the term, it's time to find a new term.

Remember when all the whiteys started sticking out their tongue and saying "Wazzzzzuuuuuupp?!" Once Larry in purchasing starts using terms like "leverage our core competencies" it's time to find a new corporate buzzphrase. Once every Tom, Dick & Harry webdev starts splashing "Web 2.0" on their sites, it's time to find a new marketing buzzword.

The nice thing about government, in re: buzzwords, is that not only are they slow to adopt new terminology, they are even slower to change. So something they get hold of tends to stick around for a long time... hence instead of "cyber" being a buzzword, it becomes accepted usage, simply because the government is a sluggish monolith (though many libertarians might consider it a monstrous Shoggoth instead).

Re:Cyber? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27680267)

With the way the DoD likes to shorten everything, I like the sound of NOCOM.

Re:Cyber? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27674581)

"Network Operations" is actually used a lot at the actual operational level. It's just the Administrative policy making level (run mostly by people a decade or more 'over the hill')that gets wrapped up in buzzwords.
Also: 'Cybercommand' will probably get more attention than 'Network Operations and Security Command' ... NetOpsSecCom maybe?

Re:Cyber? (1, Funny)

MBaldelli (808494) | more than 4 years ago | (#27675923)

"Network Operations" is actually used a lot at the actual operational level. It's just the Administrative policy making level (run mostly by people a decade or more 'over the hill')that gets wrapped up in buzzwords. Also: 'Cybercommand' will probably get more attention than 'Network Operations and Security Command' ... NetOpsSecCom maybe?

I'm rather surprised they haven't called it GloryHole. I mean between the bullshit with Senators in bathrooms, and this brouhaha of TeaBagging Obama, why not just simply call it what it is for Congressman to readily understand and be done with it.

Although personally I think the Pentagon's CloudCommand seems to be a fairly good choice as well, given when their not wearing ass-hats, they're certainly having them up in the clouds.

Re:Cyber? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27675401)

Why is it that EVERYTHING that tries (and usually fails) to connect itself to the net label itself "cyber?" Seriously, can we come up with something different, like "Network Operations" or something that doesn't remind me of bad movies from the 80's?

Apple took care of that for you it's that cute little 'i' they paste in front of everything. would you really like to see the iWarfare Command? I mean really.

Re:Cyber? (1)

zenmasterV (929148) | more than 4 years ago | (#27678935)

cyber- a combining form meaning "computer," "computer network," or "virtual reality," used in the formation of compound words (cybertalk; cyberart; cyberspace) and by extension meaning "very modern" (cyberfashion). Sounds like a perfectly good use of Cyber though it should probably be one word not two... you're guess at whether the government is trying to create a computer command, computer network command or virtual reality command. Personally, all the work I've done with the government would fall into the virtual reality category.

Military in charge of cyber security? (1)

DomNF15 (1529309) | more than 4 years ago | (#27674417)

"The Obama administration plans to create a new military command to coordinate the defense of Pentagon computer networks and improve U.S. offensive capabilities in cyberwarfare, according to current and former officials familiar with the plans." Right, because the military does such a good job of keeping up with the latest in security, see yesterday's sat com article: http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/21/151225 [slashdot.org]

Call it whatever you want (3, Interesting)

mc1138 (718275) | more than 4 years ago | (#27674435)

I'm just glad they're finally taking this sort of shit seriously. With plans for fighter jets being stolen by hackers making front page news, reports that the pentagon spends boat loads of money at reactive threat defense, our [insert computer buzz word]-security at a national level is severely lacking. Even movies like transformers seem to think that the best hackers are still fat dudes living with their grandparents and no one at any national department is capable of anything.

Re:Call it whatever you want (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27674523)

Movies don't think.

Re:Call it whatever you want (3, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#27674965)

I'm just glad they're finally taking this sort of shit seriously.

Very humorously ironic post.

The whole cyber command thing bugs me because its so expensive but does so little. I'm sure they'll have a huge command of generals and various other officers giving each other endless powerpoints about "synergisticly proactively defending the cyber battlefield". Trust me, no patches are going to get applied. Mostly a bunch of resume stuffing for the post-military career. Probably a lot of puzzling over how it could be that the more managers they put on the job, the slower the work gets done. Probably a lot of really pompous posing going on too, I'm leet, so leet, its classified and I can't tell you how leet I am, but trust me I'm just the most leet ever. And a lot of "I'm working so hard that you wouldn't believe it, but its all classified so I can't actually tell you what I'm working on" as he returns to his minesweeper game. I guarantee they'll have a vaguely NORAD like NOC 24x7 with dim lights and big screen TVs, with very expensive software to monitor ... their departmental intranet, and maybe they'll have isc.sans.org on refresh every 30 seconds to see whats going on, maybe, but that would probably be too clueful.

All they need to do, is get more admins, more equipment, and tell them to keep up with the times, read slashdot, whatever. The last thing they need is infinitely more commanders and procedures to gum up the works even worse.

Re:Call it whatever you want (1)

rzei (622725) | more than 4 years ago | (#27676123)

I think a quote from my favourite mini-tv-series "Generation Kill" works well in almost any discussion about "why army X does thing Y like Z when it would be the best to do it like A":

Not retarded enough.

That'll sum it up.

Re:Call it whatever you want (1)

shinigam (887393) | more than 4 years ago | (#27681765)

I'm just glad they're finally taking this sort of shit seriously.

Very humorously ironic post.

The whole cyber command thing bugs me because its so expensive but does so little. I'm sure they'll have a huge command of generals and various other officers giving each other endless powerpoints about "synergisticly proactively defending the cyber battlefield". Trust me, no patches are going to get applied. Mostly a bunch of resume stuffing for the post-military career. Probably a lot of puzzling over how it could be that the more managers they put on the job, the slower the work gets done. Probably a lot of really pompous posing going on too, I'm leet, so leet, its classified and I can't tell you how leet I am, but trust me I'm just the most leet ever. And a lot of "I'm working so hard that you wouldn't believe it, but its all classified so I can't actually tell you what I'm working on" as he returns to his minesweeper game. I guarantee they'll have a vaguely NORAD like NOC 24x7 with dim lights and big screen TVs, with very expensive software to monitor ... their departmental intranet, and maybe they'll have isc.sans.org on refresh every 30 seconds to see whats going on, maybe, but that would probably be too clueful.

All they need to do, is get more admins, more equipment, and tell them to keep up with the times, read slashdot, whatever. The last thing they need is infinitely more commanders and procedures to gum up the works even worse.

I thought we are already doing that now? Fact is, it's the enlisted who look at the officers like the morons they really are when it comes to executing and implementing any IT system. More often than not, the mantra is, "You want me to do what sir? Okay, if you say so..." Of course our enlistment contracts end and we get out into the real world.

NSA has an inherent conflict of interest. (5, Interesting)

robkill (259732) | more than 4 years ago | (#27674439)

When a group that exploits a communication network system for information is also in charge of its security, what happens when a weakness is found? Do you:

A) Keep the weakness secret so you can exploit it.
B) Publish the fix so your networks are fixed, but also allowing those you may be monitoring to fix as well, and cut off an information source.

Bruce Schneier has a great commentary on this at his blog. [schneier.com]

What ever happened to Trusted PLatform computing? (1)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 4 years ago | (#27674739)

You might as well say the Army has a conflict of interest since if they have a new weapon they could take over the country.

It's both true and not true. in some countries the army does indeed take over when it wants to. In others it tries to protect it's citizens. Why should the NSA not be expected to do this as well? What is needed is proper oversight.

Now as for How to approach this. I'm utterly puzzled why trusted platform computing (e.g. Palladium) has not take off for government and embedded computing. Sure you may not want it on your computr because it locks down what you can do to an outside source's approval. But this is exactly what we do want on single use computers and on computers protecting data bases and on government computers.

Seems like there's a huge market for this. Way way way more than needed to make it worth manufacturing the hardware changes to the motherboards and firmware. Why has TPC not proceeded since it was developed.

Re:What ever happened to Trusted PLatform computin (1)

Kiaser Zohsay (20134) | more than 4 years ago | (#27674891)

What is needed is proper oversight

That's the whole problem. The NSA is already in charge of the entire nation's cyber-security. They just don't want anyone to know about it.

Re:What ever happened to Trusted PLatform computin (0, Redundant)

Kiaser Zohsay (20134) | more than 4 years ago | (#27674949)

What is needed is proper oversight.

That's the whole problem. The NSA has been in charge of cyber-security for the entire nation for years. They junt don't want anyone to know about it.

Re:What ever happened to Trusted PLatform computin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27677561)

Don't you just hate it when you re-post a rewording and you ADD a typo?

Re:What ever happened to Trusted PLatform computin (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#27675103)

The analogy is flawed.

Taking over the country with a weapon requires a violent coup, drawing the opposition of the government and other branches of the military.

Spying on the country without authorization is, by definition, covert, and can be denied or declared a matter of national security.

No it doesn't (1)

wiredog (43288) | more than 4 years ago | (#27675495)

The NSA already has full privs on DoD systems.

Re:No it doesn't (3, Interesting)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 4 years ago | (#27676327)

Oh sure, just make stuff up. If it sounds paranoid enough, maybe some will mod you up. I've been an admin on two different DOD networks now, and in both cases I knew exactly who had full privileged access. In neither case was I even expected to provide our privileged passwords to higher headquarters, much less the NSA. could the NSA have GOTTEN the passwords to our systems? I'm sure, if they went through the proper channels and proved "need to know", but that's hardly the same thing thing as having "full privs on all DOD systems".

Good point (1)

hvatum (592775) | more than 4 years ago | (#27681395)

Ontop of that, this is just another example of US aggression. First we militerized space, now we are militerizing the internet. Disgusting, this is an example of Bush era policy that simply must be ended if we are going to run a country which reflects our supposed "ideals."

Especially, if we are going to complain when Chinese hackers invade our power grid. We've got no right to complain if we ourselves are developing the same capability. More Bush-era hyporcrasy.

Re:Good point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27694355)

You're kind of an idiot, aren't you.

Let's form a committee and ... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27674441)

Let's form a committee and draw up a plan. Budget meeting tomorrow!

Homeland Security??? (2, Informative)

kaaona (252061) | more than 4 years ago | (#27674493)

The only thing DHS is good at defending is its budget. Their own systems and networks are notoriously mismanaged and vulnerable. You have to go to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to find anything more inept.

The technical talent at NSA is the best in the world. It's their administrative and political leadership that could stand some fumigation.

A few tips for the pentagon (4, Insightful)

Absolut187 (816431) | more than 4 years ago | (#27674551)

In light of the recent hacks of pentagon systems - including China downloading the plans for joint-strike-fighter - shouldn't we focus on strengthening our DEFENSIVE capability first?

I don't see us getting too much useful info from hacking into China/Russia.

Let's focus on keeping them out of our stuff.

Here's a few tips for the DHS/NSA to get them started:

1) Change the password on your router. Everyone knows the default password is "admin." Don't use the word "password" as your password.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/apr/03/politics.usa [guardian.co.uk]

2) Don't run bearshare on computers that contain the plans for the joint strike fighter.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3398730 [democratic...ground.com]

3) If you go on a trip to China, make sure your laptop doesn't have sensitive information on it. If it does, don't leave it in your hotel room.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/30/brownback.china/?iref=hpmostpop [cnn.com]
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2008/05/us-probes-whether-laptop-copied-on-china-trip/ [chinadigitaltimes.net]

4) Download your pr0n at home - don't use work computers because pr0n sites have viruses.
http://seclists.org/politech/2002/Aug/0064.html [seclists.org]

Re:A few tips for the pentagon (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27675101)

I don't see us getting too much useful info from hacking into China/Russia.

We can go in there and get our information back!

Well, of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27674647)

Who else would run the air force's, the army's, the navy's, the marines', and the coast guard's cyber commands, hm?

Yes, Please (3, Insightful)

BigBlueOx (1201587) | more than 4 years ago | (#27674749)

Yes, please take another huge gob of my money to fund yet another huge government bureaucracy in order to fund the closing of the barn door now that the horse has run out.

Re:Yes, Please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27674943)

I agree that we need to slash the military budget down to size, but isn't this just the sort of common sense security that we *should* be spending money on?

Re:Yes, Please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27675395)

[...] but isn't this just the sort of common sense security that we *should* be spending money on?

No. The internet is a wonderful lawless land of botnets, phishers, and trolls beyond any help and should be left perfectly and divinely alone so that I can download my movies and pr0n. And the government shouldn't spend any money, ever; they should give it all to me because I'm pimping out my phat gaming rig, y0, so that it can be l33t enough to impress that one hot chick at our LAN parties.

Next week, I'll cry about how the internet is a terrible lawless land of botnets, phishers and trolls beyond any help because the government never spent any money to develop an internet command center to deal with them. And then the glorious cycle of life continues...

Re:Yes, Please (1)

PriceIke (751512) | more than 4 years ago | (#27676947)

I like your thinking! In fact, let's develop a brand new bureaucracy that duplicates the efforts of one we already have.

http://www.afcyber.af.mil/

"Sky Command" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27674873)

What the Pentagon really needs is some sort of visual "sky above us" command and control.

Seriously these are the guys that let a plane crash straight into them. And no-body saw it coming???

Re:"Sky Command" (1)

afxgrin (208686) | more than 4 years ago | (#27681903)

It needs to look like that pyramid thing / eye of God on your money. Heh and the landing pad needs to look like the lower portion of the pyramid.

And make a good whirring sound.

Dear United Gulags Of America +3, True (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27674913)

Welcome to the War On CyberPirates.

Another war to consume most of the U.S. federal budget.

Yours In Communism,
Kilgore Trout [youtube.com]

P.S. to Obama fans: Universal healthcare ONLY in your dreams.

Homeland Security's responsibility? uh-oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27675015)

Of all the Government agencies that might have the capability to manage cyber security, I would not have put Homeland Security on the short list.

"Air Command" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27675043)

These guys need an air-command to ensure planes dont fly directly into their control center, they should start their....

As Great as This Is... (1)

Sethus (609631) | more than 4 years ago | (#27675161)

I know this will be a bit paranoid but I'd feel much happier if they took away all those Warrantless Wiretapping and many of the other freedoms stolen recently by the Federal Government BEFORE they create a Pentagon Cyber-Command. If the Federal Government wants to make a Cyber-Command for the Pentagon, that's fine, but I want oversight that's being held accountable for their actions dammit!

If the Federal Government can issue itself a secret warrant to search my house, you think they're going to give a rats ass about curtailing cyber break-ins? "Who watches the Watchmen" as it were. It just doesn't sit right with me that the Federal Government is continueing to expand it's policing power at the expense of our freedoms.

I know, if someone in the program really wanted to abuse the system to break into our computers, they would, but at least give us the tools to defend ourselves legally!

Re:As Great as This Is... (2, Interesting)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 4 years ago | (#27676459)

Personally I'd rather see the Pentagon running this than one of the three letter agencies. I don't exactly TRUST the Pentagon (giving one's trust to anything with that many moving parts isn't smart), but I've been around the military long enough in various capacities to feel that IN GENERAL, most military people are legitimately focused on external threats. Not to say that there aren't bad apples everywhere, and certainly the military is as capable of colossal screw-ups as anyone, but at least there is not the culture of "we control the vertical and the horizontal" that you get in the three letter agencies.

Check yer facts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27681907)

NSA is a DoD component -- it's part of the "Pentagon" you would rather have running this than a "three letter agency."

If the "Pentagon" were to run cyber command, there is absolutely no reason to assume that NSA would not be heavily involved. Given that the current DIRNSA (LTG Keith Alexander) was one of the early front runners to command cyber command, one would have to assume that the "Pentagon" is quite comfortable with NSA being involved with the cyber project.

Start with a parking lot lookout.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27675255)

For planes coming at their building and such..

That would be a good start...

Sounds liek a great excuse... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27675605)

to spend some tax payer money! Seriously, this thing better be scrutinized, and not another building full of $15000 toilets. I believe most of our country's cyber security issues could be solved by NOT PLUGGING EVERY FUCKIN' COMPUTER TO THE INTERNET. Especially the ones that control sensitive infrastructure.

Oh good, they're working on SkyNet... (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 4 years ago | (#27675663)

The saving grace in all this is you know the system will have billions in cost overruns and in the end not work.

Re:Oh good, they're working on SkyNet... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#27676443)

The saving grace in all this is you know the system will have billions in cost overruns and in the end not work.

Hey. Wait a minute.

You just described my project.

Convenient Timing (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 4 years ago | (#27676015)

I wonder how many people tend to notice the coincidental timing of things like this. What was it, yesterday or the day before that there was a front-page post in every major newspaper about the JSF plans getting siphoned? Then, just coincidentally, a few days later plans to beef up 'cyber' operations at a federal level are put forth publicly (despite the fact that making decisions for any new programs at a federal level take days, if not weeks to make).

It seems to me that the average layman probably hears things like 'cyberwarfare' and 'fighter plane plans stolen via hacking' and 'we need a new, federally controlled cyberwarfare program' and probably doesn't think about the difference between 'offensive' and 'defensive' type network operations since the average layman says, "Computers and Hackers and Cyberspies! Oh My! Save us!" Thus, convincing the public that a new, expensive, powerful (and probably not well-regulated) federal cyber-department will keep them safe. Besides, our very own military networks were just hacked maliciously to download the plans for our newest jet fighter, didn't you hear?

I guess what I am trying to say is:

Increase public knowledge of cyberthreats + Offer federal solution to the new cyberthreat problem = Immediate public approval new program that increases federal spending and power.

Yay!

Oh, good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27676055)

"Cyber defense is the Department of Homeland Security's responsibility, so our networks are $@%&ed."

Fixed.

See the big picture through the FUD (1)

mrgodzilla (730416) | more than 4 years ago | (#27676841)

There is bureaucratic fight between the NSA and the White House (DHS is a cabinet position) over who gets unfettered access to ALL government networks in the guise of security.

The stories of power grid and SCADA control breaches, the F-35 leaks and nameless Chinese hackers are FUD originating from the NSA to scare other government entities into surrendering full control of their networks to the NSA.

The first place to start reading up on this fight over network control should be the National Cybersecurity Center [wikipedia.org] former head Rod Beckstrom's [wikipedia.org] resignation letter to the head of DHS.

In his resignation letter he states that " NSA effectively controls DHS cyber efforts through detailees, technology insertions, and the proposed move of NPPD and the NCSC to a Fort Meade NSA facility. NSA currently dominates most national cyber efforts. While acknowledging the critical importance of NSA to our intelligence efforts, I believe this is a bad strategy on multiple grounds. The intelligence culture is very different than a network operations or security culture. In addition, the threats to our democratic processes are significant if all top level government network security and monitoring are handled by any one organization (either directly or indirectly). During my term as Director we have been unwilling to subjugate the NCSC underneath the NSA. Instead, we advocated a model where there is a credible civilian government cyber security capability which interfaces with, but is not controlled by, the NSA. "

Time to leave (1)

strikeleader (937501) | more than 4 years ago | (#27677863)

Just another way for the DHS to spy on those really mean and nasty Tea Party people.
After all how dare they even think of questioning his most holy and his minions in D.C., that's just plain un-Amerikan

*yawn* -- really, really, really old "news" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27681815)

"Cybercommand" has been in the works for years, as noted in this 2007 article on /. : http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/12/1837258 [slashdot.org]
Also here: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/12/1427252 [slashdot.org]
here: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/12/2217201&from=rss [slashdot.org]
and here....aw hell, just Google it: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLG_enUS307US307&q=cyber+command+site%3Aslashdot.org [google.com]

The latest word is that LTG Alexander will *not* command CYBERCOM, and that he will retire as a 3-star. Circumstantial evidence supports this rumor; Alexander's lapdog technologist Dr. James Heath, who has followed Alexander from post to post for the past ~15 years, has punched out of NSA and has taken up residence in Korea at SUSLAK. The only way Heath would let go of Alexander's coat tails is if those coat tails weren't valuable to him any more.

Group that specializes in cyber terrorists (1)

ps2os2 (1216366) | more than 4 years ago | (#27748779)

What one moment, according to the Army they already have one and are using it to recruit people.

What oh my goodness was that a misleading advertisement by the Army? No they wouldn't lie to possible recruits would they???
YES......

Check for New 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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...