×

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!

NATO Awards Largest Cyber-Security Contract To Date

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the well-sir-it's-certainly-big dept.

Security 45

Sara Chan writes "NATO has awarded its largest cyber-security contract to date, in a move that is expected to prompt member states to augment their own cyber-security capabilities. The contract, for €58 million ($76 million), is to design and implement NATO's Computer Incident Response Capability. NCIRC will enable NATO to monitor computer networks from its headquarters in Brussels and detect and respond to cyber threats and vulnerabilities at about 50 NATO sites in 28 countries. The project is intended to meet the requirements of a declaration by NATO Head of States at the Lisbon Summit, in November 2010, which called for the achievement of NCIRC Full Operational Capability by end of 2012."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

45 comments

Fufu, let's do it... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39316241)

It's already inside me now... fufu, just like this, I'll force you to explode inside me...

Yes... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39316287)

...please continue throwing money in bullshit contract for 50+ millions EUR. For that price, it's *gotta* protect you, right ? except one guy with a proper zero day and extensive knowledge will still be able to take you down. At the point we're at (or close by), complete societal changes or conscious AIs is the only thing that's gonna offer any sort of protection at all (captcha: nonsense, haha).

Re:Yes... (1, Informative)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#39316371)

Yup.
I was thinking of all of the "over budget" crap and PR made security companies that have failed over the years.
That money would be better spent on education and strong rules to control security.

Re:Yes... (0)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#39316429)

It seems like 'Anonymous' did the job that was required to ensure the flow on off multi-million dollar contracts. A new corporate protection racket is born, what's the bet anyone who doesn't pay get a visit from 'Anonymous'. Don't forget we are talking contracts in the ten's of millions, even hundreds of millions.

Re:Yes... (-1, Offtopic)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#39316585)

The outlook is dim. Americans can't find jobs and are sleeping on the streets, and for some reason they don't care. They aren't doing anything about it. They believe that this upcoming joke of an election will magically solve all of their problems along with their pet issues. GO ANON!

I will listen now. After your father's murder, you were orphaned. You were ten years old. You went to live with cousins on a sheep and horse ranch in Montana. And...?
Clarice Starling: [tears begin forming in her eyes] And one morning, I just ran away.
Hannibal Lecter: No "just", Clarice...Then something woke you, didn't it? Was it a dream? What was it?
Clarice Starling: I heard a strange noise.
Hannibal Lecter: What was it?
Clarice Starling: It was... screaming. Some kind of screaming, like a child's voice.
Hannibal Lecter: What did you do?
Clarice Starling: The lambs were screaming.
Hannibal Lecter: They were slaughtering the spring lambs, and you ran away?
Clarice Starling: No. First I tried to free them. I... I opened the gate to their pen, but they wouldn't run. They just stood there, confused. They wouldn't run.
Hannibal Lecter: But you could and you did, didn't you?
Clarice Starling: Yes. I took one lamb, and I ran away as fast as I could...
Hannibal Lecter: What became of your lamb, Clarice?
Clarice Starling: They killed him.
Ethanol-fueled: They killed the lamb because those dumb, dumb motherfuckers just stand there, with glassy eyes, readily accepting the fate shoved up their asses because they are too weak to control their destinies.

MOD PARENT RACIST (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319299)

I am a Black man and do not like the implication here. Commander taco, could we get a RACIST moderation? Thank You

Re:Yes... (2)

Sepodati (746220) | more than 2 years ago | (#39317007)

Do you propose NATO sets up a network with no security? If €58 million is too high, what would you have bid on it?

Re:Yes... (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318205)

but then it wouldn't work as employment tool.

that's what throwing 70 million extra to something that's already budgeted for is.

Re:Yes... (0)

mvar (1386987) | more than 2 years ago | (#39316767)

This is another excuse to push tax payer's money into the big wallets. Cyber-security? If you have a system that must not be compromised, then don't connect it to the fucking Internet. And what does NATO run anyway? SNMP on its missile launchers for remote management? *duh*

Re:Yes... (2)

Sepodati (746220) | more than 2 years ago | (#39317003)

>> If you have a system that must not be compromised, then don't connect it to the fucking Internet.

Those are called secret or top secret network and they are removed from the Internet either logically, by inline encrypters, or physically separate networks. At some point you have to be on a network connected to the Internet if you want to communicate with people outside of NATO, though. How else would I deal with contractors, state departments or national military users?

We can argue that €58 million is too high and I'd probably agree, but in the end, NATO still has a network that needs security measures applied to it.

Re:Yes... (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318605)

We can argue that Euros 58 million is too high and I'd probably agree, but in the end, NATO still has a network that needs security measures applied to it.

How much is 40m pounds stirling? [guardian.co.uk]

Re:Yes... (1)

Sepodati (746220) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318729)

~47m euro to the contractor and 58m euro "in total" could very well be the same contract, depending on perspective. There is a cost to developing, evaluating, awarding, monitoring, etc. these contracts outside of what goes to the winner.

Re:Yes... (2)

Sepodati (746220) | more than 2 years ago | (#39317017)

How much would you have bid, AC? Make sure you follow the bidding instructions and show how you can deliver for an order of magnitude less.

Re:Yes... (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39317647)

We don't know it's a bullshit contract until we have the name of the contractor to research some background (please include those details in the summary in future). I'm admitting that I haven't RTFA, but as soon as I read headlines like these I want to research the contractor.

Re:Yes... (3, Informative)

Sara Chan (138144) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318111)

We don't know it's a bullshit contract until we have the name of the contractor to research some background (please include those details in the summary in future). I'm admitting that I haven't RTFA, but as soon as I read headlines like these I want to research the contractor.

I am the story submitter. The contractors are Finmeccanica and Northrop Grumman [janes.com]. Some research background is given in the last link in the summary.

Wish they can defend army of Chinese cyber hackers (1)

ben4528 (2588219) | more than 2 years ago | (#39316395)

If Chinese hackers can be stopped by this costly project, they are in good hand.

Democratic oversight? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39316433)

So, who gets to decide exactly *what* constitutes a "CyberThread"?

Re:Democratic oversight? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39316595)

So, who gets to decide exactly *what* constitutes a "CyberThread"?

The CyberThreat Czar of course. For a country founded in part of ridding itself of a monarchy, the United States of Amerika seems Hell bent on establishing its own monarchy given all the czars named over the past twenty years. May I be Czar of Sarcasm, please?

Done! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39316635)

The CyberThreat Czar of course. For a country founded in part of ridding itself of a monarchy, the United States of Amerika seems Hell bent on establishing its own monarchy given all the czars named over the past twenty years. May I be Czar of Sarcasm, please?

You are certainly deserving of the position as evidenced by the abundant use of sarcasm in your application!

Re:Done! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39316781)

All hail to the Czar of Sarcasm!

Where will the hardware be made? (3, Interesting)

BenJCarter (902199) | more than 2 years ago | (#39316453)

What do you want to bet most of the hardware the UN purchases will be manufactured behind the Iron Firewall?

I'll bet I don't think this is a good idea...

Re:Where will the hardware be made? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39316493)

pay no attention to the man behind the curtain ...

Re:Where will the hardware be made? (1)

St.Creed (853824) | more than 2 years ago | (#39317807)

What do you want to bet most of the hardware the UN purchases will be manufactured behind the Iron Firewall?

I don't know, but I can ask our outsourced procurement office in China :)

cyber-security: in a (wal)nutshell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39316641)

to employ and aphorism:

think of a circle
with a fiiiiiiiiiiine split in it
on one end is insecurity
you go around the circle to security
and on the other end of the circle
close to insecurity
but not insecurity
is unsecurity

Large governmental software projects (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39316689)

Large project, governmental work, aggressive schedule?
Be ready for an humongous cost overrun.

Why NATO? (1, Redundant)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39316855)

I'm sure the bureaucrats in Brussels like their $1.5 billion headquarters... but really, does NATO still need to exist? Warsaw Pact is dead. Soviet Union is dead. Whatever NATO is doing, they can hand it off to the UN.

Talk about a bureaucracy existing for bureaucracy's sake.

I suppose 50 years from now we'll all still be stripping down and bending over at TSA checkpoints.

Re:Why NATO? (3, Insightful)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 2 years ago | (#39316911)

NATO is a military alliance between a subset of UN members - it would exist as long as the member states found it useful to exist, would it not?

Re:Why NATO? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39317825)

NATO is not a function of the UN... while members of NATO may be UN members, NATO is an independent organization of member states that formed after WWII to contain and defend against the USSR.

Re:Why NATO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39316925)

"Talk about a bureaucracy existing for bureaucracy's sake"

The UN, even more useless bureaucratic uselessness than NATO!

Re:Why NATO? (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | more than 2 years ago | (#39322623)

I hope you will agree that there are some international issues that can be handled without bombs, this is why UN is useful.

Re:Why NATO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39317199)

I'm sure the bureaucrats in Redmond like their $1.5 billion headquarters... but really, does Microsoft still need to exist? Bob is dead. Clippy is dead. Whatever Microsoft is doing, they can hand it off to the Apple.

Talk about a bureaucracy existing for bureaucracy's sake.

I suppose 50 years from now we'll all be paying $499/year to Apple and only able to make money as a developer if they approve of our software.

the real threat (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39317277)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204792404577229074023195322.html

Didn't Ike Warn Us? (1)

retroworks (652802) | more than 2 years ago | (#39317505)

About the nerd-hacker code-writer industrial complex? The more money goes into this, the more incentive to take courses in hacking, the more people study code, the more hackers they create? Isn't that how the theory goes? Or are we expected to only fund and educate the "freedom hackers"?

Who said this was for network defense? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39357989)

Gentlemen, Ladies...
all the bickering. Really?
Nowhere in the bid does it say anything about "All" the money going to penetration prevention. That's kinda like saying all those Nukes the US deployed were about keeping the Russians from sneaking across the border.

We're in a world of Stuxnet and DuKu now. These projects don't come cheap ya know.

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...