Beta
×

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 Contractors Openly Post Job Listings For Offensive Hackers

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the must-have-eight-years-experience-and-good-references dept.

The Military 149

Sparrowvsrevolution writes "In the wake of confirmation that the U.S. government was involved in the creation of Stuxnet and likely Flame, a look over job listings on defense contractor sites shows just how explicitly the Pentagon and the firms that service it are recruiting offense-oriented hackers. Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, SAIC, and Booz Allen have all posted job ads that require skills like 'exploit development,' have titles like 'Windows Attack Developer,' or asks them to 'plan, execute, and assess an Offensive Cyberspace Operation.'"

cancel ×

149 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Who better? (5, Insightful)

jameson71 (540713) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338679)

Who would better know how to defend against these attacks than someone who knows how to develop and implement them?

Re:Who better? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338775)

Too bad the people who are going to be doing the attacks are hiring up all the possible defenders then.

Re:Who better? (4, Insightful)

Shagg (99693) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338821)

What makes you think they're being hired for defense?

Re:Who better? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40338967)

Wanting really hard to believe that's the case despite all the evidence pointing the other way. I see someone skipped their Creationism Science classes.

Re:Who better? (4, Insightful)

Eightbitgnosis (1571875) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339001)

Offense? Defense?

With America's preemptive warfare policy; what's the difference?

Re:Who better? (2)

cyfer2000 (548592) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339055)

"job listings on defense contractor sites"

Re:Who better? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339075)

Good point, I'm sure there was nothing on the offense contractor sites.

Re:Who better? (3, Insightful)

Shagg (99693) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339233)

You don't think "defense contractors" means they only defend, do you?

Re:Who better? (2)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339999)

To only defend is a horrible defense.

Re:Who better? (2)

Stiletto (12066) | more than 2 years ago | (#40340131)

...or that the "Department of Defense" actually defends US soil?

Re:Who better? (1)

anared (2599669) | more than 2 years ago | (#40340193)

Thats one hell of a joke

Re:Who better? (1)

Starteck81 (917280) | more than 2 years ago | (#40340229)

You don't think "defense contractors" means they only defend, do you?

The best defense is a good offense.

Re:Who better? (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#40340471)

He was just pointing out that hiring these people is not necessarily for offensive reasons.

Re:Who better? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338985)

We're only about 10-15 years late. What's the worst that could happen, right? /sarcasm.

Re:Who better? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40340149)

Ha. If you think we are late to the Cyber War, then you are just another sheeple. The United States has one of the most advanced and active offensive cyber operations in the world. Just because YOU never heard about it doesn't mean it never existed.

Re:Who better? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339031)

This is a pretty narrow view, my guess, is they'll be working on the next Flame.

Re:Who better? (2)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339083)

Who would better know how to defend against these attacks than someone who knows how to develop and implement them?

How about people with enough sense to write code which sits there, unobtrusively doing nothing, until such time as it is called upon to do its dirty work? These are the people you want, not just someone who knows today's weakness, which may not be there tomorrow.

Re:Who better? (1)

St.Creed (853824) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339541)

Cool - they need "Programmer-at-arms" people. Reminds me of A Fire Upon the Deep...

Re:Who better? (3, Insightful)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339297)

Hackers are like soldiers, though, in that defense and offense are really not that far apart (with the exception of just following good programming standards). Just like you can order the guy keeping watch to go shoot at some people, a 'friendly' hacker can still hack your enemies, in theory.

The overall problem with "cyber war" is that it seems like the new excuse, now that kiddie porn has kind of fizzled out and piracy is widely accepted, to lock down the internet. The only real answer is to stop having vital systems programmed by idiots connected to the internet. When most bank and government systems are less secure than a site running PHPBB (for example, using unencrypted passwords), there is a serious problem that can't be fixed by plastering it over with censorship and playing war.

Re:Who better? (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339561)

Well theoretically if there exists offensive and defensive security experts (like this article implies) then the defensive oriented ones would be better at defence.

Re:Who better? (4, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | more than 2 years ago | (#40340165)

Who would better know how to defend against these attacks than someone who knows how to develop and implement them?

Almost anybody. Attackers are highly specialized and do not need to cover the whole or even significant parts of the protection angle. If the attacker gets in, the goal is reached. It does not matter at all that if a lot of potential other attack venues were not even touched.

For this reason, black-hats make terrible security experts for the defender side. The myth that a good attacker is a good defender is patently false in IT security (and likely in other areas as well). What a good defender needs first is to find all possible attack venues. That is complicated and requires understanding the whole system, the organization using it, the cultural environment, etc. The black-hat, on the other side, can experiment and does not really need to understand any of these, except for the tony fragment where the attack is to be launched. Even there, the black-hat can afford to fail frequently. This is fundamentally different for the defender.

Great for non-bathers (3, Funny)

busyqth (2566075) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338685)

For that exquisitely offensive hacker smell...

Offensive (2, Insightful)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338689)

Aren't all hackers offensive?

Re:Offensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40338753)

...and not just the odor!

Re:Offensive (2)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338789)

Aren't all hackers offensive?

Only to certain senses.

Re:Offensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339949)

Smell, for example.

Re:Offensive (4, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339065)

What is so offensive about repurposing hardware? What is so offensive about writing quick and dirty single-use code? What is so offensive about pen testing your own network?

Son, if you think hackers are offensive, you're on the wrong site, and so is the idiot who modded you "insightful." Not knowing there are white, gray, and black hat hackers shows a complete and utter lack of insight.

Re:Offensive (1)

St.Creed (853824) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339471)

Too bad. Since they're hiring "offensive hackers" and hackers aren't offensive, I guess they won't be able to find anyone then :)

Re:Offensive (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40340283)

What makes the white/gray/black concept so hard to understand?

Re:Offensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40340079)

You should have a needless hissy fit over it. Oh, good, you already did!

Re:Offensive (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339583)

In this sense I think they said offensive hacker instead of defence oriented security expert.

Microsoft must be so pleased.... (3, Funny)

ip_freely_2000 (577249) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338743)

the government is hiring people to hack my software with the intention of doing harm. If I was Apple or Google I'd be looking at this closely. Even if you hate Microsoft, this seems pretty ambiguous. I wonder if there's something in the Windows EULA that Microsoft should sue the government for violating.

Re:Microsoft must be so pleased.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40338771)

What makes you think they only hack Windows boxes?

Re:Microsoft must be so pleased.... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338951)

What makes you think they only hack Windows boxes?

Because Windows is easier to pirate, which is why Iran was running so many copies of it on .. I love this part .. Nuclear Centrifuges!!!

It's like feeding your army at McDonalds

Re:Microsoft must be so pleased.... (3, Interesting)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338901)

...the government is hiring people to exploit the weakensses I allow in my software with the intention of doing harm

FTFY. If Microsoft doesn't want Windows hacked, they only have to fix the damn thing.

I wonder if there's something in the Windows EULA that Microsoft should sue the government for violating.

There's this little EULA [wikipedia.org] that says Microsoft can just suck it.

Re:Microsoft must be so pleased.... (1, Insightful)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338981)

And if the Linux community wants Linux to be used, they only have to make it usable.

Waiting for more than a decade...

Re:Microsoft must be so pleased.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339267)

well... it is usable, Scientific Linux is used by Fermilab and CERN and that's probably because they don't want script kids playing around with their particle accelerators

not to mention that 5 sided building in DC (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339011)

what would be the nearest "bird farm" to Redmond?? or maybe the nearest Jam Factory??

Re:Microsoft must be so pleased.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339289)

Wow, a butthurt Linux fanboy, that's got to be a first. News flash for you; Linux isn't any more 'secure' it just isn't popular enough as a desktop platform to be worth the trouble, kinda like Mac. As someone who uses a wide range of platforms I can honestly tell you there's 'flaw' and exploitable features in everything.

Re:Microsoft must be so pleased.... (1)

tchdab1 (164848) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339231)

I think these guys have all the source code and back doors they need from domestic developers. It's new features that they need to develop. Foggy Bottom/Langley needs to be able to say "I have an app for that!".

Re:Microsoft must be so pleased.... (2)

mjwalshe (1680392) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339517)

Um i think you will find that Governments reserve the right for their security services do do naughty things

Department of Redundancy Department (4, Interesting)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338757)

So then, why don't we have a Department of Offense instead of just a Department of Defense? If the lie, I mean creative labeling works for DOD, why not use it for hacking titles also?

Also, I wonder if the inadvertent Stuxnet admission had anything to do with the change. Why mention such in job ads anyhow?

Re:Department of Redundancy Department (2)

busyqth (2566075) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338793)

The original name was the Department of War, which sounds way cooler.

Re:Department of Redundancy Department (3, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338857)

The original name was the Department of War, which sounds way cooler.

Yeah, and it was called Eastern War Time, before this Daylight Savings Time malarky.

Re:Department of Redundancy Department (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339673)

Anytime is wartime, so it logically follows that we have Eastern War Time and Western War Time. Eastern War Time is more popular with the Chinese cold war.

Re:Department of Redundancy Department (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339245)

Department of International Freedom Struggles.

anyhow, sounds like easy money. apply for the job, if they ask you for references say that you can't tell them because that would land you in jail.

Re:Department of Redundancy Department (4, Interesting)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339343)

Well, they can always claim they are good at defense, since we haven't been invaded in a long time. If you put war back in the name, people might start asking questions about why a department with "war" in the name utterly failed the last several we were in.

Re:Department of Redundancy Department (1)

St.Creed (853824) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339483)

Oooh good one. Hadn't thought of it that way.

Re:Department of Redundancy Department (1)

ibneko (1080947) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339477)

Because "DOO"

Easy Fix (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339617)

Call it the Department of Offensive Matters and it can be shortened to DOOM, which would be awesome.

Re:Department of Redundancy Department (1)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339511)

Because the best defense is a good offence.

Or so my coach used to tell me.

Do I detect a bit of dot-com in the mix? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40338759)

But rocketing demand and a lagging supply of skilled hackers is boosting salaries and driving the defense industry’s war for talent into the open, says Alan Paller, the director of research at the cybersecurity education-focused SANS Institute. He cites SANS’ statistics that highly skilled cybersecurity staffers were paid as much as $175,000 in 2011, up 25 to 30 percent from two years before, and points to comments from the Booz Allen Hamilton executive Patrick Gorman to Bloomberg last year that the company tries to hire 1,000 cybersecurity experts a year, and struggles to find them.

Gentlemen, the next new fad. Here's a trick question: how many script kiddies does it take to develop an exploit?

Re:Do I detect a bit of dot-com in the mix? (2, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338917)

But rocketing demand and a lagging supply of skilled hackers is boosting salaries and driving the defense industry’s war for talent into the open, says Alan Paller, the director of research at the cybersecurity education-focused SANS Institute. He cites SANS’ statistics that highly skilled cybersecurity staffers were paid as much as $175,000 in 2011, up 25 to 30 percent from two years before, and points to comments from the Booz Allen Hamilton executive Patrick Gorman to Bloomberg last year that the company tries to hire 1,000 cybersecurity experts a year, and struggles to find them.

Gentlemen, the next new fad. Here's a trick question: how many script kiddies does it take to develop an exploit?

Depends .. how many bug writers does Microsoft employ? 10,000? 20,000?

meanwhile, Jawa [bbcimg.co.uk] seen at Euro 2012

Re:Do I detect a bit of dot-com in the mix? (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 2 years ago | (#40340189)

Gentlemen, the next new fad. Here's a trick question: how many script kiddies does it take to develop an exploit?

Hehe, right on the mark!

Nooooooooo (1)

thewils (463314) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338773)

Don't respond!!! It's a trap!!

Re:Nooooooooo (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338845)

Don't respond!!! It's a trap!!

*cough* *wheeze*You were right.. The imperial forces were arrayed against us*cough*

Re:Nooooooooo (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338945)

Don't people usually go to jail for using such skills?

Re:Nooooooooo (1)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339099)

People go to jail for "unauthorised" use of such skills. There's nothing wrong with using them on systems where you have permission to, such as penetration testing, and I'm willing to bet MS employ a good few people to do just that. And, of course, when you hand your perfectly legal research over to the government or military then it's up to them to use it responsibly. Which, of course, they will.

Re:Nooooooooo (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339573)

Yes and for British Telecom I broke into a customers system when we took over a contract and the previous people had left under a cloud and not left the password - that was authorized by my boss the customer and a checked with a Very senior manager.

ironically one of my coworkers i got help from was a reformed phreak and had been done for hacking :-)

day in the life of a govt hacker (1)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338807)

the only downside... can't smoke weed at work

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBMtl79atFs [youtube.com]

Re:day in the life of a govt hacker (2, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338883)

the only downside... can't smoke weed at work

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBMtl79atFs [youtube.com]

Problem with that stuff is it doesn't make you smarter or more creative, it just makes you think you are.

Re:day in the life of a govt hacker (1)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338975)

yeah, hackers!!! you hear that? booyah, bitches!!! sup now??

Re:day in the life of a govt hacker (4, Insightful)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339129)

It can snap you out of an infinite brain loop though. I've lost count of the number of times I've been stuck on a problem, but solved it pretty quickly after having a smoke. Ditto alcohol, adrenalin and caffeine, anything to get your brain out of the rut it's in. I've also had some insights while using the strongest hallucinogen known, dreaming. Agreed, being perpetually stoned isn't going to help in the long run, but many people working on logic based problems will admit to moderate drug use when they hit a mental block.

Re:day in the life of a govt hacker (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339211)

It can snap you out of an infinite brain loop though. I've lost count of the number of times I've been stuck on a problem, but solved it pretty quickly after having a smoke. Ditto alcohol, adrenalin and caffeine, anything to get your brain out of the rut it's in. I've also had some insights while using the strongest hallucinogen known, dreaming. Agreed, being perpetually stoned isn't going to help in the long run, but many people working on logic based problems will admit to moderate drug use when they hit a mental block.

And here I was just going out for a walk...

Re:day in the life of a govt hacker (1)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339315)

TL;DR - it gets you out of the Deja Foobar ;)

Re:day in the life of a govt hacker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339383)

It can snap you out of an infinite brain loop though. I've lost count of the number of times I've been stuck on a problem, but solved it pretty quickly after having a smoke. Ditto alcohol, adrenalin and caffeine, anything to get your brain out of the rut it's in. I've also had some insights while using the strongest hallucinogen known, dreaming. Agreed, being perpetually stoned isn't going to help in the long run, but many people working on logic based problems will admit to moderate drug use when they hit a mental block.

And here I was just going out for a walk...

Riiiiight *wink*

Re:day in the life of a govt hacker (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339465)

the only downside... can't smoke weed at work

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBMtl79atFs [youtube.com]

Problem with that stuff is it doesn't make you smarter or more creative, it just makes you think you are.

Sayeth the Prophet -

They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally do just as well – you just realize that it's not worth the fucking effort. There is a difference.

Re:day in the life of a govt hacker (1)

Phyrexia (55710) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339831)

I think there are studies which refute your assertion.

Windows Attack Developer - Wanted (4, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338811)

Best advertising you could ask -- for Linux or Mac.

Re:Windows Attack Developer - Wanted (1)

Reschekle (2661565) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338995)

Not really. The spooks want to attack the platform the enemy is using and will have high value in comprimising.

Linux and Mac computers don't manage the SCADA system in Iran's enrichment plants, nor do their military commanders, bureaucrats, and etc. use Linux or Mac computers on a day to day basis.

Both Linux and Mac OS have had their share of embarrassing exploits.

Re:Windows Attack Developer - Wanted (1, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339169)

Not really. The spooks want to attack the platform the enemy is using and will have high value in comprimising.

Linux and Mac computers don't manage the SCADA system in Iran's enrichment plants, nor do their military commanders, bureaucrats, and etc. use Linux or Mac computers on a day to day basis.

Both Linux and Mac OS have had their share of embarrassing exploits.

That's the point. If all these developers are going to hack for $$$, without risk of going to the pokey, that's that many less who will be sitting around hacking Mac or Linux. Besides, Stuxnet succeeded because idiotic Iran bought a load of commodity PCs all loaded up with Windows and didn't have a lick of sense to isolate them from the outside world. If they had any competency they'd stay away from commodity garbage and be using dedicated hardware with specifically coded firmware, for the job, not a load of boxes which can run office, games, web browsers, play music or video, etc, on something as critical as a Nuclear Centrifuge .. geez, that's just amazing they did that. Probably coded all their controling software in VB, too.

Re:Windows Attack Developer - Wanted (3, Informative)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339765)

The Stuxnet infected computers were "air gapped" meaning they had no connection to the outside internet. Many probably weren't even part of a network at all. They were infected by USB thumbdrives, and maybe a double agent who deliberately delivered the payload to the target machine.

Re:Windows Attack Developer - Wanted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339755)

No need to hack GNU/Linux, you can just use the package manager to inject code.

Openly Post Listings? (5, Funny)

busyqth (2566075) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338823)

Well I'm glad that they're posting the job listings openly.
Secretly posted listings don't usually have a great response rate.

Re:Openly Post Listings? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339433)

In soviet russia, job finds you!

Re:Openly Post Listings? (1)

firewrought (36952) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339493)

Well I'm glad that they're posting the job listings openly. Secretly posted listings don't usually have a great response rate.

Yes, but posting it secretly--to your honeypot network--makes it a a whole lot easier to ferret out people with actual skill. ;-O

Re:Openly Post Listings? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339507)

Secretly posted listings don't usually have a great response rate.

i have repeatedly encountered, in the source comments and obfuscated or hidden text of various websites applications and protocols, email addresses and urls to job postings for both start-ups and established companies.

i never follow up on them though, so i guess you're right.

captcha: honestly

Not official (4, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338827)

Quoting another slashdotter: "This is just a reporter's opinion sourced from conversations with people whose names he won't reveal at times he won't reveal..... he details the exact contents of a meeting that consisted of president Obama, vice president Biden, and CIA director Leon Panetta. For him to have this conversation, it means he has interviewed either the president, the vice president, or Panetta on this. Fat fucking chance. It's probably true, but no it's no way in hell close to "offical"."

Re:Not official (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339391)

Quoting another slashdotter: "I know what happened in a lot of meetings I never personally attended. Participants talk, transcripts are shared, etc. I suspect this info came second or third-hand from the people under Panetta."

Re:Not official (1)

KhabaLox (1906148) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339423)

Quoting another slashdotter: "This is just a reporter's opinion sourced from conversations with people whose names he won't reveal at times he won't reveal..... he details the exact contents of a meeting that consisted of president Obama, vice president Biden, and CIA director Leon Panetta. For him to have this conversation, it means he has interviewed either the president, the vice president, or Panetta on this. Fat fucking chance. It's probably true, but no it's no way in hell close to "offical"."

You could say the same thing, more or less, about Woodward and Bernstein and Deep Throat. It could be Biden or Panetta instructed an aide to leak the story at (or not) the President's direction.

Cool (5, Funny)

Offensive Hacker (2663345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338867)

This is right up my alley.

Me me me! (2)

evilviper (135110) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338927)

Pentagon Contractors Openly Post Job Listings For Offensive Hackers

People always say that I'm highly offensive...

Clearance Interview (3, Interesting)

dloolb (159254) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338947)

I bet the clearance interviews are interesting and probably resemble a job interview. Have fun with the EQIP form!

Re:Clearance Interview (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339993)

I bet the clearance interviews are interesting and probably resemble a job interview. Have fun with the EQIP form!

RESUME

IMA HACKER

221 C BREAKER ST

LONDON, OH

Hai! I hakked vidio gamez, mobile fones, ipadz, and, can crack most browzers easly with some scriptz. Hire me or mi botnet will dsetroy you're company!

MEMO: Ms. Swanson, hire this one, let's see what she can really do. Starting salary $90,000.

Could be just the "in" Annonymous has been ... (1)

gatesstillborg (2633899) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338971)

...looking for! :)

Nothing New Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40338991)

M00v^g 0N

I have severe body odor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339033)

Do I get the job or do I have to cuss like a sailor, give every client the finger, dress gaudy, and be generally uncouth as well?

Afghanistan mujahideen (5, Insightful)

jjohn (2991) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339069)

I don't need to explain why training terrorists might not be the best idea for our long term interest, right?

Of course (3, Informative)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339091)

Leave it to the government to use outside contractors which demand a ridiculously high salary for this, when they could just develop more offensive capabilities with the people they already have. There are hundreds of military people who could perform this task with a little training and education, but the Pentagon, in their infinite wisdom, would rather those people sit on mountain tops playing Guitar Hero.

Even in my short 8 years in the Army, I saw a complete brain dump of technical jobs. The people who replaced me keep getting more incapable, because all the capable ones get out and take contracting jobs. Then the Army can't fulfill their mission, so the contractors hire back the same former military people to fill their previous slots, with 3x the salary and benefits.

Give up... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339125)

There's no intelligent life in U$A...

Re:Give up... (1)

busyqth (2566075) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339181)

Well there are a few bonobos...

What are principal the technical skill sets? (1)

PerlPunk (548551) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339149)

Now that there is an economic "boom" in offensive hacking in the US (and probably elsewhere, too), what are the core skill sets that one should have? Computer languages, networking, social engineering? Any non-IT skills, like physics, EE, etc.?

Re:What are principal the technical skill sets? (0)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339539)

Now that there is an economic "boom" in offensive hacking in the US (and probably elsewhere, too), what are the core skill sets that one should have? Computer languages, networking, social engineering? Any non-IT skills, like physics, EE, etc.?

Marksmanship would probably come in quite handy at some point.

Survival skills as well.

Though I can't verify the accuracy of it, and at risk of invoking Godwin, I recall hearing about the Nazi's 'allowing' Jewish scientists to work on their military rocket programs, only to turn and execute them after project completion...

If so, history provides a great disincentive to fall prey to such governmental bullshit.

Re:What are principal the technical skill sets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339551)

The principal skill is not having to ask.

yeah, use big arms companies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339191)

Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin... aren't these big, bueracratic arms companies? Wouldn't it be better off hiring experienced, hard core programers, from small, specialized companies? Pay off John Carmack, David Cutler, etc.

Sauce for the New York Times... (1)

Lew Perin (30124) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339287)

Recently US senators and members of Congress have been demanding punishment for anyone responsible for the recent media accounts of US involvement in Stuxnet and Flame. Can we assume that there's going to be a thorough investigation of what is in effect confirmation of those media stories? Starting with the HR departments of those giant defense (or offense) contractors and going as far as the evidence leads? Are we holding our breath?

Don't do it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339853)

Don't do it, hackers! Save your productive energy for the private sector, where you will produce something of value instead of bureaucratic waste.

FROST @PIST (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40340053)

No thanks (1)

codepunk (167897) | more than 2 years ago | (#40340387)

I had one gig with a dod contractor, you could not pay me enough to do it again. Ok, I am lying but the rate would be near insanity.

No fair! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40340427)

Why should the firm have to pay these guys? The Feds only have to threaten charges to them to work for the lulz. What did we spend all that money on Congressmen for? Is there no justice? Laxity, laxity, laxity!

I'm taking this up at the next stockholder's meeting!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?