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!

Deliberation of "National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace"

CowboyNeal posted more than 11 years ago | from the virtual-town-meetings dept.

United States 226

An anonymous reader writes "Per the Federal Register the National Infastructure Advisory Council will have a public meeting (telephonically) from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm EST on 1/8/2003 to deliberate on the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace. 'Written comments may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting.' Details can be found in text format or in PDF."

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

First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4963953)

I Have First Post!!!

well done U.S. government (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4964299)

The United States Government appears to actually be taking a privacy issue seriously for once - it's on the front page of the White House [whitehouse.com] website.

How much? (2, Interesting)

iopha (626985) | more than 11 years ago | (#4963954)

Yes, but how much does it cost for someone to actually read my proposal and take it seriously? iopha

Re:How much? (0)

The Phantom Buffalo (613874) | more than 11 years ago | (#4963962)

How much do you have? Or are you not looking for just anyone?

IOUC $15,000,000,000 (2)

SHEENmaster (581283) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964030)

I Owe U.S. Congress $15,000,000,000.

they are taking it seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4964306)

The United States Government appears to actually be taking a privacy issue seriously for once - it's on the front page of the White House [whitehouse.com] website.

sp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4963956)

second post?!?

FUCK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4963977)

you!

In Soviet USA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4963958)

Secure cyberspace nationals you!!1

Let's get those iraqians and there oils.

Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4963961)

Well they might as well wrap those packets in a hand basket and deliver them to the man at the top.
Everyone else gave up on their freedoms.
Shame.

Keep yer cool (1, Insightful)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 11 years ago | (#4963970)

The last thing these people need to hear are the psychotic ramblings of someone like RMS. Be polite and to the point, don't yell and scream about freedom and the GPL blah blah or you'll be passed off as a nutcase and lose for sure. Got it?

Re:Keep yer cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4963986)

Oh my god it smells like anal vapor! Did somebody said RMS?

Your sig (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4964015)

Don't muggers also obtain their monies via the threat of force?

Re:Keep yer cool (5, Interesting)

XaXXon (202882) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964026)

Jesus christ, people..

This is the second anti-RMS comment I've had to respond to in the past couple hours (first one [slashdot.org] ).

What the heck does this have to do with RMS? RMS talks about freedom of software. This isn't even related to him in the slightest.

If you read the article, you'd see that the National Infrastructure Advisory Council "advises the President of the United States on the
security of information systems for critical infrastructure supporting
other sectors of the economy, including banking and finance, transportation, energy, manufacturing, and emergency government
services." And while RMS might have feelings about this, software Freedom doesn't come in to play.

I really wish bashing RMS wasn't so trendy on /. these days.

yes it will (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4964057)

Guarenteed someone will bring free software into this discussion. You do have to admit hes a fucking lunatic who looks like a street bum. As George Thoroughgood says: Get a haircut and get a real job. And stop wasting modpoints on me fucktard!

Re:Keep yer cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4964087)

RMS talks about freedom of software

No, he goes off on long-winded rants about petty bullshit like why you should refer to Linux as 'GNU/Linux' instead.

Re:Keep yer cool (2)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964359)

uh huh. 'cause god forbid that you actually acknowledge all the work that went into the tools precured from the GNU project. Much better to refer to a unix-like operating system by using the name of the kernel -- the part that 99% of people have absolutely no interaction with. Shit, even if you're a developer you don't talk to the kernel (the c library is a part of the GNU project).

RMS goes to the zoo (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4964127)

With a twinkle in his eye and a skip in his step, RMS slammed his sky-blue Chevette's rusted-out car door and turned on heel toward the MIT Zoo entrance. Today was a Sunday, and RMS had decided the daily stresses of Free Software, the GPL, and his "crazy" drug habits could go away for just one afternoon while he enjoyed the zoo. "That'll be twenty-five dollars, sir," the lady at the admission booth said glumly. She looked at RMS expectantly. "I was expecting this zoo to be Free," RMS stated loudly, eyes darting around to gauge onlookers' reactions. There were none: RMS's capital F had went unnoticed. "Can you ensure me that this money will not help fund--" The admissions lady cut him off. "Twenty-five dollars, or twenty bucks with a Mr. Pibb can," the lady cut in. With a grumble and shake of his beard, RMS handed over twenty five of his hard-earned dollars. Considering that the GPL works to unemploy programmers, one must wonder where this money came from... By evening, RMS found himself in front of the penguin exhibit. He felt himself start to sweat, which would have been no surprise-- his thick, full, grizzly beard must be worth a thousand down comforters-- except that he was wearing only a pair of nylon biking shorts and a travel pack around his waist. He stared at his hands. What was wrong? "AWWWK!" a nearby bird offered. RMS wheeled in the direction the screech had come from. He was met with the steely, unfeeling stares of a penguin. "AWK! Ooooh God, the penguin said AWK... lord, lord lord, it's LINUX. THE PENGUIN IS TUX!" RMS blurted out. He felt dizzy, and cold sweat now washed over his brittle, hairy chest. He looked this way and that. From nearby a bird again squawked. "AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWK" RMS ran as fast as his atrophied hippy-programmer legs could carry him, right thru a gate and into an exhibit. He realized what he had done, and before he could turn around, he heard a low, ominous sound. Like the Devil's riding mower. "MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO" RMS gasped. MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! He was standing in the Gnu section, and it seemed these bull yaks were in rut and ready to mate with the first hairy thing with a hole in its center they found. Bad luck for RMS and his beard. Just then he felt cloven hooves push him down...

Re:Keep yer cool (1)

deego (587575) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964248)

> I really wish bashing RMS wasn't so trendy on /. these days.

yeah I am gonna be modded as OT for this. But there's no other story where we can ever get to comment on the /. moderation system, can we?

I think /. mostly has a great system, but ends up making moderators out of people with certain viewpoints on certain topics. After that, for example, anyone bashing RMS in a completely OT way immediately gets a +5, funny or insightful; and an insightful on-topic pro-RMS post gets a +3 atmost, with the moderation breakup including several -1, Flamebaits..

I like /. system, just wish it could be made better by eliminating biases of viewpoints as above.

I wonder if this situation will rectify if the "main central moderators" will give up their "unlimited moderation" rights, cos i think that is the central "source" from which infinite moderation "emanates", leading to this setting of "favored viewpoints".

Re:Keep yer cool (2)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964313)

The problem is that the moderation system hasn't been improved or updated in years. There's nothing wrong with getting something wrong, Taco, but you ought to fix it when the flaws are pointed out to you.

For starters, eliminating over/underrated (or at least passing them to M2), and making moderators accountable (let people see who has been moderating their posts) would be appreciated.

Re:Keep yer cool (1)

Captain_Carnage (4901) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964288)

Have you ever actually interacted with RMS? I have. His methods and tactics are often obtrusive, annoying, and at times can be downright offensive. He's arrogant and rude, until you let him make his point. He will not relent until he gets his way. I mean, I agree with the guy most of the time, and I still want him to shut up.

If you want to see the government start using open-source software, then rms is the last person you want near those discussions. The folks in the legislature will not tolerate his shenanigans for very long...

Re:Keep yer cool (2)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964332)

Sounds like a cool guy to me.

Re:Keep yer cool (1)

kien (571074) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964420)

Have you ever actually interacted with RMS? I have.

So have I.

His methods and tactics are often obtrusive, annoying, and at times can be downright offensive. He's arrogant and rude, until you let him make his point. He will not relent until he gets his way. I mean, I agree with the guy most of the time, and I still want him to shut up.

Our experiences differ. When I sent him a relatively broad question, I was amazed that he even answered. From that initial contact, we swapped quite a few emails and he never exhibited any of the behavior that you ascribe to him. His emails to me were terse and they asked direct questions which implied the need for direct answers, but I did not interpret that as rude.
If you want to see the government start using open-source software, then rms is the last person you want near those discussions.

You're right. RMS is about the ideal of free software, not the commercially viable equivalent of open-source software. As for his "shenanigans"...well, I guess that's a subjective point of view. I can type an email to my boss that says: "I believe that this software is incompatible with our business model due to the numerous inconsistencies we've encountered in the development process." Or I could take the hacker efficiency approach and just type: "Boss, this shit sucks. Ditch it."

I think RMS tends to take the latter approach, which would naturally offend the sensitivities of the politically-correct.

--K.

Re:Keep yer cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4964338)

Well, what he was trying to say was:

Be sure to sugar-coat everything you say, so you don't offend people you want something from. Instead of talking about Freedom and the Constitution, talk about Evil-doers and the Three Thousand Lives Lost. Instead of the Bill of Rights and Thomas Jefferson, talk about That's How It Is After 9/11 and Let's Get Them Before They Get Us.

The poster just wrapped it up in anti-RMS language. The point is valid (though a bit sad). The "idealistic" foundations of this country are long-gone, so don't bother trying to raise their ashes, talk about practical stuff that even G.W. can understand.

Talking about "Freedom" with the government these days is about the same as RMS talking about "Freedom" with the CEO of a software company.

But I am a nutcase..... (2)

SHEENmaster (581283) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964053)

and sometimes nutcases have the right idea.

Re:Keep yer cool (3, Insightful)

mshiltonj (220311) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964097)

...don't yell and scream about freedom...

Well said, good sir. I say verily, that is the last thing should want from ourselves. We shant let it be known to our noble masters that freedom is a virtue and a right that we hold dear to our hearts, and desire to proclaim it loudly from deep within our souls. Would that it be known, we should be condemned as insurgent heretics, and should rightly be burned at the stake, with the witches and basphemers.

Perhaps we would better let it be known what we desire if we lay prostrate before his excellency and humbly beg for his mercy.

-------------
On an entirely different note...

Bush revises the Bill Of Rights. [theonion.com]
Fact or Fiction? Hard to tell, isn't it?

context bitch! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4964168)

way to take something out of context you cunt.

my hopes... (3, Informative)

small_dick (127697) | more than 11 years ago | (#4963987)

Something like a condom or shield over comms coming into the USA or going out...and MORE freedom under the shield (USUS) communications.

Please let there be some tattered shred of freedom to hang onto...it's terrible about 911 but there have been worse death counts in history with no enemy to fight...the "Death Fog" in London (1952?) comes to mind.

Re:my hopes... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4964119)

it's terrible about 911 but there have been worse death counts in history with no enemy to fight...the "Death Fog" in London (1952?) comes to mind.


That's a bit of an understatement. About 4000 died in the 1952 smog in London. Note it was a smog not fog, so there was an enemy (the factories, buses, etc) Here [metoffice.com] for more info.

The Black Death might have been a better example. We are talking 75 MILLION people dying there.
Take a look here [geocities.com] to put things in perspective.

Securing Cyberspace (1)

EdMack (626543) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964007)

I have to say, it sounds like a wonderful thing, and we can even make suggestions - the National Infastructure Advisory Council must love us!

(Does National and Internet go together... I smell fish!)

Re:Securing Cyberspace (2, Interesting)

ChrisHanel (636741) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964013)

Someday the government is going to have to figure out that the Internet is like the oceans - it's VERY hard to sit out in the vast expanse and try to draw chalklines. :)

opinions: (5, Funny)

SHEENmaster (581283) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964016)

Libertarian: Leave cyberspace alone.
Linux: Leave cyberspace alone.
/.: Leave cyberspace the fuck alone.

Conclusion? "Cyberspace" isn't under anyone's control because it can't be bought, sold, or bribed.
U.S. law on the other hand, can be bought and sold like trading cards.

Re:opinions: (1, Interesting)

DarwinDan (596565) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964414)

How unfortunately true...I don't know about the rest of the civilized world, but nowhere else is it this easy -- let alone possible -- to donate large sums of money to a politician and literally buy a law or other protection (like that smallpox company [cbsnews.com] ). Woe is democracy...

Text format? I don't think so! (-1, Offtopic)

KarMannJRO (616677) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964018)

Since when does a document ending in .htm, and containing <html>, <head>, and <body> tags (though no </body> or </html>, oddly) count as "text format"? Even if it is in a <pre> tag (also unclosed)(and a <DOC> tag??). I suppose it's more text than PDF is, but that still isn't what I would call "text format.

Centralized exchanges (5, Insightful)

buss_error (142273) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964024)

I was listening to NPR a few days ago (YES, I am a libral. That means I don't want to see your kids starve just because you are a crack head or kick the bucket.) and they were talking about centerlizing main internet exchanges to "protect them from terrorists." Now, I thought that odd, because the Internet was originally designed decenteralized to avoid any one node being knocked out (by nuke) and cutting off those not vaporized.

So I asked myself, how can centerlizing the internet prevent terrorists from taking out large chunks of the system? Answer: It can't, and in fact makes it easier to do so. But it does make intercepting e-mail much easier.... Ahh. That's the REAL answer.

Re:Centralized exchanges (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4964069)

That has nothing to do do with anti- "libral" politics.

You really can't get starving kids out of messing up the internet, can you? Stop screwing up the issue and let's focus here, people.

Re:Centralized exchanges (1)

Esion Modnar (632431) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964099)

Great idea! Let's put the whole Internet in a single gigantic building (on US soil of course, after all this was Gore's invention). Then people would have to drive there, sign in with two forms of identification and a DNA sample, and be monitored by security guards and vicious dogs during their visit. (And anyone wearing a strap-on (dynamite, that is) would NOT be welcome.

Re:Centralized exchanges (0)

Moloch666 (574889) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964120)

And no incoming planes with landing gear up should be allowed either.

Re:Centralized exchanges (2)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964109)



Now, I thought that odd, because the Internet was originally designed decenteralized to avoid any one node being knocked out (by nuke) and cutting off those not vaporized.


Military actions tend to lack the longstanding effectiveness of financial ones.

Its my impression that the market and consolidation within the telecom industry has created a large amount of Internet backbone centralization over the years. Thus, the worry over Worldcom.

GGardner's corollary to Godwin's law (5, Funny)

GGardner (97375) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964125)

the Internet was originally designed decenteralized to avoid any one node being knocked out (by nuke) and cutting off those not vaporized

I would like to propose a corollary to Godwin's law: In any online thread, any mention about how the Internet was designed to survive nuclear attack immediately terminates that thread.

Re:GGardner's corollary to Godwin's law (5, Funny)

Ellen Ripley (221395) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964273)

... any mention about how the Internet was designed to survive nuclear attack immediately terminates that thread.

550 THREADTERM (nuclear)
223 DETECT THREADTERM (nuclear)
224 ACK THREADTERM (nuclear)
227 REROUTING TO ALTERNATE THREAD SERVER

Re:Centralized exchanges (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4964135)

A thoughtful post indeed, as indeed a centralized "blah blah whatever Interweb" would give Carnivore and its subscribers easier access to food. Soooo.....just because they cannot catch a child molester because he is being protected by the leadership of the church, that means that the government will require all churches to locate within a three block radius of one another.

The sad part is that there are those that simply can't "deal" with not having control over such a powerful communications medium as the Interweb thing. It seems to me that the hardest item for our power-hungry politicians to "deal" with is the tax revenue that they cannot realize on all those peer to peer Interweb facilitated transactions.

and yes, they need to back the fuck off of our civil liberties, our shared internet, our fucking right to use the medium however we see fit. Napster is, was, and always will be the Shiznit !

Re:Centralized exchanges (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4964356)

Ha, you're going to hear all kinds of hair-brained schemes when it comes to "SECCURING TEH POST-9-ELEVEN INTERWEB". I wouldn't sweat it too much. Well unless they want to post armed guards by every modem or something.

And no need to apologize about NPR. I like NPR. I didn't realize it was for "liberals only" until someone made fun it. Who gives a fuck.

Personally, I think drugs should be 100% legal so stupid people and their offspring can efficiently be removed from the genetic pool when they O.D. on crack.

*Ahem* (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4964033)

Attention American Government Officials:

The internet is not on American soil and will never belong to any goverment, neither will you ever have the jurisdiction to secure it.

Trying to Secure the internet is futile. The internet was never created to be regulated or controlled rather, allowed to evolve free of the contraints of the non-virtual world.

So... I suggest the following.

1 - Remove your heads from your asses.
2 - Concentrate on your own Nation's concerns, like the economy, and social issues.
3 - Stop invading not only your own citizen privacy but the rest of the worlds.

Thankyou for your time.

Re:*Ahem* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4964100)

Signed, Jon Johansen.

Re:*Ahem* (4, Insightful)

rufusdufus (450462) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964215)

The internet was created by the United States Department of Defense. So trying to tell them what it was created for is a little bit silly.

What it has become in recent years is certainly quite different from what the inventors intended.

Re:*Ahem* (1)

MattCohn.com (555899) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964304)

Really? I thought it was Gore... oh well.

Re:*Ahem* (3, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964386)

Attention American Government Officials: ...

1 - Remove your heads from your asses.


That is asking WAYYYYY too much from any of our government officials.

The only person in government that I had ANY respect for was Gov. Jesse Ventura. he was the most HONEST politician this country has had in over 100 years. and the only one with balls and knows how to use them...

Plain economics should derail it... (4, Insightful)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964037)

After all, how much more it will cost to track and keep every single goddammed fucking packet flying on the #matrix#??? Surely twice as much as it would cost to implement the same current infrasture another time...

Isnt this plan an impossible boondoggle? (5, Interesting)

rufusdufus (450462) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964055)

My understanding is that what they want to do is require or ISPs to monitor all users and give all information to the goverment.

Isnt this basically impossible? First off, the bandwidth requirements alone would make the process unfeasable. The whole reason the internet is a called a network and not a bus is that the information is distributed. This distribution is what makes the internet possible. Funneling all the information into centralized locations would violate the network topology.

Next, many ISPs are not registered or licenced to be ISPs. What defines an ISP? Does my wi-fi count? Policing this would a complete farce, especially with freedom advocates taking every opportunity to bypass and befuddle the law.

Next, any terrorists/criminal would start using (if they are not already using) at least simple encryption which would not generally be detectible by monitoring bots. The amount of effort to avoid even the most sophisticated monitoring would be quite small.

Also, if all this data were stored up in some central location, wouldnt that be the best place for hackers to crack to get vast amounts of info? Has anyone ever made an uncrackable system connected to the public networks?

Re:Isnt this plan an impossible boondoggle? (2)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964237)

I believe that what they are talking about is the backbone, the top of the "upstream" as it were. The only problem with this is that the people that they want to watch could get arount this in quite a variety of ways. The encryption is only one. If I were them, I'd set up some relays over old POT(s) lines similar as to what was done in the BBS days.

And as far as the "Keeping your eggs in one basket" thing, that's been done [securityfocus.com] , from the inside yet.

Re:Isnt this plan an impossible boondoggle? (2)

CoolVibe (11466) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964294)

Enter SPEWS, who blocks that entire backbone because spammers live on it.

Great. No more e-mail from the U.S. for me. Oh well, not really a loss, since I'm European.

So, fellow Europeans and non-USians, care to set up a global network of our own? Or should we just cut those crummy trans atlantic and pacific cables so they really _are_ isolated.

(yes, this is tongue somewhat planted in cheek. get over it)

Re:Isnt this plan an impossible boondoggle? (2, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964249)

Since when did something being impossible stop a goverment agency? It's all about making people 'feel' safer. If, as a side effect, it makes the people safer that is OK also...

Re:Isnt this plan an impossible boondoggle? (2, Interesting)

aerojad (594561) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964302)

I believe Yahoo, back in the 'net boom days, declared itself unhackable, about a week before it was knocked offline for a few hours from a DoS attack.

And by the way, what would happen if you DoS attacked this central uber server? If all traffic is routed through it, wouldn't that in theory turn the internet, or at least the portion controled (having traffic flow through it) by it, turn off?

DeepFAQ v.25 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4964056)

Q: Who are you?
A: We is DEEPSIDE NIGGAZ aka DEEPSIDE BALLAS aka TROLLIN' DEEPSIDE NIGZ.
We hail from da Deepside of Chicago. Wannabe brothers claim they from the 'westside', or the 'southside', and the fags claim they's from the 'northside'. But us real niggaz are DEEPSIDE, everyone else is just shit.

Q: What are you doing here?
A: We is here to show you SlashFUCKS that the black man can use teh internet too. Ya see... Jerome goes and bust some white boy upside da head and steals his 'puter and Nikes. So he took it to some whore house and turned it on. But you can't do shit wit it. So Jerome go back out and threatens some white trash ATT boy and he hooks it up wit da free internet. Bling Bling, now we be trollin'!

Q: Why?
A: Why not, bitch! We's here to represent all our dead troll homies. Especially the late WIPO (May teh Goatse rest his goo coated soul).
If you don't like it, suck my big black cock.

Q: Do the Deepside Nigz have a sign?
A: Yes we do... (This should be easy enough for you shitheads... I don't want to write a homo HOW-TO)
1.Take your right hand (You might have to stop jerking first)
2.Make an 'O' with your thumb and forefinger (Like how Taco beats his little dick)
3.Now stick your middle, ring, and little (white man's penis) finger straight up.
4.Just twist your wrist about 180 degrees and
5.hold it against your chest calling out 'DEEPSIDE!' in the process

Q: Why post as an AC?
A: Does it matter? The Deepside Niggas get their point across anyway! Fuck Slashdot, and fuck accounts.

Any more questions? Post that shit UP!

To secure the national infrastructure... (4, Interesting)

dillon_rinker (17944) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964066)

...it is first necessary to secure the operating system that most frequently is connected to it, ie Windows. There's little point in securing every non-Windows server (or even every server, Windows or not) if an insecure client platform (read: Windows + IE + Outlook) permits a small group of individuals to own enough client PCs to DOS the root servers. Or the 50 largest e-commerce sites. Or the most popular intercontinental routers. This is feasible NOW; all it needs is a determined, intelligent adversary (China, perhaps?). Even scarier is the possibility that there will be intelligent use of DOS attacks (hijacking of presumed secure connections, perhaps), but I'd rather not consider that while sober.

Re:To secure the national infrastructure... (2)

js7a (579872) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964303)

it is first necessary to secure the operating system that most frequently is connected to it, ie Windows.

Since Windows' creator, Microsoft, has shown themselves incapable of making progress in this regard even after a year's concerted effort, why would anyone think the U.S. government stands a chance?

Such D.O.S. attacks as the parent post mentions are common, even if not visible, and will likely continue to be.

Coy-boi Neal is a flamming homosexual (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4964081)

It's true, it's true

mirror (2, Interesting)

risk-dev (246265) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964088)

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

National Infrastructure Advisory Council; Notice of Open Meeting

The National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) will meet on
Wednesday, January 8, 2003, from 3 p.m. until 5 p.m. EST. The meeting,
which will be held telephonically, will be open to the public. Members
of the public interested in attending by telephone should call (toll
free) 1-899-7785 or (toll) 1-913-312-4169 and, when prompted, enter
pass code 1468517.
The Council advises the President of the United States on the
security of information systems for critical infrastructure supporting
other sectors of the economy, including banking and finance,
transportation, energy, manufacturing, and emergency government
services. At this meeting, the Council will continue its deliberations
on comments to be delivered to President Bush concerning the draft
National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace.

Agenda

I. Opening of meeting and roll call: John Tritak, Director, Critical
Infrastructure Assurance Office/Designated Federal Officer, NIAC
II. Opening remarks: Richard Clarke, Special Advisor to the President
for Cyperspace Security/Executive Director, NIAC; Richard Davidson,
Chairman, NIAC; and John Chambers, Vice Chairman, NIAC
III. Presentation of draft Comments document: Mr. Davidson
IV. Discussion and adoption of Comments: NIAC Members
V. Discussion of next steps/timeline for publication and delivery of
document: NIAC Members
VI. Adjournment

Written comments may be submitted at any time before or after the
meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation
materials to Council members, the Council suggests that presenters
forward the public presentation materials, ten days prior to the
meeting date, to the following address: Ms. Wanda Rose, Critical
Infrastructure Assurance Office, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Room 6095, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20230.
For more information contact Wanda Rose on (202) 482-7481.

Dated: December 19, 2002.
Eric T. Werner,
Council Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 02-32435 Filed 12-23-02; 8:45 am]

Anyone planning on recording this? (3, Interesting)

MyDixieWrecked (548719) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964089)

For the few (many?) of us that dont have free time during those hours to listen in?

Should be simple enough with some simple serial software, a modem, and some low-end sound recording software?

yes/no? =)

Good move by gov't (3, Informative)

SixDimensionalArray (604334) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964095)

I usually object to government interference, but for once I think they're really on track here. If you read the draft document, available here [whitehouse.gov] , you'll see that the government really wants to keep its hands off as much as possible, but also realizes the fundamental need for central control for security.

It's nice to see they also want to work with a strong public/private partnership, not solely one with private organizations. I'll try and be listening in for sure!

Read this Link & then comment (1)

shis-ka-bob (595298) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964390)

SixDimensionalArray has provided a good resource - read it before the knee jerk reations reach your fingertips. The wakeup call for this is allged to be NIMDA, which infects 'computers'. It would be useful to remind the authors of this paper that it infects Windows computers. Linux can be more secure than this, but it is not a complete solution. Simply encuraging a polygot of OS's will help. Monoculture (in OS or an ecosystem) & inbreeding (restricting evolution in OS to one town, say Redmond) lead to weaker systems. Mutts dominate in nature - purebreads are weak. We need to support Linux, Windows, BSD's and others to make a healthier Internet.

Over heard at the meeting... (5, Funny)

El Camino SS (264212) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964096)


"There really is only one way to secure cyberspace as we know it. We need to create in secret an army of clones to protect us from all of our enemies."

-AZ Sen. James Palpatine (D)

Slashdot effect? (1)

risk-dev (246265) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964103)

Will this be the first time the slashdot effect has effected a conference call provider? Details?

Re:Slashdot effect? (1)

AntiNorm (155641) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964114)

Will this be the first time the slashdot effect has effected [sic] a conference call provider? Details?

Just think of the Slashdot effect as a BIG conference call, with the unwitting host acting as a hub for all the callers...

Re:Slashdot effect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4964235)

Sounds like a slightly clever play on words, or a pun.. whichever

Re:Slashdot effect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4964155)

No, but it may **Affect** them. http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/015.html

Re:Slashdot effect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4964199)

From the webpage you cited [bartleby.com] , the original poster might have indeed meant "to bring about or execute.".

I claim... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4964117)

I claim ze internet in ze name of Fronce! Viva La Fronce!

[I'm aware that this is a US initiative. France just sounded funnier.]

woah, slow the paranoia just a little (4, Insightful)

zachusaf (540628) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964118)

I think we're missing the point here. Taken from the article: "Council advises the President of the United States on the security of information systems for critical infrastructure supporting other sectors of the economy, including banking and finance, transportation, energy, manufacturing, and emergency government services." They aren't trying to control cyberspace, or take away your privacy. (just yet....)What they are trying to do, however, is secure networks critical to the national infrastructure(ie banking systems, etc). Easy fellas......

Banks et. al. run on private networks (5, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964192)

Banks run on private networks like SWIFT, not on the internet. Your personal account might have some kind of web access, but not the intra-bank network.

The same goes for any large enterprise that gives a damn about their security and reliability. The internet is unreliable, insecure, and can never be anything but by the very nature of it's design. (Note: fault resilience such as rerouting around failed nodes is not the same thing as fault tolerant -- the segments behind the failed node are still unreachable.)

When you say they "aren't trying to control cyberspace", I just have these visions of the founding fathers of the US inscribing "the right to bear arms" with the intent of allowing the country to defend itself, and the modern twisting of those words to justify possession and use of assault weapons and handguns far beyond the defense of a nation.

I look at the "temporary" income taxes that were to pay for war costs, which are still in place and increasing.

I look at the insanity of a "War on Drugs" that destroys the careers of hundreds of thousands of people for smoking a joint, while the death toll on the highways and roads due to "legal" drunk drivers continues.

I look at Hollings & co. selling out to the entertainment industry, even though it damages an IT industry worth many times that amount to the nation.

Trust them? Sure, I trust them. I trust them to steal my income, invade my privacy, interfere with my life, and ignore our objections to what is rapidly becoming a police state.

Thank God I'm getting out of this screwed up country in a few days. Maybe in a few years after the American people have revolted against the insanity it will be safe to come back with the expectation of being allowed to live without excess interference from a corporate-run government.

Re:Banks et. al. run on private networks (2)

LWolenczak (10527) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964229)

Well.. Banks really run on for all intensive purposes "Virtually Private Networks". But if you view the internet running to the end of every phone line, because all the internet is, is a web of communication, that runs to every piece of copper/fiber into your home, business, school.

We are all on one big network, and for all intensive purposes, it is the internet. Banks, Businesses, and just about everybody with a telco grade circuit runs Frame Relay or ATM, on top of the various telco's networks.

We can only hope that they don't take this too seriously, because literly, if they wanted to protect the real world from cyber space, then it is time to send the gastapo with wire cutters to cut everybody's phone, cable, and power connection to send us back into the stone age. What people in political circles fail to realise is that the internet is not just US Centric, it is global, and what laws they put into effect have repercussions all over the world.

You missed the point (3, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964418)

The backbone providers are not the internet. They provide dedicated, optionally secure, and optionally fault-tolerant data links.

The internet may or may not use fibre that is strung in parallel with those links (i.e. part of the same bundle), but it does not run on the same physical fibre. I've worked on a provisioning system that is used to manage those resources, and the "internet" is miniscule compared to the number of links that are managed for private business and government.

Want to take out those links? Go to isolated spots along certain railway tracks, highways, and other infrastructure where the physical fiber is run. Cut the fibre or plant a bomb. Goodbye several petabytes of capacity until someone can find the breach and fix it. How did any of the government proposals even try to prevent the damage from happening?

"Security" has never been anything but a smokescreen to justify increased power in the hands of a few, and anyone who thinks they are "secure" just happens to be naive enough to believe them.

The worst "terrorism" we have to fear in North America is from our own governments. Not to offend anyone who lost friends or family in the WTC on 9/11, but more people than that are killed every year by terrorists in many countries, without having led to knee-jerk police state behavior.

Don't believe me?

Look at the current crop of anti-drug ads in the US. Blatant lies and FUD -- most marijuana is grown in North America by North Americans who keep their assets in North America and spend most of the profits in (you guessed it!) North America. Heroin and Opium might be another story, but that isn't what the government is trying to convince everyone, because it wouldn't make people as nervous (everyone knows at least one pot smoker, but how many of you know heroin users?)

Do some checking and find out how many innocent people have been killed by government agents (police SWAT teams) raiding the wrong house. Look into the number of people currently being held because they immigrated from the wrong nation, or because their second cousin has a friend who knows a guy who claimed to be with Al Queda. Ask someone of Japanese descent how much more "secure" they felt for being imprisoned until the war was over.

Re:You missed the point (3, Interesting)

LWolenczak (10527) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964469)

I agree with you, and you kind of understand my point. My point really is, and i'm guessing i'm asking a lot of slashdot readers to try and figure it out, is that the internet, is only logically, only as secure as the local telco phone switch.

Backbone providers in some cases have their own fiber, but most of the time, it's the telco that has the fiber, because it was cheap for them to put it in (goverment paid for it to be put in).

In all honesty, your ranting is not what is necessary to convince members of our goverment, nor is stats of the past. What is needed is a convincing, why/why not argument. Reality is, that what is needed is that we need to reform things from inside the goverment outward, so what we must do is direct this agency to the reality, and try to convince them that they can't really do anything for the private sector, but they have things that they can do for the goverment, that will filter into the private sector and encourage good, responsable behaviour regarding technology.

Re:Banks et. al. run on private networks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4964501)

For all intensive purposes? Surely you mean "for all intents and purposes.

You're not one of those people who types "wahlah" when they mean "voila", are you?

Re: Right to Keep and Bear Arms (2)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964392)

assault weapons and handguns far beyond the defense of a nation
I don't know what rock you crawled out from under, but if you plan to defend your nation with anything *but* assault weapons and handguns, then you can move to another nation and try to defend it with whatever rocks and sticks whiny liberal jackasses like you think constitute "arms".

Re: Right to Keep and Bear Arms (2)

msobkow (48369) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964472)

The military and police have those weapons, as approved by the constitution. You will never convince me that a 30-round assault rifle (automatic or not) has any business anywhere except in the military, the police, or a licensed, registered collector. By the time anyone gets close enough to US soil for you to use your "personal protection" weapons, the war is already lost.

If the trillions of dollars worth of military personnel, nukes, missiles, air craft, naval armadas, subs, and satellites aren't enough to keep out "the enemy", what makes you think some guy with an assault rifle is going to make a damned bit of difference?

Don't get me wrong -- I like guns. Target shooting with a Sig is an absolute gas, venison brought down by a skilled hunter is damned tasty, and I've used them many times for butchering pigs or cattle. I just think they have their uses and their place, and assault rifles in the home isn't one of them.

this is big.. (0, Offtopic)

deego (587575) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964150)

The Linux in China thing was big, quite big.

This, OTOH, is perhaps even bigger, for 2 reasons, imho: Language and a larger number of developers in India. Linux being adopted in a country on a massive scale means that you can be assured of a good and user-friendly distribution showing up. There was one in China and one in Brazil too (IIRC) but none of them was in English. The indian one is defninitely going to be in english (possibly with strong internationalization support). And a good linux is bad for M$ and very good for all the rest of us.

Or, they might just adopt one of the standard distributions like Debian, and in the process, accelerate the move towards userfriendliness of that distro.

Re:this is big.. (5, Funny)

ceejayoz (567949) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964284)

You sound lost. Perhaps you're looking for this thread [slashdot.org] ?

Public Notice, Not Public Comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4964165)

From the Federal Notice [akamaitech.net] : "At this meeting, the Council will continue its deliberations on comments to be delivered to President Bush concerning the draft National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace."

This is not "Public Notice and Comment", but rather just "Public Notice" that a meeting will take place. As noted here [fedfin.com] [PDF] the comment deadline was 09-18-02.

Re:Public Notice, Not Public Comment (1)

norculf (146473) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964430)

Too bad it didn't make slashdot back then when it could have done some good.

federal register tips (3, Informative)

squarefish (561836) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964171)

I print this every day for my boss and find it easier to just look at them rather than try to use the search function on their page. You can find the listings here [gpo.gov] . of course next week you'll just change the 2 in the url to a 3. we are usually searching for grant opportunities- this looks pretty interesting, I think I'll have to start looking for similar items.

I know this will be unpopular here (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4964181)

But the truth is the government needs more control in this day and age of terrorism. They need to be able to monitor and shutdown/block sites that have illegal information on them like drugs, bomb making plans, and seditious speech. National security always trumps the constitution... ALWAYS. National security is far more important. Sept. 11/01 proved this. More socialist programs are going to be needed to help secure this country (Federal airport screeners, etc.) so you might as well get used to it. The priorities of the federal government should be as follows:

1. Ban the private ownership of firearms.
2. Automatic life in prison for any violators of the gun laws or drug laws.
3. PATRIOT act enforcement.
4. Total Information Awareness implementation.
5. DMCA enforcement.
6. Ban hate speech.
7. Crack down on nutcase right wing whacko groups.
8. Increase taxes greatly.
9. Send more foreign aid, both economic and military to Israel.
10. Better welfare benefits to minorities regardless of thier citizenship status.

This is what it's going to take to get some decent security here. If you don't like it well... too bad so sad. I personally welcome a more socialist/authoritarian change.

easy solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4964194)

Cyberspace is a big fucking place that extends far beyond the borders of North America in all directions. Instead of "fortifying cyberspace" wouldn't it make more sense to just secure government machines?

I don't go out forcing everyone to do something one way or another or take over the internet when I can just put up a proxy, firewall and virus scanning on my own network.

Re:easy solution (1)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964424)

Didn't you hear? We're all a part of the government now. If Uncie Sam decides that your widget factory is part of the "national infrastructure", they get to come in and bully you around in the name of "securing" it. Everything from shit-burning plant down the street to the twinkie factory in Spokane is vital to the survival of our bloated government and must be Federalized.

Profit! (1)

Snover (469130) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964225)

Step 1: Create .kids.us domain to protect the children.
Step 2: Create a "National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace".
Step 3: Centralize the Internet.
Step 4: ? (InterNIC)
Step 5: Profit!

Shhhh! Don't tell the secret. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4964226)

We absolutely have to lock down cyberspace for national security. Just think what would happen if the terrorists found out that planting a nuke or anthrax bomb in Redmond Washington would be the worst possible thing they could do to the U.S. economy? Why if this important secret started flying loose around the internet Al Quida's people could find out and then all Americans would be totally screwed. My bunghole is puckering up just thinking about the unparalled consequences. So everyone make sure they keep quiet about how important it is for Redmond Washington to NOT be terrorist attacked!

Re:Shhhh! Don't tell the secret. (1)

aerojad (594561) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964316)

Actually there is a fairly signifigant portion of the geek community that would dance in the streets if Redmond, WA, was bombed (or at least one building in particular)... even if in the figurative sence :)

Re:Shhhh! Don't tell the secret. (1)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964429)

Dear God... sarcasm is dead.

Re:Shhhh! Don't tell the secret. (0, Flamebait)

norculf (146473) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964505)

I, for one, would not dance around in the street like an arabian terrorist if someone blew up a building. What a tragic loss of life for you to make light of. For shame.

well gone U.S. government (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4964265)

The United States Government appears to actually be taking a privacy issue seriously for once - it's on the front page of the White House [whitehouse.com] website.

They are clueless (1)

reillyeon (630166) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964279)

The truth in that the people who create these committies don't know what the fuck they are talking about. If they were any less clueless they wouldn't be having this discussion.

Toll Free??? (1)

lucifuge31337 (529072) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964311)

Members of the public interested in attending by telephone should call (toll free) 1-899-7785 or (toll) 1-913-312-4169

Huh?????

In Soviet Russia ... (0, Offtopic)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964368)

... the Internet secures YOU.

It's very simple... (5, Funny)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964370)

The new APPROVED United States Internet that all good citizens will use.. We will call it Americans Over Liberty or AOL for short. every good american will log into AOL and avoid that evil and unrestricted internet... because if you want information theway you want it you must be a terrorist right? well on the new AOL they will introduce a new system called Internment Management. all your communications are to be sent through the AOL IM client for approval by the AOL police before being sent along...

also all good citizens will get good clean approve advertisments every time they log in....

Secure CyberSex-huh? (1)

linuxislandsucks (461335) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964379)

oh I miss read it ..

now it probably will get ignored..

Phone Number? (1)

DarwinDan (596565) | more than 11 years ago | (#4964398)

Whats the deal with the toll-free number?? 1-899? Is this some sort of government scam? And why isn't the number complete: 1-899-7785? Someone please figure this out!

2 points. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4964446)

With all this securing the internet crap going on, you'd think there would be jobs for people who engineer computer (security) systems. (re: the story earlier today)

So Al Gore invented the Internet and now George Bush wants to own it?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?