4 ms·

No, it's not awful. What the hell is Cyber Command actually trying to do? The NSA's IAD has long had responsibility for securing classified networks (and done a

by rsingel 16y ago

No, it's not awful. What the hell is Cyber Command actually trying to do? The NSA's IAD has long had responsibility for securing classified networks (and done a damn good job at it). Cyber command is not about defense. It's about a move to militarize the internet. Too bad the security community is only too happy to jump on the bandwagon for the federal dollars, rather than countering that the military has no business creating an arms race on the net.

tptacek 16y ago
I find the notion that any branch of the government has done a good job securing sensitive networks pretty much laughable. Since you could mean a lot of different things by "classified networks", I'm happy to concede your specific point while reiterating that you haven't addressed the core issue. (I've done network security stuff for DoD and for some agencies, but you may have more experience on the classified side than I do, and what relevant experience I have I'm not going to give up to Hacker News and the Google index.) And again: the NSA has done absolutely nothing to ensure that adversaries can't shut the power down in major cities, disrupt the GSM infrastructure, or cause billions of dollars in economic damages by messing with electronic markets. And again: we have no specific knowledge that any branch of the military or intelligence has that capability to inflict on an adversary today. Is there substantial overlap here with NSA? I'm 100% sure there is. But NSA is managed very differently than DoD.
- jawn 16y ago
  What is the real life risk to lack of GSM coverage? Is it really just millions of nerds without iphone (cell) access? Is any of the electric grid even publicly accessible over the internet? Surely there isn't a big "off" button for the power grid, as its quite a distrubted system... Furthermore I really doubt the infrastructure for these is publicly accessible over the internet. Even so, it seems like physical security would go a much longer way than network in the case of utilities. As for markets, well there is a tiny agency called the SEC. Either way this security is a cost to be borne by industry...Not ran by state military agencies. Let's just call this for what it is, a power grab for defense/infosec contractors, and career officers. :) To that end I'm not surprised to see it so vehemently defended by infosec professionals.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    No. The real-life risk to lack of GSM coverage is that people can't use the phones during emergencies, and that a huge variety of industrial and municipal control networks that piggyback on commercial GSM networks will be rendered inoperable. As for the markets, what does the SEC do when they get shut down by an electronic attack, other than hold a press conference? And yes. I'm pretty sure you should just take my word for it on the utilities stuff.
    - jawn 16y ago
      From what I remember, during 9/11 the cell networks in NY were unusable due to capacity, should the DoD be implementing capacity guidlines as well, should we budget trillions so the DoD can buy more spectrum for cell carriers? Do CB radios suddenly stop working? As for the power companies, I'm sure thats why they hire security professionals like yourself :). The SEC provides regulations. Billions don't need to be sunk by defense agencies on what is essentially a regulation issue. A lot of these doomsday scenarios are bullshit. The world ran fine without cell phones and the internet, it'll run just as fine without it for a little while. Aside from a medical case here and there, noone is going to die and no country will dissolve as a result of being hacked on the internet or even being without power for a little while.
      - tptacek 16y ago
        All I can say is that you have strong opinions about telephony, the markets, and the utilities for someone who has clearly never spent time working with the backend systems of phone companies, exchanges, and power companies. But yes, regulations would be nice. That way, after a foreign power we've pissed off by parking aircraft carriers in their shipping lanes decides to inflict tens of billions of dollars of damage on us with a a few hours keyboarding, we can at least try to sue someone.
        jawn 16y ago
        You touch on it with the carrier point; so let me get to the real core of my argument. Electronic or financial damage is nothing compared to the ability to level entire nations physically. Any financial/electronic threat has a suitable recourse physically.

by rsingel 16y ago

tptacek 16y ago

I find the notion that any branch of the government has done a good job securing sensitive networks pretty much laughable. Since you could mean a lot of different things by "classified networks", I'm happy to concede your specific point while reiterating that you haven't addressed the core issue. (I've done network security stuff for DoD and for some agencies, but you may have more experience on the classified side than I do, and what relevant experience I have I'm not going to give up to Hacker News and the Google index.) And again: the NSA has done absolutely nothing to ensure that adversaries can't shut the power down in major cities, disrupt the GSM infrastructure, or cause billions of dollars in economic damages by messing with electronic markets. And again: we have no specific knowledge that any branch of the military or intelligence has that capability to inflict on an adversary today. Is there substantial overlap here with NSA? I'm 100% sure there is. But NSA is managed very differently than DoD.

jawn 16y ago
What is the real life risk to lack of GSM coverage? Is it really just millions of nerds without iphone (cell) access? Is any of the electric grid even publicly accessible over the internet? Surely there isn't a big "off" button for the power grid, as its quite a distrubted system... Furthermore I really doubt the infrastructure for these is publicly accessible over the internet. Even so, it seems like physical security would go a much longer way than network in the case of utilities. As for markets, well there is a tiny agency called the SEC. Either way this security is a cost to be borne by industry...Not ran by state military agencies. Let's just call this for what it is, a power grab for defense/infosec contractors, and career officers. :) To that end I'm not surprised to see it so vehemently defended by infosec professionals.
- tptacek 16y ago
  No. The real-life risk to lack of GSM coverage is that people can't use the phones during emergencies, and that a huge variety of industrial and municipal control networks that piggyback on commercial GSM networks will be rendered inoperable. As for the markets, what does the SEC do when they get shut down by an electronic attack, other than hold a press conference? And yes. I'm pretty sure you should just take my word for it on the utilities stuff.
  - jawn 16y ago
    From what I remember, during 9/11 the cell networks in NY were unusable due to capacity, should the DoD be implementing capacity guidlines as well, should we budget trillions so the DoD can buy more spectrum for cell carriers? Do CB radios suddenly stop working? As for the power companies, I'm sure thats why they hire security professionals like yourself :). The SEC provides regulations. Billions don't need to be sunk by defense agencies on what is essentially a regulation issue. A lot of these doomsday scenarios are bullshit. The world ran fine without cell phones and the internet, it'll run just as fine without it for a little while. Aside from a medical case here and there, noone is going to die and no country will dissolve as a result of being hacked on the internet or even being without power for a little while.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      All I can say is that you have strong opinions about telephony, the markets, and the utilities for someone who has clearly never spent time working with the backend systems of phone companies, exchanges, and power companies. But yes, regulations would be nice. That way, after a foreign power we've pissed off by parking aircraft carriers in their shipping lanes decides to inflict tens of billions of dollars of damage on us with a a few hours keyboarding, we can at least try to sue someone.
      - jawn 16y ago
        You touch on it with the carrier point; so let me get to the real core of my argument. Electronic or financial damage is nothing compared to the ability to level entire nations physically. Any financial/electronic threat has a suitable recourse physically.