4 ms·

If this article is actually indicative of how our electronic security is being managed, the United States is in serious trouble. "It was supposed to be a war f

by jcnnghm 16y ago

If this article is actually indicative of how our electronic security is being managed, the United States is in serious trouble. "It was supposed to be a war fighter unit, not a geek unit," said task force veteran Jason Healey, who had served as an Air Force signals intelligence officer. A fighter would understand, for instance, if an enemy had penetrated the networks and changed coordinates or target times, said Dusty Rhoads, a retired Air Force colonel and former F-117 pilot who recruited the original task force members. "A techie wouldn't have a clue," he said. Unfortunately, it's unlikely that the warrior would either know how to defend the network, or that it was penetrated at all. The skills necessary for electronic security are so far removed from physical security that the implication that someone that had been involved with physical security would somehow have a better understanding is ludicrous on its face.

dkarl 16y ago
The key point: In the world of defending military networks, it takes fighters - not merely techies - to do the job. All that means is you need someone with domain knowledge. You need someone who can recognize non-technical signs of infiltration, who knows the value of different targets, and who knows the consequences of a particular system being compromised at a particular time. For military work, that means "fighters." The military's mistake, if indeed they're making this mistake, is taking it for granted that the best way to create good leaders and decision-makers is to train military guys in computer security, when they really need to open it up from both sides. Anybody who writes software in business knows that the really effective people who understand the technical and domain ends well enough to coordinate them emerge from both sides of the business, not just from the technical side and not just from the domain side. P.S. I would be most alarmed by the small size of the Cyber Command, but I assume it's misinformation.
- count 16y ago
  RE: The size. The Cyber Command is a combatant command (like CENTCOM or AFRICOM) - just a staff/HQ organization. It directs the service components (US Navy Cyber Command, US Air Force Cyber Command, etc.) to actually DO things for it. It won't typically staff actual workerbees - only planning and coordination type personnel, not hackers and firewall geeks.
rick_2047 16y ago
apart from what dkarl said, the geeks tend to take the moral high ground (at least the good onces). They cannot and will not be able to have that military approach towards this. I am just saying if you were told that your algorithm will be used to kill a few hundred people, most of the geeks will be caught in a moral jam b/w their patriotic duties and there self righteousness.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  On the other hand, deploying a virus to bring Iran's nuclear enrichment effort to an undignified halt sounds enormously preferable to the alternatives of bombing it or getting into a shooting war. From a historical perspective I can see why Iran would have a chip on its shoulder, a violent distrust of the west, and the belief that nuclear weapons are the only credible path to long-term security. I see no point in antagonizing them for another generation or two. On the other hand, theocratic dictatorships have a bad track record, and the regime's political autonomy has came at the expense of its citizens'. Impeding their progress at no cost in human life or political capital is a win in my view, both strategically and ethically. I agree that many situations are far more ambiguous. If you asked me to shut down a hospital on the premise that it would destabilize a rotten corrupt regime, I would be skeptical of whether the hoped-for benefit outweighed the certainty of harm. Geopolitics is not an idealists' pursuit, but we can do better than select optimistic expediency as our guiding strategy.

by jcnnghm 16y ago

dkarl 16y ago

The key point: In the world of defending military networks, it takes fighters - not merely techies - to do the job. All that means is you need someone with domain knowledge. You need someone who can recognize non-technical signs of infiltration, who knows the value of different targets, and who knows the consequences of a particular system being compromised at a particular time. For military work, that means "fighters." The military's mistake, if indeed they're making this mistake, is taking it for granted that the best way to create good leaders and decision-makers is to train military guys in computer security, when they really need to open it up from both sides. Anybody who writes software in business knows that the really effective people who understand the technical and domain ends well enough to coordinate them emerge from both sides of the business, not just from the technical side and not just from the domain side. P.S. I would be most alarmed by the small size of the Cyber Command, but I assume it's misinformation.

count 16y ago
RE: The size. The Cyber Command is a combatant command (like CENTCOM or AFRICOM) - just a staff/HQ organization. It directs the service components (US Navy Cyber Command, US Air Force Cyber Command, etc.) to actually DO things for it. It won't typically staff actual workerbees - only planning and coordination type personnel, not hackers and firewall geeks.

rick_2047 16y ago

apart from what dkarl said, the geeks tend to take the moral high ground (at least the good onces). They cannot and will not be able to have that military approach towards this. I am just saying if you were told that your algorithm will be used to kill a few hundred people, most of the geeks will be caught in a moral jam b/w their patriotic duties and there self righteousness.

anigbrowl 16y ago
On the other hand, deploying a virus to bring Iran's nuclear enrichment effort to an undignified halt sounds enormously preferable to the alternatives of bombing it or getting into a shooting war. From a historical perspective I can see why Iran would have a chip on its shoulder, a violent distrust of the west, and the belief that nuclear weapons are the only credible path to long-term security. I see no point in antagonizing them for another generation or two. On the other hand, theocratic dictatorships have a bad track record, and the regime's political autonomy has came at the expense of its citizens'. Impeding their progress at no cost in human life or political capital is a win in my view, both strategically and ethically. I agree that many situations are far more ambiguous. If you asked me to shut down a hospital on the premise that it would destabilize a rotten corrupt regime, I would be skeptical of whether the hoped-for benefit outweighed the certainty of harm. Geopolitics is not an idealists' pursuit, but we can do better than select optimistic expediency as our guiding strategy.