5 ms·

UK to create new cyber defence force

29 points by Henn 13y ago

nezumi 13y ago
Sort of off-topic, but does it bug anyone else that the militaries and governments of the world continue to refer to 'cyberspace' as if 'cyber-' was current Internet jargon? (Whereas in reality I only see it used for that other thing we are supposed to be making instead of war...)
- DanBC 13y ago
  What other word would you use? Cyber is pretty clearly defined among the people who use it. Other words are not.
  - forktheif 13y ago
    Got to admit though, "cyber" sounds very 90s. Now excuse me as I continue surfing the information super highway!
    - DanBC 13y ago
      William Gibson's books are early 80s!!! (Burning Chrome, 1982)
    - rpc_was_taken 13y ago
      Or very 40s when Norbert Wiener published "Cybernetics, or Communication and Control in the Animal and the Machine".
  - alexwright 13y ago
    > Cyber is pretty clearly defined among the people who use it. Other words are not. Maybe the people using these terms (ie, people creating a "defence force" for the UK) should be more in touch with... more current lingo? Sure would give them at least a vague sense of credibility if they called this something more like an internet/network orientated security... force. On the otherhand, maybe these people having the massive tell of proclaiming "but this is CYBER." is a good thing? We know to dismiss what ever they're suggesting as uninformed and generally a terrible idea.
    - DanBC 13y ago
      > should be more in touch with... more current lingo? What is "more current lingo"? > an internet/network orientated security... force. It isn't Internet specific. It isn't just about networking.
    - walshemj 13y ago
      Well at one point one minster referred to recruiting "cyber Jedis" personaly I would stick to a short barreled M4 (piston variant) and a Glock plus a hold out derringer and a kukri as my bladed weapon choice. the names Howard bob Howard :-)
  - bostik 13y ago
    > What other word would you use? Maybe not a single word, but "technology and information warfare"?
    - walshemj 13y ago
      Going back to the ur source I woudl suggest "hardcore" for DA and "softcore" for recce and sigint type work :-) its a William Gibson reference for you youngsters
    - cmdkeen 13y ago
      Because information warfare is an entirely different, and existing, branch of the military. Think hearts and minds operations. They need a new term.
  - 7952 13y ago
    Non-geographic and abstract spaces defence force.
- lttlrck 13y ago
  Not really it's very well established and unambiguous.
- ihsw 13y ago
  Cyberspace is distinctly separate from meatspace.
- benologist 13y ago
  If only there was a way to hack their vocabulary and disrupt the way they say things!
EliRivers 13y ago
To be honest, they'll be lucky. I have some knowledge of the UK reserve forces, and right now there is a massive attempt to recruit as the government tries to switch its defence manning policy in a very, very short time. Unlike the US and Australia and various other modern forces (which have a much greater proportion of reserve forces), the UK has until very recently has a relatively small reserve forces. It's common in the US and other such for reserve forces to be part of the routine planning and deployment for operations; the UK has only recently been forced to think like this, principally due to the manning issues encountered in the Middle East over the last decade. Fifteen years ago (maybe even ten years ago, depending on which reserve force one joined), you could join the UK reserve forces and the general feeling was that one could easily go a few decades without being mobilised; now, people are told on joining to expect to be mobilised - it's routine. The US is a very warlike society, with a significant civilian buy-in to the idea of the armed forces and reserve forces. The UK, whilst as a nation just as busy travelling around the world to meet interesting people and shoot at them, does not have nearly such a civilian buy-in; there are already rumblings that reservists are just less attractive to employers on the grounds that they can be expected to disappear for nine months, and the employer is forced to hold their job open for them. This is clearly a big concern for the government, because they're trying to push the idea that employing a reservist brings advantages. Many employers seem... dubious that losing someone for nine months is worth the less tangible benefits. Some reserve forces are being asked to increase on the order of 50% in about 5 years; given that in the UK it can take three years (and sometimes more - five years isn't unheard of; I understand that in some nations, reservists might spend several weeks or even months doing all the initial training in a single block; that simply won't work in the UK unless civilian attitude to reservists undergoes a massive change) to take a new reserve recruit and make them deployable (on the "trained strength" as the vernacular goes) this is one hell of a recruitment target. The network infrastructure reservist branches are still in their infancy; in the British navy reserve, the branch is very, very new. They are still working out just what they're about. The kind of IT professional I anticipate they'll be trying to recruit will almost certainly feel a bit ripped off to be exercising their years of experience (for which, as contractors, they probably charge up to a hundred a day) on initial pay which, as I recall, is around 40 UKP a day, before tax etc. The initial basic training and militarisation can easily take a couple of years anyway, before they even start thinking about branching, so this might be something of a hard sell; "join us, and spend two years slogging around fields in the mud, and eventually we'll use your civilian skills at a much lower rate of pay than you get for them in your day job". Given that one of the main selling points of the reserve forces in the UK is that you get to do something a bit different, this is going to be a very hard sell.
ris 13y ago
Gravy train nonsense.
belorn 13y ago
While I hope that this force would focus their attention at serious crimes, nation's attacks against nations, and espionage, my inner cynic tells me that the primary target will be 16 year old kids who DDOS the web hosting company of a government website that happens to have been done by the lowest bidder. Basically sending the army after the nation's own kids.
- ihsw 13y ago
  Don't be naive, they'll be hacking into torrent websites in no time. The government is going to declare a variety of categories of targets that will be open game for sabotage and infiltration.
  - belorn 13y ago
    While that might be the future, I was more describing how things are today. Just a week ago, one of the largest public transport companies in Sweden got hit by a DDOS attack. Their website, ticket system, and other areas was effected for several days. It was presented in the news as a major cyber attack, likely originating from organized crimes in countries far far away. And then a website for 16 year olds "crackers" in Sweden came forth... I still see news articles lagging behind, still describing how government should deal with this "new" threat. All from secret police to anti-terrorist equipment, and I doubt that the military is that far behind in getting a piece of the increased budget pie.
spongle 13y ago
This isn't going to work. I worked in the defence industry for a couple of years in an IT capacity and I'm not joking, the guys who run the shop don't know arse from elbow. Everything is run army style i.e. procedurally and non established procedures, even if they mitigate realistic threats aren't considered or accepted. They're that bad that still to this day, there are NT4 and exchange 5.5 deployments hanging around because some clueless fuck hasn't had orders to fix it. What will happen here is they will create a team that will be written out of usefulness by procedure instantly and that is all.
- tikums 13y ago
  Any particular reason why they couldn't become as agile as IDF ISNU? http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/tr/contents/articles/business/2013/09/cyber-attack-hackers-idf.html http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/tr/contents/articles/busines...
  - spongle 13y ago
    Yes. This was the ministry of defence which somehow manages to fuck everything up on a galactic scale. They really didn't have the talent to pull that off.
ihsw 13y ago
One can only hope it's actually for defence, because there are already astronomical resources devoted to offence. Good defence requires clamping down all perimeter defences, and there are a lot. If they can get defence into good shape then they'll have achieved something worth admiring. In all likelihood the new military branch will focus on weaponizing zero-day exploits and licensing NSA's surveillance/analysis services, which is far less interesting.
amadeuspzs 13y ago
Good luck getting all the part-timers through DV!
- EliRivers 13y ago
  Will they need DV? It's not like they'll be handling anything particularly secret. The reservist intelligence branches seem to have no problem getting all their people through DV, although it does take bloody ages.
PaulAJ 13y ago
Are they going to protect us from the NSA? What about GCHQ?
- alexchamberlain 13y ago
  I suspect they'll be under orders from GCHQ...

29 points by Henn 13y ago

Sort of off-topic, but does it bug anyone else that the militaries and governments of the world continue to refer to 'cyberspace' as if 'cyber-' was current Internet jargon? (Whereas in reality I only see it used for that other thing we are supposed to be making instead of war...)

DanBC 13y ago
What other word would you use? Cyber is pretty clearly defined among the people who use it. Other words are not.
- forktheif 13y ago
  Got to admit though, "cyber" sounds very 90s. Now excuse me as I continue surfing the information super highway!
  - DanBC 13y ago
    William Gibson's books are early 80s!!! (Burning Chrome, 1982)
  - rpc_was_taken 13y ago
    Or very 40s when Norbert Wiener published "Cybernetics, or Communication and Control in the Animal and the Machine".
- alexwright 13y ago
  > Cyber is pretty clearly defined among the people who use it. Other words are not. Maybe the people using these terms (ie, people creating a "defence force" for the UK) should be more in touch with... more current lingo? Sure would give them at least a vague sense of credibility if they called this something more like an internet/network orientated security... force. On the otherhand, maybe these people having the massive tell of proclaiming "but this is CYBER." is a good thing? We know to dismiss what ever they're suggesting as uninformed and generally a terrible idea.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    > should be more in touch with... more current lingo? What is "more current lingo"? > an internet/network orientated security... force. It isn't Internet specific. It isn't just about networking.
  - walshemj 13y ago
    Well at one point one minster referred to recruiting "cyber Jedis" personaly I would stick to a short barreled M4 (piston variant) and a Glock plus a hold out derringer and a kukri as my bladed weapon choice. the names Howard bob Howard :-)
- bostik 13y ago
  > What other word would you use? Maybe not a single word, but "technology and information warfare"?
  - walshemj 13y ago
    Going back to the ur source I woudl suggest "hardcore" for DA and "softcore" for recce and sigint type work :-) its a William Gibson reference for you youngsters
  - cmdkeen 13y ago
    Because information warfare is an entirely different, and existing, branch of the military. Think hearts and minds operations. They need a new term.
- 7952 13y ago
  Non-geographic and abstract spaces defence force.
lttlrck 13y ago
Not really it's very well established and unambiguous.
ihsw 13y ago
Cyberspace is distinctly separate from meatspace.
benologist 13y ago
If only there was a way to hack their vocabulary and disrupt the way they say things!

EliRivers 13y ago

To be honest, they'll be lucky. I have some knowledge of the UK reserve forces, and right now there is a massive attempt to recruit as the government tries to switch its defence manning policy in a very, very short time. Unlike the US and Australia and various other modern forces (which have a much greater proportion of reserve forces), the UK has until very recently has a relatively small reserve forces. It's common in the US and other such for reserve forces to be part of the routine planning and deployment for operations; the UK has only recently been forced to think like this, principally due to the manning issues encountered in the Middle East over the last decade. Fifteen years ago (maybe even ten years ago, depending on which reserve force one joined), you could join the UK reserve forces and the general feeling was that one could easily go a few decades without being mobilised; now, people are told on joining to expect to be mobilised - it's routine. The US is a very warlike society, with a significant civilian buy-in to the idea of the armed forces and reserve forces. The UK, whilst as a nation just as busy travelling around the world to meet interesting people and shoot at them, does not have nearly such a civilian buy-in; there are already rumblings that reservists are just less attractive to employers on the grounds that they can be expected to disappear for nine months, and the employer is forced to hold their job open for them. This is clearly a big concern for the government, because they're trying to push the idea that employing a reservist brings advantages. Many employers seem... dubious that losing someone for nine months is worth the less tangible benefits. Some reserve forces are being asked to increase on the order of 50% in about 5 years; given that in the UK it can take three years (and sometimes more - five years isn't unheard of; I understand that in some nations, reservists might spend several weeks or even months doing all the initial training in a single block; that simply won't work in the UK unless civilian attitude to reservists undergoes a massive change) to take a new reserve recruit and make them deployable (on the "trained strength" as the vernacular goes) this is one hell of a recruitment target. The network infrastructure reservist branches are still in their infancy; in the British navy reserve, the branch is very, very new. They are still working out just what they're about. The kind of IT professional I anticipate they'll be trying to recruit will almost certainly feel a bit ripped off to be exercising their years of experience (for which, as contractors, they probably charge up to a hundred a day) on initial pay which, as I recall, is around 40 UKP a day, before tax etc. The initial basic training and militarisation can easily take a couple of years anyway, before they even start thinking about branching, so this might be something of a hard sell; "join us, and spend two years slogging around fields in the mud, and eventually we'll use your civilian skills at a much lower rate of pay than you get for them in your day job". Given that one of the main selling points of the reserve forces in the UK is that you get to do something a bit different, this is going to be a very hard sell.

ris 13y ago

Gravy train nonsense.

belorn 13y ago

While I hope that this force would focus their attention at serious crimes, nation's attacks against nations, and espionage, my inner cynic tells me that the primary target will be 16 year old kids who DDOS the web hosting company of a government website that happens to have been done by the lowest bidder. Basically sending the army after the nation's own kids.

ihsw 13y ago
Don't be naive, they'll be hacking into torrent websites in no time. The government is going to declare a variety of categories of targets that will be open game for sabotage and infiltration.
- belorn 13y ago
  While that might be the future, I was more describing how things are today. Just a week ago, one of the largest public transport companies in Sweden got hit by a DDOS attack. Their website, ticket system, and other areas was effected for several days. It was presented in the news as a major cyber attack, likely originating from organized crimes in countries far far away. And then a website for 16 year olds "crackers" in Sweden came forth... I still see news articles lagging behind, still describing how government should deal with this "new" threat. All from secret police to anti-terrorist equipment, and I doubt that the military is that far behind in getting a piece of the increased budget pie.

spongle 13y ago

This isn't going to work. I worked in the defence industry for a couple of years in an IT capacity and I'm not joking, the guys who run the shop don't know arse from elbow. Everything is run army style i.e. procedurally and non established procedures, even if they mitigate realistic threats aren't considered or accepted. They're that bad that still to this day, there are NT4 and exchange 5.5 deployments hanging around because some clueless fuck hasn't had orders to fix it. What will happen here is they will create a team that will be written out of usefulness by procedure instantly and that is all.

tikums 13y ago
Any particular reason why they couldn't become as agile as IDF ISNU? http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/tr/contents/articles/business/2013/09/cyber-attack-hackers-idf.html http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/tr/contents/articles/busines...
- spongle 13y ago
  Yes. This was the ministry of defence which somehow manages to fuck everything up on a galactic scale. They really didn't have the talent to pull that off.

ihsw 13y ago

One can only hope it's actually for defence, because there are already astronomical resources devoted to offence. Good defence requires clamping down all perimeter defences, and there are a lot. If they can get defence into good shape then they'll have achieved something worth admiring. In all likelihood the new military branch will focus on weaponizing zero-day exploits and licensing NSA's surveillance/analysis services, which is far less interesting.

amadeuspzs 13y ago

Good luck getting all the part-timers through DV!

EliRivers 13y ago
Will they need DV? It's not like they'll be handling anything particularly secret. The reservist intelligence branches seem to have no problem getting all their people through DV, although it does take bloody ages.

PaulAJ 13y ago

Are they going to protect us from the NSA? What about GCHQ?

alexchamberlain 13y ago
I suspect they'll be under orders from GCHQ...