If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Defense Magazine)   Pentagon wants to put all 15,000 of its network eggs in one cyber-basket   (nationaldefensemagazine.org) divider line 23
    More: Stupid, Martin Dempsey, Air Force Lt, U.S. European Command, US Cyber Command, security protocol, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, security architecture, Computer Crime  
•       •       •

5869 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Sep 2013 at 10:18 AM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



23 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-16 10:19:32 AM
I used to work in the network ops center for one of the major AF commands.  Every few years they do a lot of talking about this, but institutional inertia guarantees it will never happen.

Lots of pretty diagrams, lots of study groups and inter-service position papers.  Then after 4 years of no action, they start over again.  Helps get a lot of junior officers their MS theses, though.
 
2013-09-16 10:20:09 AM
Isn't this how Terminator 3 ended?
 
2013-09-16 10:26:13 AM
Do it!
 
2013-09-16 10:26:36 AM
So we should put each egg in its own basket?
 
2013-09-16 10:28:39 AM

dv-ous: Isn't this how Terminator 3 ended?


You were watching that on SyFy last night, too? Because I came to say exactly that.
 
2013-09-16 10:38:56 AM
www.federaljack.com

Approves
 
2013-09-16 10:48:49 AM
Seriously thinks that the NSA should reconsider...:
 
2013-09-16 10:51:07 AM
Gah!  The image was there in the preview...
static.guim.co.uk
 
2013-09-16 10:51:29 AM

dv-ous: Isn't this how Terminator 3 ended?


Yep. Chalk me up as another who came here to say this.
 
2013-09-16 10:59:57 AM
So, they want to make it easier for somebody like Bradley Manning?
 
2013-09-16 11:11:12 AM
Someone who is an expert in cyber security will have to correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't this increase the severity of leaks?  The article mentioned moving towards a standardized security architecture but if someone finds the way in to one wouldn't that mean that they have the way into others?  It sounds as though they are trying to make a system where in the event of one breech there would be guaranteed other breeches based on uniformity.
 
2013-09-16 11:16:15 AM
They're not thinking forward enough.  It's not only the security they should centralize, but the way they coordinate each branch of the military to work together.  What they really need is a centralized planning and coordinating system that can suggest appropriate responses to any conceivable military threat.  They could call it, i don't know, "War Operation Plan Response" or something like that.
 
2013-09-16 11:30:42 AM

Gergesa: Someone who is an expert in cyber security will have to correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't this increase the severity of leaks?  The article mentioned moving towards a standardized security architecture but if someone finds the way in to one wouldn't that mean that they have the way into others?  It sounds as though they are trying to make a system where in the event of one breech there would be guaranteed other breeches based on uniformity.


No.

Right now you have a bunch of people all making decisions based on poor data, non-existent data, pet peeves, and habit.

The "information architecture" means a standard set of terminology, decision-making trees, best practices, naming & config management rules, processes for reporting up the chain & sending directives down the chain.  It also means the ability to data-mine all the ongoing threats, attacks, breaches etc. so as to be able to identify emerging patterns.

It doesn't mean using the same equipment everywhere.
 
2013-09-16 11:36:55 AM

FrancoFile: Gergesa: Someone who is an expert in cyber security will have to correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't this increase the severity of leaks?  The article mentioned moving towards a standardized security architecture but if someone finds the way in to one wouldn't that mean that they have the way into others?  It sounds as though they are trying to make a system where in the event of one breech there would be guaranteed other breeches based on uniformity.

No.

Right now you have a bunch of people all making decisions based on poor data, non-existent data, pet peeves, and habit.

The "information architecture" means a standard set of terminology, decision-making trees, best practices, naming & config management rules, processes for reporting up the chain & sending directives down the chain.  It also means the ability to data-mine all the ongoing threats, attacks, breaches etc. so as to be able to identify emerging patterns.

It doesn't mean using the same equipment everywhere.


Ah good, I had the same feelings as Gergesa when I first read that.  Security through consolidation wah?  Thank you for clearing that up.
 
2013-09-16 11:38:30 AM

FrancoFile: Gergesa: Someone who is an expert in cyber security will have to correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't this increase the severity of leaks?  The article mentioned moving towards a standardized security architecture but if someone finds the way in to one wouldn't that mean that they have the way into others?  It sounds as though they are trying to make a system where in the event of one breech there would be guaranteed other breeches based on uniformity.

No.

Right now you have a bunch of people all making decisions based on poor data, non-existent data, pet peeves, and habit.

The "information architecture" means a standard set of terminology, decision-making trees, best practices, naming & config management rules, processes for reporting up the chain & sending directives down the chain.  It also means the ability to data-mine all the ongoing threats, attacks, breaches etc. so as to be able to identify emerging patterns.

It doesn't mean using the same equipment everywhere.


Ok then.  Thanks for clearing that up.
 
2013-09-16 11:51:22 AM
I'm actually involved with this project. No matter what the article says, the tech guys think it's impractical to impossible, and it's only being pushed through because the projected savings look really pretty on a spreadsheet and in PowerPoint briefings. It will never happen.
 
2013-09-16 12:05:00 PM
Oh for frak's sake, you DoD wonkenheimers did the same gods damn thing with the Space Shuttle, putting ALL your launch asset eggies in the STS basket, and then you ran away like a bunch of cowards after Challenger got her SRBs froze by idiot middle managers and blew up 70 seconds out.

Frak you guys.
 
2013-09-16 12:13:45 PM
[thinks it over]

Awright guys, nothin' personal.
 
2013-09-16 12:25:43 PM

ciberido: They're not thinking forward enough.  It's not only the security they should centralize, but the way they coordinate each branch of the military to work together.  What they really need is a centralized planning and coordinating system that can suggest appropriate responses to any conceivable military threat.  They could call it, i don't know, "War Operation Plan Response" or something like that.


That wouldn't work since the only way to win is to not play.
 
2013-09-16 01:10:14 PM
It's sort of the same with the power infrastructure in the US. People complain it's a hodgepodge of systems and say that makes it vulnerable when it is that very hodgepodge which makes it resilient.
 
2013-09-16 01:30:24 PM
Does Pearl Harbor ring a bell?
 
2013-09-16 01:37:20 PM

dv-ous: Isn't this how Terminator 3 ended?


done in two
 
2013-09-16 02:48:55 PM

Gergesa: Someone who is an expert in cyber security will have to correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't this increase the severity of leaks?  The article mentioned moving towards a standardized security architecture but if someone finds the way in to one wouldn't that mean that they have the way into others?  It sounds as though they are trying to make a system where in the event of one breech there would be guaranteed other breeches based on uniformity.


This will cut down on number of leaks. So mission accomplished for the general in charge.

/but as you noted increase the severity.
 
Displayed 23 of 23 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report