backtop


Print 24 comment(s) - last by Shida.. on Dec 29 at 12:43 PM

While the U.S. may be unprepared for cyber assault, the DHS secretary showed some love to President Bush

The U.S., amid an unprecedented foreign cyber attack threat level, has been exposed as not having a cohesive plan for cyber defense.  Recent studies warned that massive and expensive overhaul was needed, and a recent war game showed key government and industry players to be lost when it came to a major cyber attack.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, a member of the Bush administration, at the war games warned participants of dire consequences if the U.S. cyber efforts did not improve.  However, he was on hand this week to praise President George W. Bush's track record with cyber security.

Secretary Chertoff said that the Bush administration was endowing incoming President-elect Barack Obama with "
some momentum" on the cyber security front.  At the end of last week's war games, Secretary Chertoff commented, "I think we've done an awful lot in a relatively short period of time, as, you know, government work goes and while there's much more to be done, I think we've teed up, so the next administration has some momentum and I will encourage them in any way I can to continue to move it forward."

A critical advance, he stated, was President Bush's confidential orders in January pushing for the DHS and the National Security Agency to expand cyber security efforts.  He added, "Obviously, this is a work in progress, but it is one which builds upon a shared relationship of trust and experience, which we have seen work in the physical realm and one of the reasons we have to work across the entire domain of our relationships with the private sector is because the needs of each sector differ in terms of what their concerns are from a cyber-security standpoint."

He called for an increase in intelligence agency monitoring of civilian networks.  He argued, "The cyber-security threat isn't only one that occurs at the level of traditional nation states and traditional conflicts.  It occurs with respect to terrorism, where we know that a cyber-terrorist attack could have a potentially very, very serious impact on the safety and well-being of our citizens.  And even common criminals have done an enormous amount of damage using the cyber-system to exploit our vulnerabilities in order to make money."

Supply chains and inside job attacks are two critical areas for improvement, he believes.  He breaks down cyber attacks into three categories:  hackers who steal information, threats that would degrade or destroy the ability to actually engage in activities over the Internet, and inside corruption of the process.

He describes, "Not an attack that necessarily destroys a system, but that simply corrupts it or changes it in a way that makes it unusable and undermines confidence and trust.  And here, although it hasn't happened to my knowledge, imagine a circumstance where a terrorist attacked our financial system and simply altered the data in a way that left people with a lack of confidence that they could get accurate information or access to their assets."

The Secretary says that the newly created Cyber Security Working Group, which draws government representatives from 18 critical infrastructure and key resource sectors, has been critical to coordinating and improving defenses.

According to Secretary Chertoff, the top areas of focus are chemical, IT, and banking and finance sectors, as these represent critical U.S. industries that could have a disruptive effect on defense and the U.S. economy if compromised.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

If Chertoff says it, it must be true
By wolfwood on 12/26/2008 12:44:23 PM , Rating: 5
If Chertoff says his boss is doing great, who are we to question that? You're doing a heck of a job, Bushie.




RE: If Chertoff says it, it must be true
By codeThug on 12/26/2008 1:33:02 PM , Rating: 1
We should question everything a dual citizen says and does. Especially if the other citizenship is from Israel. Who's side is this guy on? Id like to know.


By codeThug on 12/26/2008 1:49:46 PM , Rating: 3
all your base are belong to us


RE: If Chertoff says it, it must be true
By protosv on 12/26/2008 3:57:52 PM , Rating: 5
What the hell does Israel have to do with this? If anything Israel is responsible for providing a major portion of the United States' intelligence for the entire Middle East Region. Hell, I don't like Chertoff either, and I'm just as pissed at Bush as the next sane person, but I can't see how Israel has anything to do with this?


By codeThug on 12/28/2008 8:51:15 PM , Rating: 2
if you haven't already figured it out, you will.


By foolsgambit11 on 12/26/2008 6:00:40 PM , Rating: 2
Does he carry an Israeli passport? Has he ever exercised his Israeli citizenship? I find that he was 'Born in the U.S.A'. He went to school in New Jersey, then attended Harvard University. He spent a year in London at the LSE. Then he went to work in the Law for the U.S. government.

In other words, as best I can tell, he's a second generation immigrant (or is that first generation, when your parents are immigrants?). I can't find any evidence of personal ties to Israel. What is more, he received a security clearance for his government job - which means that they checked on dual citizenship and his ties to foreign countries. Here's what the State Department says about security clearances and dual citizenship (the rules are the same for DoD (where I held a TS clearance), and all other branches, as far as I can tell):

Guideline C:
Foreign Preference

9. The Concern. When an individual acts in such a way as to indicate a preference for a foreign country over the United States, then he or she may be prone to provide information or make decisions that are harmful to the interests of the United States.

10. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

(a) exercise of any right, privilege or obligation of foreign citizenship after becoming a U.S. citizen or through the foreign citizenship of a family member. This includes but is not limited to:

(1) possession of a current foreign passport;

(2) military service or a willingness to bear arms for a foreign country;

(3) accepting educational, medical,
retirement, social welfare, or other such benefits from a foreign country;

(4) residence in a foreign country to meet citizenship requirements;

(5) using foreign citizenship to protect financial or business interests in another country;

(6) seeking or holding political office in a foreign country;

(7) voting in a foreign election;

(b) action to acquire or obtain recognition of a foreign citizenship by an American citizen;

(c) performing or attempting to perform duties, or otherwise acting, so as to serve the interests of a foreign person, group, organization, or government in conflict with the national security interest;

(d) any statement or action that shows allegiance to a country other than the United States: for example, declaration of intent to renounce United States citizenship; renunciation of United States citizenship.

11. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

(a) dual citizenship is based solely on parents' citizenship or birth in a foreign country;

(b) the individual has expressed a willingness to renounce dual citizenship;

(c) exercise of the rights, privileges, or obligations of foreign citizenship occurred before the individual became a U.S. citizen or when the individual was a minor;

(d) use of a foreign passport is approved by the cognizant security authority;

(e) the passport has been destroyed, surrendered to the cognizant security authority, or otherwise invalidated;

(f) the vote in a foreign election was encouraged by the United States Government.


By luseferous on 12/26/2008 3:41:15 PM , Rating: 2
Well someone somewhere has to approve of something that GWB does by the law of averages. Bravo for finding him.


RE: If Chertoff says it, it must be true
By nothingtoseehere on 12/27/2008 9:49:10 PM , Rating: 2
Right, the same Chertoff who, after Katrina, went in front of TV camera's to say that they never could have foreseen that two disasters would happen together, the hurricane and the levees breaching... duh... What else in the world did he think hurricanes do to levees? The mere fact he has been able to keep his position after that has led me to lose all faith in politics.


By Dasickninja on 12/28/2008 3:26:00 PM , Rating: 3
Took you that long?


Goodbye $@$!!!$
By fri2219 on 12/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: Goodbye $@$!!!$
By therealnickdanger on 12/26/2008 12:55:56 PM , Rating: 4
And people say civil discourse is dead!


RE: Goodbye $@$!!!$
By austinag on 12/26/2008 1:14:09 PM , Rating: 4
Wow. So much hate packed into 4 1/2 sentences. you really took failing to qualify in that 100 yard dash you mentioned hard didn't you?


RE: Goodbye $@$!!!$
By hiscross on 12/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: Goodbye $@$!!!$
By majBUZZ on 12/26/2008 10:14:07 PM , Rating: 5
Extremism of any kind is dangerous just look at what the Neo cons did to the Republican party or the liberal elite did to the Democrats, The extremist Taliban or Al-Qaeda whats thier big issue? supressing thoughts that are not like thier own. Sonetimes you have to just agree to disagree.

We live in much to complex and interconnected world to have such extreme polarizing points of view, people outa just step back take a breath and try to use logic and critical thinking to address issues instead of reactionary bullshit.


RE: Goodbye $@$!!!$
By AlexWade on 12/26/2008 8:32:55 PM , Rating: 4
I'm not which is worse: our current President has one of the lowest approval ratings ever, or that our current Congress has an even lower approval rating than said President. Our Congress had an approval rating as low as 9%.


RE: Goodbye $@$!!!$
By FaceMaster on 12/27/08, Rating: -1
Trying to keep out of trouble
By toyotabedzrock on 12/27/2008 2:57:42 PM , Rating: 1
This is nothing more than an attempt to get on Bushes good side. He helped with the warrantless wiretapping and knows the Obama administration plans to stop that kinda of criminal abuse of power.




RE: Trying to keep out of trouble
By stilltrying on 12/28/2008 12:13:39 AM , Rating: 2
WAKE UP. Do you think Obama is gonna change anything. You and the rest of America have been fooled by Obamas hypnotic change doctrine. I mean seriously have you been reading the news on who his administration consists of? WAKE UP. Until Americans realize that there is only one party with two different names then Americans are doomed to miss the tyranny of both.


RE: Trying to keep out of trouble
By taber on 12/28/2008 3:59:45 PM , Rating: 2
"then Americans are doomed to miss the tyranny of both."

I don't see the doom in that. It sounds good to me, no reason to wake up based on that logic.


so, ok
By MrPoletski on 12/27/2008 11:24:15 AM , Rating: 2
did he actually do something right or is this just a load of cobblers? haha




Conflict of interest?
By taber on 12/27/2008 6:47:23 PM , Rating: 2
I personally see several conflicts of interest in this being meaningful. I generally say nice things to my boss in hopes of getting more money and keep my job, which is the same situation here.

What exactly does the government do in cyber security anyhow? Outside of securing their own systems, what do they do? It's not like they do security for companies, nor would I want them to. The private sector consistently outperforms the government in anything both try because the desire for profit is so strong.

I won't sleep any better at night knowing the government has the ability to control any access to the internet. There's a fine line between censorship and security in this case. I'm fine with living in a slightly less secure world to feel more secure about my freedoms.




By Integral9 on 12/29/2008 9:43:59 AM , Rating: 2
Wow. This man does a 180 faster than a stock car spinning out at Daytona. It was just last week his department basically kicked in the proverbial front door to the network that he is now claiming as a bit of momentum for the new administration...
http://www.dailytech.com/War+Games+Show+US+to+Be+S...




Excuse me for being paranoid but...
By Shida on 12/29/2008 12:43:17 PM , Rating: 2
Why do I have an uncomfortable feeling that this could lead to some Orwellian legislation to pass where we, for the sake of cyber security and interest of the nation, are to have, on top of this survalliance that Chertoff suggests, some other device or thing that's needed for national economic "security"?

It almost reminds me Revelation 13:16-17 really. I mean what it almost, maybe possibly ridiculiously in some other form, could happen if the masses are as mindless as cattle.

*shrugs* whatever. Faith in people making wise decisions as a nation? Please. Maybe Hamilton was right in the end after all as far as things are going.




"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki