backtop


Print 29 comment(s) - last by JDHack42.. on Mar 19 at 3:55 PM

The Senate could pass a major cybersecurity bill, but still isn't on the same page as Silicon Valley

Senators John Rockefeller IV and Olympia J. Snowe have introduced a new bipartisan cybersecurity bill aimed at better protecting the U.S. government and vital infrastructure from cyber attacks.

The Senate has clashed with the tech industry regarding the widely-requested cybersecurity bill, especially since a previous draft of the cybersecurity bill included President Barack Obama receiving the power to shut down the internet if there was an immediate national security issue.

"The networks that American families and businesses rely on for basic day-to-day activities are being hacked and attacked every day," said Rockefeller, who is the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Chairman.  "At this very moment, sophisticated cyber enemies are trying to steal our identities, our money, our business innovations, and our national security secrets."

The government also wants to add an additional clause so that all cybersecurity professionals are certified, though Silicon Valley hasn't agreed to such an idea.

Cyber attacks from China and Eastern Europe have increased significantly, as security experts say the United States and other western targets have not properly responded.  Specifically, there is even higher concern that coordinated cyber attacks could cripple the U.S. power infrastructure, Wall Street, or another high-profile target.

The Chinese government is now reportedly controlling hacker groups that do whatever they're told in exchange for money and electronics.  The threat of other nations preparing cyber armies has also increased in the past 18 months, with sophistication expected to increase even more.



Comments     Threshold


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

Correction.
By porkpie on 3/18/2010 9:19:02 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
"At this very moment, sophisticated cyber enemies are trying to steal our identities, our money, our business innovations, and our national security secrets."
And this bill will do nothing whatsoever to prevent that.

It will, though, greatly expand the federal government's power over the Internet, and add another useless, wasteful level of bureaucracy.




RE: Correction.
By RaisedinUS on 3/18/2010 9:47:00 AM , Rating: 3
But, government intervention is supposed to give us a warm squishy feeling, isn't it?

Do I need a tag here?


RE: Correction.
By Reclaimer77 on 3/18/2010 9:56:43 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
President Barack Obama receiving the power to shut down the internet if there was an immediate national security issue.


This doesn't give ME a warm feeling...

Funny how this passed without a single WORD from the media. Can you imagine if Bush tried to get the power to shut the entire Internet down ?? He'd be called a Nazi and a fearmongerer.


RE: Correction.
By Ard on 3/18/2010 10:26:18 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Funny how this passed without a single WORD from the media.


It hasn't passed. It's simply being introduced. Give the media some time to actually digest it. It took them two weeks to start discussing the NBP after sites like DailyTech and Ars were already on the story.


RE: Correction.
By Reclaimer77 on 3/18/10, Rating: 0
RE: Correction.
By rmclean816 on 3/18/2010 2:17:14 PM , Rating: 1
mmm intelligent dialog
dur dur dur dur dur dur dur dur


RE: Correction.
By MrBlastman on 3/18/2010 10:50:40 AM , Rating: 2
The only thing that will stop our enemies from hacking our Government is... to allow citizens to legally hack back at other hostile countries. China comes to mind. If not legally allow it, perhaps put the word out that our government will "look the other way" if someone does it.

Defense only gets you so far. All defenses _will_ fail eventually. The only way you can ever conquer your enemy is true offense.

This is another useless bill.


RE: Correction.
By Reclaimer77 on 3/18/2010 12:03:00 PM , Rating: 2
I say we just set off a high atmospheric nuclear device over China and let EMP take it's course. Minimal to no fallout side effects, and NO more Chinese hackers.


RE: Correction.
By ekv on 3/18/2010 4:36:04 PM , Rating: 2
China has been developing an underground city for that last decade (or two). No, not the tunnels under Beijing. Another location. Remote. Satellite photo's suggest city size of about 60,000 people. [Judged by watching a series of photo's of trucks moving dirt, I'd guess]. Scientists, etc. Damn, can't find the article ... right now.

It is possible they took EMP into account [perhaps even direct hit]. Hey, they stole our nuclear weapons tech, maybe they read the EMP Threat Commission's public report. Lots of links there ... try
http://www.empactamerica.net/
There's even a company you can hire to help you design and build an EMP secure facility! 8)
http://emprimus.com/emp-iemi_the_threat/index.php

Lastly, keep in mind who is introducing the bill: Rockefeller and Snowe. I'm not saying they're trying to appease the current administration -- well, ok, I am 8) -- but it does appear to be more of the same gov't takeover naivete.


RE: Correction.
By porkpie on 3/18/2010 6:47:33 PM , Rating: 2
China has a large number of underground bases:

http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/0615ImagingN...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story...

Russia also has an underground base large enough for some 60,000 people in the Urals....and of course we have the 'Crystal Palace' of Cheyenne Mountain


RE: Correction.
By cruisin3style on 3/18/2010 3:30:21 PM , Rating: 2
Right, because Fox News is notorious for not covering Democrat craziness and/or goings-on.

Your extreme-right comments are tiresome and rarely completely in touch with reality

With that said, it doesn't appeal to me much either.


RE: Correction.
By Ammohunt on 3/18/2010 4:49:07 PM , Rating: 2
Why? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has the same power in his country...oh wait..


RE: Correction.
By siuol11 on 3/18/2010 6:47:33 PM , Rating: 2
But he was a liar and a fearmonger, and was rightly called out for it... So what's your point?


RE: Correction.
By rdawise on 3/18/2010 10:25:11 PM , Rating: 2
Come on Reclaimer, please read the article first before you put on your tin foil hat.

1. Has NOT passed.
2. Obama didn't introduce the bill. It was bi-partisan (gasp). So your analog fails there.

How did you get get voted up again?


RE: Correction.
By JDHack42 on 3/19/2010 3:55:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
President Barack Obama receiving the power to shut down the internet if there was an immediate national security issue.


Wasn't this the plot of some bad drama movie in the early 90's?


RE: Correction.
By killerclick on 3/18/2010 10:31:49 AM , Rating: 1
Your racism is showing.


RE: Correction.
By clovell on 3/18/2010 10:18:53 AM , Rating: 2
Wait - they want to pass a bill that gives the PUSA the power to shut down the internet? I'm at a complete loss for words - that's insane.


RE: Correction.
By Reclaimer77 on 3/18/2010 10:22:06 AM , Rating: 2
Look I'm ALL for security. But knowing how the Internet works, I can't imaging how it's possible for an attack to be SO multipronged, effective, and widespread that the ENTIRE 'net needs to be shut down. I mean, really ?


RE: Correction.
By geddarkstorm on 3/18/2010 1:22:20 PM , Rating: 2
But it sure makes a convenient excuse, eh?


RE: Correction.
By JediJeb on 3/19/2010 3:49:59 PM , Rating: 2
Because it is the only way a not tech person knows how to stop a cyber attack! Same people who freak out when their anti virus pops up and alert and they unplug the computer to stop it.


RE: Correction.
By BBeltrami on 3/18/2010 10:19:25 AM , Rating: 2
I'm just kind of numb, nowadays. Government is out of control and our leaders are living in some dreamland where the Government can do everything better... Financial, Real Estate, Medical, and now technological.

I'm glad the current government is looking out for my best interest... even if I'm too stupid to know it.


RE: Correction.
By HotFoot on 3/18/2010 12:00:15 PM , Rating: 2
Some old saying about liberty versus security comes to mind.

I can't agree with you more. Government should have internet security policies, and in extreme cases, maybe the ability to turn off their own switch. That would be like the IT guy at my company disconnecting our servers.

The internet is like the free press, in terms of free information exchange within a democracy. Does the government have the right to muzzle the press?


RE: Correction.
By porkpie on 3/18/2010 12:07:33 PM , Rating: 2
"Does the government have the right to muzzle the press?"

Lincoln managed to do it...and even jailed a few hundred newspaper editors to prove it.

But I would hope in this day and age, we've gone beyond that.


not really bipartisan
By rika13 on 3/18/2010 12:30:22 PM , Rating: 2
Snowe is a RINO, a Republican in name only, she's very liberal.

Hackers have been laughing at Feds for decades for their pervasive, systemic, and total incompetence in all areas of hacking.

What is needed is a crack team of NON-government industry volunteers to harden vital systems against attack using proven and effective security systems.

Good security isn't high tech crap, its good security practices.

Such practices include: USER TRAINING (users who do not respect security will find ways to break things), intelligent co-location and de-co-location, air gaps, and keeping only needed information on systems (keep classified data spread out across America, keep privileged systems separated, and co-locate publicly accessible non-secure data, such as the various public websites) , quality crypto (no bitlocker, at least AES), equipment checkout for on-premises use only and theft prevention (no more lost VA laptops), fingerprint scanners (all fed employees are printed anyway, no loss of privacy), defensive threat modeling (its easier to build a wall that stops "everything" than a wall that stops lots of individual things), single use disposable authorization codes (fucking World of Warcraft has this, the feds are getting served by a $15/mo GAME, with a $6 one-time cost authenticator), honeypots/nets, tarpits (latency is rarely important with federal data, only bandwidth), bad password spam lockouts (say 5 bad passwords locks out all logins from all connections for an hour, it'll stop an attack cold, but not seriously disrupt things, and people WILL call for help after the fourth attempt, because it'll piss off their co-workers), expanding use of sneakernet, whitelist-only access, physical security (door locks, port locks, device locks, did i mention locks?), non-attack counterattacks (informing people of botnets, why they slow their internet down [not the worthless "kiddie porn" excuse], and how to remove them and fight them, promoting freedom in China, etc., but not cyberwarfare), regular data backup and system reimaging from a trusted and up-to-date image

bells and whistles don't make things secure, its work and brains




RE: not really bipartisan
By rdawise on 3/18/2010 10:28:53 PM , Rating: 2
So let me get this straight, if a republican is liberal on ANY view, they are not true republicans?

You sir have described the main reason partisan politics fails. No one votes for what they believe, just the party. It's gang warfare in suits....


RE: not really bipartisan
By porkpie on 3/19/2010 12:54:26 AM , Rating: 2
"So let me get this straight"

Try again, as you failed the first time. By her voting record, Snowe is consistently ranked the most liberal Republican in the Senate, more liberal even than some Democratic senators such as Bayh or Nelson. It isn't just one issue, its a composite based on her views on a multitude of economic and social matters.


By Pneumothorax on 3/18/2010 9:11:03 AM , Rating: 2
This is why I like a different parties between branches of government. Gridlock=no new stupid federal laws=FTW!




*sigh*
By n0ebert on 3/18/2010 9:59:33 AM , Rating: 2
"The networks that American families and businesses rely on for basic day-to-day activities are being hacked and attacked every day,"

So the reaction is to shut it down to stop it? I take it they've not considered the economic issues that would result.

Typical fear mongering for more power over the internet. Our wonderful politicians have hated the fact that they have no control over the internet since it became a mainstream part of our lives.




Where is this bill?
By niva on 3/18/2010 2:36:00 PM , Rating: 2
Can you please provide links to the text of this bill?

It seems you're operating on rumor only.

Secondly, how can Barak Obama shut down the net? At best they can shut down the central servers in the internet backbone on US soil. The rest of the world will continue to operate just fine. The internet, is no longer something which is owned by the United States, it was in its very infantile stages only.

Still, very scary about the control our government is attempting to grasp.




"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins














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