Best offers
Exclusive Interview: Nvidia's Ian Buck Talks GPGPU
With Snow Leopard and Windows 7 both offering GPGPU capabilities, we wanted to talk to Nvidia's Ian Buck. Not only is he one of the fathers of Brook, the programming language ultimately adopted by AMD/ATI, but the head of Nvidia's CUDA group as well. Read More
-
Beamforming: The Best WiFi You’ve Never Seen
Forget 802.11n Draft 2.0. The future of video-capable WiFi depends on a signal-boosting technique called beamforming. We put the pioneers in this frontier through some real-world testing to find out which technology is going to change the wireless world. Read More
-
Exclusive Interview: Going Three Levels Beyond Kernel Rootkits
Today we have the pleasure of chatting with Joanna Rutkowska, one of the top computing security innovators in the world. She is the founder and CEO of Invisible Things Lab (ITL), a boutique computer security consulting and research firm. Read More
Partners
The Games selection
crazy :
PC Breakdown
What is worst than a Fatal Error occuring during a game you did not save? Unleash your rage at your PC in this game. Blow it to pieces, it feels so...
|
kids :
Bob
Throw bubbles so as to make the ones that appear in the game disappear. For this, use the Right / Left arrow keys to duck or move about, and the...
|
Sponsored links
Dept. of Defense to Announce Cyber Command
Next news- Email |
- Print |
- Comments (37) |
- Share
Earlier in the week, we published a report detailing a breach of Pentagon security that saw cyber-spies make off with terabytes of data from the Joint Strike Fighter program, the U.S. Department of Defense’s most expensive weapons program to date.
Many of you questioned how this could even happen and criticized the DoD’s attitude toward cyber threats. Reports today say the government is endeavoring to step up its game when it comes to protecting against online attacks and will soon appoint a specific command dedicated to overseeing cybersecurity. WSJ reports that Defense Secretary Robert Gates plans to announce the creation of a new military "cyber command" after the rollout of the White House review.
Citing National Security Agency Director and three-star army general Keith Alexander, the Journal says the NSA is calling for a "team" approach to cybersecurity that would see the NSA take care of protecting military and intelligence networks while the Department of Homeland Security protected government networks.
What do you guys think of this news? Yesterday nearly all of you agreed that the government needed to pick up the pace when it came to hacking and cyber threats. We look forward to a more structured team dedicated to keeping the our military and government data safe. Lets hope at least one member of this team will notice if terabytes of data start walking out the door. Leave your thoughts below!
Source : Tom's Hardware US
Sponsored links
Related articles
-
Storage and Security On the Go: 6 External Hard Drives
Today's users need ever-increasing amounts of storage. Furthermore, they need that storage to be portable and secure. We tested 6 external hard drive units using a variety of drive sizes and interfaces, many featuring fingerprint sensors or DES encryption for security. How do they measure up?
-
Security with Ease: Accordance ARAID 2000
This compact, easily-installed system provides RAID 1 support without configuration. The ARAID 2000 supports two hard drives, and works completely without drivers.
-
High-Security Flash Storage
It's not the fastest, sleekest or smallest USB drive, but Corsair's Survivor offers 32 GB of capacity, security features and a waterproof design.
Seems to me that there planning is a bit backwards!...
To say something like "the U.S. Department of Defense’s most expensive weapons program to date" and then to have gaping security holes (as it sounds) after actually having data that needs to be secured seems just ridiculous to me!
Why do these companies that have government contacts have such sensitive data on computers that can see the general internet? This is what makes no sense to me.
I meant to say "government contracts".
because they are morons
wait... We didn't have any type of cyber security before? It was just sort of whatever security measures the project leader happened to think of? What are we in? the 50's?
by the way its not just them, banks and others are doing transactions over the internet, so just keep that in mind when you go to your atm machine and do something. the servers are on the internet open to anyone.
If toms followed up on the story it seems it was bogus. Every other news service says it didn't happen and it was just a few overzealous people inside the company and in the government that went all sensationalist. It didn't happen.
As to the cyber command... we already have one in the air force this must be a DOD level one (though they have that already too). Gee good thing Obama knows how the government works authorizing all this wasteful spending.
They should get on time warners tier program so they know when they reach 100 gb of data transfer.
If toms followed up on the story it seems it was bogus. Every other news service says it didn't happen and it was just a few overzealous people inside the company and in the government that went all sensationalist. It didn't happen.As to the cyber command... we already have one in the air force this must be a DOD level one (though they have that already too). Gee good thing Obama knows how the government works authorizing all this wasteful spending.
Don't forget congress, their the ones that put forth and approve most spending, not the president. But that's besides the point.
How can you think more cyber security is a "waste" of spending? IMHO the more people we have to defend against cyber threats the better.
Considering that America as a whole is almost fully dependent on the internet I can't see how anyone could think that more security is a "Waste of spending" when it comes to defending the internet and it's users.
Why do these companies that have government contacts have such sensitive data on computers that can see the general internet? This is what makes no sense to me.
What do you think the name "Joint Strike Fighter" indicates. This is a program that will assist the United Kingdom, Norway, Australia, Canada, and Italy in replacing their aged fighters.
because they are morons
.......I'm not even going to dignify that with a response.
Don't they already have security analysts and threat experts? I sense some Draconian surveleiance extending beyond the DoD's intranet with this one.
What we need is a serious overhaul of our physical infrastructure with security in mind. Its like Zavoi said in the interview, a dedicated team of hackers able to shut down the entire internet in the US in ~30 minutes (which i have no doubt is true). Thats just madness.
Its like Zavoi said in the interview, a dedicated team of hackers able to shut down the entire internet in the US in ~30 minutes (which i have no doubt is true). Thats just madness.
Doubtful. Cut the US from the rest of the web? Possible but still doubtful. We are not that insecure. If that was possible the 100,000s of the Chinese hackers would of done it long ago.
Why do these companies that have government contacts have such sensitive data on computers that can see the general internet? This is what makes no sense to me.
Because that's what the internet was for, not for us to sit around and poke fun at them.
Geeze you people. Do some research before you post:
http://www.jsf.mil/program/prog_intl.htm
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program is an Internationally oriented program consisting of partnerships with a number of countries. See below for links to the transcripts of the signing ceremonies of the official partnership of each of the programs cooperating partners:
United Kingdom (signed 17 Jan 2001 for $2B)
Italy (signed 24 Jun 2002 for $1B)
Netherlands (signed 17 Jun 2002 for $800M)
Turkey (signed 11 Jun 2002 for $175M)
Canada (signed 7 Feb 2002 for $150M)
Australia* (signed 31 Oct 2002 for $150M)
Denmark (signed 28 May 2002 for $125M)
Norway* (signed 20 Jun 2002 for $125M)
I say we throw a bunch of money at it and hope to god no one steals anymore. That fixes everything :0
BTW the F-35 is awsome...
The F-35 JSF program is a replacement for the aging F-16, F/A-18, A-6 Intruder (which has already been retired), and the AV-*B Harrier, depending on whether it is the Air Force, Navy or Marine Corps variant. It also will give the Navy something stealthy, since every previous stealth program they have proposed has been canned. The version sold to foreign governments will be missing most of the stealth features, namely by missing the radar-absorbent material, but stealth functions inherent to the airframe design will remain.
Of interest on a computer technology site like here is that the F-22 and F-35 are sealthy but have a curved design, unlike the F-117. The reason is the limits of computing power then the F-117 was designed (late 1970s) versus now.
this is all planed, the attack - Now they can justify more spending;
terrorist attacks are harder to imitate so cyber atacks can be faked more easaly
Yes, because there would never be a real actual cyber attack and no one would ever try to steal that kind of information, right? Governments don't actually spy on each other, they all just make it up to justify spending. [/sarc]
this is all planed, the attack - Now they can justify more spending; terrorist attacks are harder to imitate so cyber atacks can be faked more easaly
Looks like someone escaped from their asylum.
Geeze you people. Do some research before you post:http://www.jsf.mil/program/prog_intl.htmThe F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program is an Internationally oriented program consisting of partnerships with a number of countries. See below for links to the transcripts of the signing ceremonies of the official partnership of each of the programs cooperating partners: United Kingdom (signed 17 Jan 2001 for $2B) Italy (signed 24 Jun 2002 for $1B) Netherlands (signed 17 Jun 2002 for $800M) Turkey (signed 11 Jun 2002 for $175M) Canada (signed 7 Feb 2002 for $150M) Australia* (signed 31 Oct 2002 for $150M) Denmark (signed 28 May 2002 for $125M) Norway* (signed 20 Jun 2002 for $125M)
Thanks for claifying that for me.... I was ready to flame him so hard....
ok they just want money to start up cyber command, since the new toys were supposedly compramised, they want more toys, i wonder where the anthrax came from? the chinese, the russians, al'qaeda?
I think you meant the DOD is declassifying its Cyber Command.
Chunk Norris went cyber O.o
I think this is just a ploy to add restrictions on internet usage by the government. You would have to be a moron to have classified information on an open network.
I think this is just a ploy to add restrictions on internet usage by the government. You would have to be a moron to have classified information on an open network.
So long as the restrictions are only on government employees and programs, I have no problem with it. Its when they start adding restrictions to the rest of the net that it gets me.
Thanks for claifying that for me.... I was ready to flame him so hard....
I'm still right though, just because other countries went it as well, doesn't mean it was made for them.
You fail just like creationists.
And keep in mind those small dollar value commitments from Australia etc, are buying a few aircraft (like five or six) for evaluation purposes because buying larger numbers.
Why not just let the NSA control all entry points to any government organization? Keep it in the hands of the best defenders in the US. Plus it would be cheaper to standardize this sort of thing.
Before you say we need diversity for security, I'm not against that, one agency can have many different approaches just managed under one entity.
For some reason, this reminds me of StarWars (SDI) program during the Regan era.No idea why.