Mock Cyber Attack Shows US Unpreparedness 148
An anonymous reader writes with word that the outcome of the large-scale cyberattack simulation promised a few days ago isn't too rosy. From the Help Net Security article: "During the simulated cyber attack that took place yesterday in Washington and was recorded by CNN, one thing became clear: the US are still not ready to deflect or mitigate such an attack to an extent that would not affect considerably the everyday life of its citizens. The ballroom of the Washington's Mandarin Oriental Hotel was for this event transformed into the White House Situation Room, complete with three video screens displaying maps of the country, simulated updates and broadcasts by 'GNN,' an imaginary television network 'covering'
the crisis."
Oh - of course its not (Score:3, Interesting)
This way - the demonstration shows that they need to implement more "Security Features" that encroach upon the rights and freedoms of the average American.
Re:Oh - of course its not (Score:4, Interesting)
Or maybe they're actually not prepared for a cyberattack?
Or maybe it's not possible for the government to defend against a well-planned cyberattack without also giving the government the ability to shut off arbitrary Internet connections? And that would be bad, m'kay?
We have good network operators. They can handle this.
If the government really wants to help, why don't I ever hear any PSA's about turning on your software updates and not being conned by 'Click here to see kittens and get money' spam? Why don't they pay Microsoft to develop a yum/apt-like update mechanism for their OS (that 3rd parties can access)? The other articles said 80% of attacks last year are from people using old versions of Acrobat - that's a solved problem in computing.
Duh! (Score:4, Interesting)
Security is almost by definition an illusion - by making information accessible to someone, you make it potentially available to anyone. Completely enforcing security ideals to a logical extreme would result in complete paralysis, depleting enormous resources along the way (see: the cold war). If you want to keep anything secret, you have to limit its use, and limit the amount of things you keep secret - otherwise the cost of maintaining that secret status becomes prohibitive and unrealistic.
It's the same thing with 'virtual borders' as it is with real borders - you can't keep eyes, or even cameras, or even CPU cycles going on all potential borders. It just won't work - you have to observe effects and target responses, use honeypots and similar tactics, and marshal your resources to minimize the effects of breaches. Better yet, improve relations and economies on both sides of the border, and make such breaches meaningless while still enforcing your limited security goals - you'll be serving all your underlying motivations at the same time.
Then again - security always seems to be a 'temporary' thing, that happens to almost always be escalating. Don't you love your family enough to own the latest and greatest killing machine? Inside most real life monsters lies the desire for securing safety for one's interests - with the lines of priorities drawn right through the property/face of someone else. That's not something we're likely to be getting over anytime soon, conflicting interests, and aggressive 'defense'.
Ryan Fenton
I don't quite understand 'how' this was simulated (Score:3, Interesting)
Led by Negroponte and Chertoff? Pass the salt. (Score:3, Interesting)
While I don't disagree that we could do more in the area of computer security, one needs to look closely at the affiliations of the people running this "exercise."
They're both loyal Neocon insiders. John Negroponte [wikipedia.org] is the former Bush Director of National Intelligence. Michael Chertoff [wikipedia.org] is the former Director of Homeland Security, and co-author of the Patriot Act. And both of these positions were just the last in a string of appointments by Bush/Cheney.
And as career neoconservatives, they've been at the forefront of fearmongering and prevarication in order to lead the US to war and erode civil liberties. These are not opinions, these are well-documented facts [google.com].
The neocons are a one trick circus; this is just their newest pony. If you've been paying attention the past nine years, how can you possibly doubt that this is anything else?
Re:Why. (Score:3, Interesting)
Now I think there is only one group of insane-paranoid people, the ones who believe in 'they.'
Re:This is actually very comforting (Score:5, Interesting)
some well placed bombs could knock the power out for a lot of people really quickly.
The interesting thing is that bombs don't do "much" to power lines. A "sooper soaker" three man sling shot, a couple dozen lengths of chain, and a substation, now you're talking. Transmission towers and cutting torches don't mix very well either.
I have this jewish friend, real jewish like cousins in Israel type of jewish. Anyway, he explains that real terrorists do about a hundred attacks against structures for every time they hit people. Broken glass, molotov fires, graffiti, cut wires, etc. Thats because you never know when a person will whip out an uzi and fight back (well, actually, in the gun control areas in the us, you know they're sitting ducks), but aside from darwin award winners, structures never fight back. Thats how I've always known the "terror threat" in the US is bogus, because no one ever hits our structures.
Now, if we were sitting in the dark, with no water or sewers, no radio or TV, no gas stations, no natural gas, all shop windows broken, all forests on fire, then I'd believe we are under a real terrorist threat... But when its just Reichstag fire acts followed immediately by passage of enabling legislation, followed within a couple years of invasion of multiple innocent countries...
Re:Blissful Ignorance (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe the US is unleadable. If a liberal says something then conservatives automatically declare it to be completely wrong and goes against American values. If a conservative says anything, liberals declare it to be completely wrong and suspect that its part of some hidden agenda to bring about fascism.
How do you lead a country like this? You suggest improving healthcare and you have people arming themselves and willing to fight to the death against the evil socialist government. WTF? People in the US pick a team, either liberal or conservative and are absolutely against whatever the other team is saying.
Congress is completely broken, they can't make changes even when they have a super-majority. What can the executive branch do when the legislative branch is so fucked up (other than start wars) ? How can you lead a country where half the population is going to disagree with what you say, just because it was you that said it?