.jpg)
Posts
UPDATE: Fixed missing linkThe Volgi pointed me at this column (opinion piece? article? Sometimes it's hard to tell in the WaPo). I began to reply via the covert Gormogon network but I figured why not enlighten our readers as well.
I agree with her basic point: technology is outpacing law and doctrine (and enforcement capability of those, although she doesn't explicitly reference that). And I think you could apply that to a number of fields beyond just "cyber activity".
However, I think largely she's coming at this from a legislative perspective (not to fault her, it just is what it is and she was in the legislative branch for a number of years). A few points:
1. The capability and "clearing house" of cyber events is already in place and has been since at least the late 1990s. I don't know where she's been but the CERT/CC (technically, not an acronym, they are the first computer security incident response team) based out of Carnegie-Mellon and now (since 2003) the US CERT supports this coordination. They collect information about incidents, publish threat warnings, etc. They do this in conjunction with vendors for computer and network defense products (firewalls, intrusion detection, intrusion prevention, virus-scanning, etc.)
2. While it's never going to be spelled out for reasons that should be obvious, but that I'll point out some of below, her second point is already happening. Even Wiki has some of it: (Bush's NSPD 54).
3. Her third point (commonly referred to in the business as "critical infrastructure") is already known, so her statements are neither new nor compelling. This is a known issue - some of which prompted NSPD 54.
She's right on the money in her first point and some people get that, but likely not enough and not the right ones. She's also correct in that we need better collaboration on this front. However, calling it out, detailing the plans for it and how it works in the press isn't the way to do it. It should remain close-held to protect it. That would be one more layer of defense that the enemy would have to penetrate. Of course, we could always just put up some warning signs but as we've seen, that's old school to your Gormogons.
P.S. The following message was picked up on our networks bound for the Czar and Mandarin: 34:30:34:20:2d:20:70:61:67:65:20:6e:6f:74:20:66:6f:75:6e:64:20:2d:20:45:61:72:74:68:20:74:65:72:6d:69:6e:61:74:69:6f:6e:20:62:65:67:69:6e:73
I agree with her basic point: technology is outpacing law and doctrine (and enforcement capability of those, although she doesn't explicitly reference that). And I think you could apply that to a number of fields beyond just "cyber activity".
However, I think largely she's coming at this from a legislative perspective (not to fault her, it just is what it is and she was in the legislative branch for a number of years). A few points:
1. The capability and "clearing house" of cyber events is already in place and has been since at least the late 1990s. I don't know where she's been but the CERT/CC (technically, not an acronym, they are the first computer security incident response team) based out of Carnegie-Mellon and now (since 2003) the US CERT supports this coordination. They collect information about incidents, publish threat warnings, etc. They do this in conjunction with vendors for computer and network defense products (firewalls, intrusion detection, intrusion prevention, virus-scanning, etc.)
2. While it's never going to be spelled out for reasons that should be obvious, but that I'll point out some of below, her second point is already happening. Even Wiki has some of it: (Bush's NSPD 54).
3. Her third point (commonly referred to in the business as "critical infrastructure") is already known, so her statements are neither new nor compelling. This is a known issue - some of which prompted NSPD 54.
She's right on the money in her first point and some people get that, but likely not enough and not the right ones. She's also correct in that we need better collaboration on this front. However, calling it out, detailing the plans for it and how it works in the press isn't the way to do it. It should remain close-held to protect it. That would be one more layer of defense that the enemy would have to penetrate. Of course, we could always just put up some warning signs but as we've seen, that's old school to your Gormogons.
P.S. The following message was picked up on our networks bound for the Czar and Mandarin: 34:30:34:20:2d:20:70:61:67:65:20:6e:6f:74:20:66:6f:75:6e:64:20:2d:20:45:61:72:74:68:20:74:65:72:6d:69:6e:61:74:69:6f:6e:20:62:65:67:69:6e:73
