Browsing Posts published in March, 2008
For a few years now I’ve been covering the decline in US federal funding for basic science and engineering research, but until recently I had no idea of the impact that 9/11 had on university-based computer science funding, and, by extension, the industry’s ability to make the leap to multi-core.
[From Paying for secrets: national security versus tech innovation]
Rod A. Beckstrom has been appointed as the US cybersecurity czar, a position that has seen way too much turnover since the events of 9/11. Beckstrom’s lack of experience in the field is a bit troubling, but there are other indications he’ll be a good fit for the role.
No relative experience whatsoever. Your tax dollars at work once again!
With U.S. civil and military officials increasingly concerned about cyber attacks against American networks, the U.S. Air Force is planning to establish what will probably be the largest and most comprehensive military organization to defend against cyber attack. And, unlike the apparent efforts of the other U.S. military services in this field, the Air Force will conduct offensive cyber warfare.
The massive Air Force effort will pull together existing cyber-related units and establish new ones, all under the Air Force Cyber Command — AFCYBER in milspeak — and its operating arm, the 24th Air Force. According to Major General William T. Lord, the provisional commander of AFCYBER, the command and 24th Air Force will achieve “initial operational capability” on 1 October 2008. However, many components of the command are already operational.
Two new wings are being established to work with two existing wings. The total strength of the new commands have not been established, but they will be “large,” with active, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard personnel assigned. The AFCYBER/24th Air Force headquarters are at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, on an interim basis; the permanent base for those headquarters will be decided shortly.
Operating directly under AFCYBER will be the Network Operations unit, which will develop the standards and integration architecture for the command. All other major components are line units under the 24th Air Force; these will be:
67th Network Warfare Wing (Lackland AFB, Texas) — This is the core of Air Force cyber operations. Its official functions are to organize, train, and equipment “cyberspace” forces to conduct network defense, attack, and exploitation. It is believe that this is the only U.S. military organization that carries out extensive offensive
cyber operations.Under Colonel Joseph J. Pridotkas, the 67th is the largest “wing” in the Air Force, consisting of five intelligence groups with 35 squadrons and detachments comprising more than 8,000 men and women. They serve at about 100 locations on every continent except Antarctica.
450th Electronic Warfare Wing (Lackland AFB, Texas) — Consisting of electronic attack as well as protection components, this wing will provide operational input for Air Force EC-130J Commando Solo (Hercules) as well as EA-6B Prowler electronic aircraft. The latter are flown by Navy and Marine Corps squadrons, but with some Air Force personnel assigned. Those electronic warfare aircraft will soon be replaced by Navy EA-18G Growler variants of the F/A-18 Hornet.
688th Information Operations Wing (Lackland AFB, Texas) — Formerly known as the Air Force Information Operations Center, this wing integrates information warfare tactics, training, and technology.
689th Cyberspace Wing (Scott AFB, Illinois) — Responsible for communications and information functions as well as deployable communications capabilities, the wing is assuming the functions now performed by the Air Force Communications Agency and the Global Cyberspace Innovation Center. (Those commands will be deactivated when AFCYBER becomes operational).
The Air Force leadership believes that the AFCYBER command and its components will provide the necessary capabilities and expertise for “cyber warfare” in the 21st Century. The command is being established at a time that thousands of efforts are being made every day to break into Department of Defense databanks and links, and when there will be increasing efforts by potential military enemies as well as terrorist to wage cyber warfare against the United States.
[From Cyber Defense -- and Attack]
coondoggie writes “A group of international cyber cops is ramping up plans to fight online crime across borders. The unit, known as the Strategic Alliance Cyber Crime Working Group, met this month in London and is made up of high-level online law enforcement representatives from the U.S., Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. One of the main goals of the group is to fight cyber crime in a common way by sharing intelligence, swapping tools and best practices, and strengthening and synchronizing their respective laws.
[From The International Cyber Cop Unit ]
Recently NATO’s Chief of Cyber Defense stated that cyber terrorism/cyber attack poses as great a threat to national security as a missile attack. Strong words for sure.
Most people do not equate cyber war with explosives, but that is short sighted. Ever heard of TEDs or EPFCs? If you havent, you are not alone. In a recent briefing of 85 individuals responsible for business continuity in a major U.S. city, no one had ever heard of the two terms either.
TEDs and EPFCs are two weapons that create an EMP – electromagnetic pulse (similar to that nuclear explosion but less powerful) that destroy electronic circuitry. Both of these devices use conventional explosives to push an armature through and electromagnetic field.
The resulting pulse generated by a van size device could destroy electronics in an area up to a couple city blocks.
- TEDs Transient electromagnetic devices
- EPFCs Explosively pumped flux compressor
- Development Assessment Cost = Low between $500 and $1,000
- Design = Multiple websites had fairly detailed design plans
- Skill Set = Moderate basic wiring and mechanical skills. (High School Shop Class)
- Detection = Low due to the minimal amount of special needs required to build a device. The only special material required are conventional explosives.
- Defense = Building data centers underground and metal shielding as well as utilities isolation would be required to defend against such an attack. EMP weapons attack our computers and communications infrastructure. The development of TEDs and EPFCs now makes the threat of an EMP attack much more likely. These EMP weapons pose a unique threat to the electronic society and our national security and economy.
Can you imagine the stock market reaction in one such device was detonated on Wall Street?
[From Cyber Weapons and e-Bombs]
FBI Tried to Cover Patriot Act Abuses With Flawed, Retroactive Subpoenas
They guys are still at it; they keep getting my vote for top listing in Darwin Candidates.
Air Force Cyber Command’s Strategic Vision spells out the command’s operational scope and postures. Controlling cyber space is key to national security. This was clearly articulated in the 2008 National Threat Assessment delivered by the Director of National Intelligence to the Congressional Armed Services Committee last week. Major General William T. Lord heads up the command that is provisionally located at Barksdale Air Force Base. The command is slated to begin operations in this fall and become fully operational in 2009.
Supremacy in cyber space is critical across all strategic and operations domains. This new command is currently in the process of acquiring a suite of capabilities that will create the flexible options for military and governmental decision makers. These capabilities sought be Cyber Command include but are not limited to the following:
The ability to deter adversaries
The ability to deny access and operations to adversaries
The ability to disrupt adversaries
The ability to deceive adversaries
The ability to dissuade adversaries
The ability to defeat adversaries
This will be accomplished through a variety of offensive and defensive, destructive and non-destructive, and lethal and non-lethal capabilities being developed and deployed within Cyber Command.
The cyber threat environment faced by the U.S. and our allies represents a new challenge. Cyber command has chosen a holistic approach to meeting this challenge that includes science and technology, research and development, systems acquisition, operations, education, training, and a new operational doctrine. The challenges of standing up a new command are daunting. When you compound those challenges with addressing the complexities of cyber warfare, they multiply and become huge.
The battle being fought by the Air Force is not limited to cyber space. You may have seen the slick new commercials airing on television. This is an offensive move by the Air Force to try and secure the lead position in cyber warfare and defense. The Army and the National Security Agency are also vying for the top spot.
One insider believes that the NSA has already been given the nod. Well, at least unofficially. However, this battle rages on.
This is a critical time for the United States. Our nation, our society, our economy and our businesses are all heavily dependent on Internet connectivity. Failure is not an option and the White House and Congress know it. We must address the threats coming from cyber space. Earlier this year I wrote an article for Eye Spy magazine titled, “The Department of Cyber Defense.” I believe the best way to address this new threat to create a new organization and staff it with a cross functional team for NSA, DoD, DHS as well as the Army, Navy and Air Force. Using this approach, the country gets the best and brightest assembled from all these organizations and stands up a new entity that comes without baggage that is inherent in all organizations.
Completely new, new hybrid, or assign the responsibility to and existing entity – what is your opinion?
CNN reporter dives into the world of the Chinese hacking underground… [From Chinese Hackers Take On the World with Ease]
U.S. military flags China cyber threat [From Brief: U.S. military flags China cyber threat]
In discussing PLAN submarines lately, we thought it might be interesting to put the recent shipbuilding production into context. Based on our discussion and review the other day, we note that in the 5 years from January 2003 to December 2007 we can account with a good deal of certainty China has built 15 attack submarines, broken down as follows: Type 093 SHANG class SSN – 2 Type 039 SONG class [From Chinese Submarines vs Soviet Submarines vs US Submarines]
