Slashdot Log In
Details of Cyber Storm War Games Released
Posted by
Soulskill
on Thu Jan 31, 2008 07:29 PM
from the defending-against-gravitic-mines dept.
from the defending-against-gravitic-mines dept.
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Apparently, the participants in the U.S. 'Cyber Storm' war games are familiar with the Kobayashi Maru, because some of them tried to cheat by hacking the games themselves. They also prepare for some very interesting scenarios. Among other things, the organizers are worried about having too many people on the 'No Fly' list show up at an airport, finding 'mystery liquids' in the subway, and having bloggers reveal the classified location of railcars with hazardous materials. The Department of Homeland Security has already analyzed the results of the games, and plans to hold 'Cyber Storm 2' in March."
Related Stories
[+]
DHS Publishes Report on Operation Cyberstorm 64 comments
uniquebydegrees writes "InfoWorld reports that the Department of Homeland Security has released the findings of Operation Cyber Storm, a large-scale simulation of combined cyber-physical attacks on U.S. critical infrastructure. From the article: 'According to DHS, "observers noted that players had difficulty ascertaining what organizations and whom within those organizations to contact when there was no previously established relationship or pre-determined plans for response coordination and risk assessments/mitigation. There was a general recognition of the difficulties organizations faced when attempting to establish trust with unfamiliar organizations during time of crisis."'"
Submission: US Playing Cyber Security Wargames by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Cyber Storm II Set To Begin 36 comments
mr sanjeev notes that Computerworld is running a story about Cyber Storm II, set to run from March 11th until the 14th.
The exercise will test the security of the US, Australia, the UK, New Zealand, and Canada. The organizers' goals are to test preparedness and responsiveness in relation to real-time threats. The previous Cyber Storm test identified "eight specific areas in need of improvement." We recently discussed the details of the tests themselves. From Computerworld:
"Security experts said the first Cyber Storm event last year improved participants' understanding of who to call in the event of an attack, but did not identify specific vulnerabilities in the nation's computer systems. 'What they're trying to do is highlight the inefficiencies in the process,' according to Marcus Sachs, deputy director with research group SRI International's Computer Science Laboratory. 'They're not really looking for technical solutions.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Does anyone (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Does anyone (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1158340980371.shtm [dhs.gov]
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/prep_cyberstormreport_sep06.pdf [dhs.gov]
From the report, it looks like everything was simulated.
Parent
Very funny (Score:2)
From the report, it looks like everything was simulated. "
Oooooooook, which of you jerks put goatse boy there?
Re:Does anyone (Score:4, Informative)
Beyond that, I cannot explain anymore.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think its a bit of a stretch to call this a cyber storm wargame.
Good Gravy (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good Gravy (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Recognizing fictional references is an example of "cultural literacy". When the reference is a popular TV show, it's more like "basic cultural literacy".
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's factually incorrect. It's a detail from a 40 year old TV setting that was last referenced in a new episode seven or eight years ago. And yes, all of the Star Trek offshoots have still been "popular TV shows", in spite of the fact that both fans and anti-nerds rip on them.
The vast majority of the world wouldn't get *a
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of getting laid, when I first saw this on the front page, my eyes fixed on the linked phrase "hacking the games themselves" and I thought "Kobayashi Maru" before I even read it in the summary. Take that cultural illiteracy!
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't everybody know? Heck, that movie is...um, only 25 years old.
Hmm. I think I should feel old rather than nerdy since I first saw it in a theater. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
In Real Life... (Score:2, Insightful)
Someone has to know where the trains are (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems to me that the two cases would have equal consequences and equal risk levels, and that no other individual could possibly modify those values significantly, reducing the security through obscurity to someone's job security through obscurity. Tell me, why should I care about this person's job more than I care about any potential risk to my wellbeing?
Re: (Score:2)
Mystery liquids (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Frightning... (Score:5, Insightful)
Reading that article really opens eyes as to the real inside of our government. The founding fathesr have got to be spinning at 30-40 thousand RPM in their graves by now.
Well that's the energy crisis taken care of ;) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
From the Center for Public Integrity http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=home&context=overview&id=945 [publicintegrity.org]
Re:Frightning... (Score:5, Insightful)
In the real world, almost anything could be a threat. Your child could knock a salad fork off the table, and it could land tines-up wedged into a crack in the floor, and you could then slip from your chair trying to pick it up, and put your eye out. By means of an implausible scenario, the fork has become a threat. But you don't address such a threat by outlawing salad forks, or all dining implements, or feeding your children only spoon food. Instead you analyze the risk of having salad forks on your dining room table, and realize it's silly to worry about such ridiculous scenarios.
For a variant, consider placing steak knives on the table. Now, if your child were to knock one off it becomes somewhat more serious. Perhaps you mitigate the risk by sensibly not placing sharp knives within reach of your child; but you don't outlaw knives from the kitchen nor do you stop eating steak. You simply keep them out of your child's reach.
Now move to a slightly more sinister threat or risk, that of a free press or possibly an extremist group publishing the location of every chlorine tanker in America. Could that be a threat to our security? Of course, it might even herald the initial coordination of a nationwide attack. But just like the above stories, you don't outlaw bloggers or their right to publish (nor can you.) Instead you look at potentially dangerous objects or information, you analyze the potential risks, and you find a way to mitigate them. Step 0 might sensibly be "don't publicly publish lists of hazardous tankers" except to those persons with a need to know. Step 1 might be to keep any such lists as small as possible -- the Seattle fire department doesn't need to have the schedule for the Atlanta chlorine train. Step 2 might be to publish a generic set of instructions, "How to safeguard chemical tankers". Step 3 might be a communications plan to the rail lines informing them of a security breach. And so on.
Almost anything can be a threat. What defines an appropriate reaction is recognition of the risks, planning and mitigation strategies. Over the top reactions like saying "OMG they're trying to silence the press and Jefferson is rolling in his grave" are completely missing the point. Nowhere in TFA are they even suggesting they suppress the blogs; they're just recognizing a potential threat, and figuring out what plans (if any) they need to make.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Treating the media as a risk isn't the same as taking away the freedoms of the media. The media and by extension the general public doesn
Cyber Storm? (Score:2)
1. How much does it cost per month to play?
2. Does it support DirectX 10, and
3. Where do I sign up for the Cyber Storm Goonswarm?
This crap always amazes me (Score:2)
Re:This crap always amazes me (Score:5, Insightful)
So, to summarize your post:
WTF?
You obviously missed the whole point, which was really to work on the cooperation and communication. They weren't testing specific countermeasures, but stressing the people and the organizations involved to see what happens. Even if it weren't, being more prepared or knowledgeable about some threats is better than being knowledgeable than no threats.
Parent
accident? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why does did sound like the plot to war games 2? (Score:3, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarGames_2:_The_Dead_Code [wikipedia.org]
the movie has a system that sounds alot like the one talked about hear.
I know where the railcars are (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
On the rails??
*does not drive on the NJ Turnpike*
goals (Score:2)
Sometimes, these exercises are "free for all". There's a scoring system and you win if you get the highest score, good luck.
Sometimes, though, there are more refined goals. If the goal of the exercise is to evaluate different reactions to a given threat, for example, then taking away that threat by whatever creativity you bring isn't a "smart move", it's breaking the game because removing the threat wasn't the goal, and by doing so you make it impossible for
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what the goals of that wargame were, nor whether the goals were realistic or fit into a certain strategy. What I do know is that the strategy that the general used is the EXACT strategy that was used by Al-Qaeda, and which nearly kicked the US forces out of Iraq. The saving grace was some very unorthodox thinking of the commanders on the ground, who managed to change the minds of a number of Iraqi
Re: (Score:2)
I call BS. If you don't know enough about the situation to know what the goals of the wargame were, how do you have sufficiently detailed knowledge of the general's strategy to claim that it is identical to that used by Al-Qaeda (given, of course, that one accepts the premise that it was AQ and not Iraqi Sunni tribal leaders who were responsible for the resistance)?
Re: (Score:2)
As for needing to know the details of the strategy.... tell me, what does this sound like: hit and run tactics, ambushes, use of irregular forces, urban combat and bombings. Sounds pretty much like what's happening now, right? If the gp is right, that's what the general used... and I vaguely remember stories of that wargame in a similar fashion.
Sometimes, the details don'
Re: (Score:2)
In your initial assessment, you made th
How To Play?? (Score:2)
It's nice and all to hire private 'security' companies, and have all the agencies beating up on it, but it's already been proven that the most dangerous folks out there are just regular folks (regardless of age). Regular people are the ones finding the exploits to break perfectly good security. It's not a 'security' company with a library of those works who are the most dangerous threats, it's the kid who just figured out an exploit
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Hacking the game is cheating? (Score:5, Interesting)
Reminds me of when I was in college and us CS people used to get together and play a computerized version of capture the flag. The premise of the game was simple enough -- players were divided into 4 teams of 2-3 people each, and each team got a machine that came pre-loaded with an older unpatched version of Linux that had well known and published security vulnerabilities (something like Red Hat 7.3). Each machine had 4 services running on it -- typically SSH, Bind, Apache, and telnet (yeah...*sigh*). Each of those services came configured to return a certain string (the so-called flag) when queried by a master scoring server that ran a fairly simple Python script. The script ran once every minute and then displayed up to date team scores on a video projector. The rules of the game stated that we could not patch the machine or use IPtables to lock down the machine. Anything else was fair game. The machines and the scoring server were all networked together on small private network, and each team was given one additional network drop to do with as they pleased.
Anyway, one night we got together to play CTF and there were only enough people for 3 teams of two. Since that doesn't make for such an interesting game, one of our professors who was just supposed to be observing decided to join in and be on his own team. As soon as the game started, everyone went to work furiously trying to defend their boxen and then the real fun -- the attacking -- began.
We were all quite surprised when the first round of results came in and our professor hadn't had anyone hijack his machine. He also evidently hadn't attacked anyone else. The night went on and each of the student teams went back and forth, attacking and defending, but our professor stayed the same -- he neither had anyone successfully compromise his box, nor successfully compromised anyone elses.
The last few minutes of the game saw my team dead last, our professor in third place, and two other teams above us. 5 seconds from the end, our professor's score suddenly increased to an ungodly high (and according to the rules unattainable) score, with the rest of our scores getting set to zero. As the clock ticked down and the game came to an end, we were befuddled as to what happened.
Suddenly it dawned on us -- our professor had spent the entire time hacking the scoring server (which was supposed to have been an up to date, secure Linux install) and replacing the Python scoring script with one of his own, all to his advantage. At some point during the game, he had actually replaced the running script with his own, without any of us ever noticing. We were all in awe and amazement at his creativity -- the idea to do such a thing had not even occurred to any of us. We learned several valuable lessons that night, one of which was that the mind of a creative attacker may not be confined solely within the nice little security box that you place it in. That, and never mess with your professors!
Parent
Re:Hacking the game is cheating? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Hacking the game is cheating? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Hacking the game is cheating? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, in the real-world in Iraq, the insurgents are hiding behind civilians and mosques. An exercise that makes you reconsider the rules of the game is very important in the real world, where you have to expect the unexpected.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is a little odd, since I only expressed a view of an exercise.
An exercise that makes you reconsider the rules of the game is very important in the real world, where you have to expect the unexpected.
Which is all well and good, but there is plenty of other types of exercises that are equally as useful. Besides, in your example it sounds like they were using perfectly legitimate tactics that were deemed outside the scope of some fairly specific exercise, w
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No offence, but any criticism of the war-game after that would be just redundant, surely you give the enemy the huge advantage and make your own forces work around it? If that's a true story then there's some strange thinking in play. Able to give us a source?
Re: (Score:2)
The enemy can, and quite likely will, do something unexpected.
Consider this ground combat scenario.
If I see an enemy platoon flanking us on the right, and an enemy platoon holding their position in front of us, normal strategy would be to assume that the platoon flanking to the right is going to come in on the right, or possibly the rear but risk crossfire.
So, I'd rearrange MY troops to guard the fr
With Side do you want? (Score:2)
1. U.S.A
2. U.S.S.R
Third option (Score:5, Interesting)
People stuck in a blizzard is nothing new in China, what I found interesting was the government has made a rare official appology to the people for being unprepared for the magnitude of this particular storm. Politicians are turning up at train stations and adressing the massive crowds with bullhorns, appologising profusely while explaining that the trains can't run until the power lines are back up and the tracks are cleared.
Some people were complaining, but the majority were spontaneously applauding and cheering the guy with the bullhorn.
BTW: I realise that the news from China is tainted with propoganda and a poloitician with a blowhorn won't get the trains back any faster. However, since they have a million troops working on the clean up, have hailed 6 electrical workers who died trying to restore power as national heros, plus the afforementioned apology for something they could not realistically prevent, I think the applause is not entirely hollow.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)