cyberbian writes "Federal Computing Week reports that the Department of Homeland Security have moved up their rescheduled cyber security exercise, designed to test enterprise and private sector alike. The tests are expected to run from February 6-10, and are intended to gauge the state of readiness for a cyber attack on critical infrastructure. FCW also reports that the scope of the fake attacks will be global, and they are coordinating with partners in Australia, Canada and the UK."
The perfect time to hackers attack. In the middle of the "fake" attacks they can really attack and steal some data. It would be hard to spot.
Are they doing this tests in a global way but to their structures only (UK and North America) or are they testing random sites all over the world?
"IT-ISAC has eight members participating in the exercise, the center's Web site states. The participants are Cisco Systems, Citadel Security Software, CA (formerly Computer Associates), Computer Sciences Corp., Intel, Microsoft, Symantec and VeriSign."
Well.. if those large corps are all in on it, what chance does anyone have? Unless they're running a super hardened linux/bsd... cisco has undocumented/unpatched bugs in their IOS code that can easily be exploited.. as does MS I'm sure.. verisign could easily fuck people's certs up... come on... its not even a fair fight.
by Anonymous Coward
on Sunday February 05 2006, @10:17AM (#14645791)
Last time i saw something like this, our 'organizataion' was tested.
They caused more damage to us with childhood tactics ( like locking out system accounts ) than doing 'real' tests. We were screwed for a week trying to undo damage, and trying to figure out how it was happening again and again.
It sounds like they uncovered 2 issues. First the things you called "childhood tactics" impared your operations and second, you don't have an addiquate policy to deal with compormised systems. (THis could be in a bunch of policies: Disaster recover, incident reporting and forensics, Configuration Management, etc)
From the sound of it, this is a paper exercise. The Government more than anyone is scared of the impact of actual pen testing. More than likely this will consist of everyone sitting in the same room or VTC'd in. They'll go, "ok, a hacker just disabled electrical junction boxes shutting down power to Boston, how do you respond?" and then they'll talk it over for a while. End the end they'll realize, "humm, we don't know how" or "well we know how but we rely on group X for help and group X didn't know they'd need to be involved" or something like that.
And people wonder about the existence of crazed fundamentalists in the middle east? We have the exact same kind of mentally unbalanced (or damaged) people in the west as presented on behalf of Webster Griffin Tarpley by the Anonymous Coward parent poster. "The Mohammed cartoons are a transparent provocation by NATO intelligence through a Danish right wing newspaper of limited circulation." I'm sure that makes much more sense to the conspiracists than the issue as put forward by both the original publisher (ma
I'm glad that they are doing something like this, in the UK people have been estimating that "in the city" only around 50% of companies are anything like prepaired for an attack of this nature, hopefully this will show people what needs to be done...
I hope no real attacks take place during this time though...
While the 9/11 event brought focus on this issue from a slightly different direction (infrasructure being disrupted), I'm not sure that overall we are much better off than your 50% in the UK, I just don't really know. I also wonder how much this issue has influenced the court's handling of the "Crackberry" patent infringement case (not trying to start flame war-that time of disrupted communications when many people/agencies were using their Blackberries because nothing else was working-that really scared a l
So all you need to do is find one unlucky zombie on a government IP, and use it to break in to random computers, and people will assume you're a good guy?
Exactly what can be expected in regard to online use just after the Superbowl? Will there be more or fewer people online during that time?
I expect there'll be more. People will want to celebrate and complain about whomever won or lost. If we were under a cyberattack, then certainly that would be the best time to do these tests.
Google willl probably get hits with umpteen bazillion searches for 'janet jackson tits' or 'destroying the moral fabric of america' or whatever debacle will occur this time...
Ewww... Mick Jagger naked. I'm gonna go sit in a corner for the rest of the day now, silently crying to myself at the loss of whatever semblance of innocence I had left. If it actually happens, then I guess I'll implode.
I'm a lot more worried about the damage caused by the "Tiered [slashdot.org]Internet" [slashdot.org] proposals currently being bandied about. All network admins know that the damage caused by attackers is insignificant compared to the damage caused by upper management and government meddling.
All network admins know that the damage caused by attackers is insignificant compared to the damage caused by upper management and government meddling.
All admins do not necessarily agree with this. Most of messes I have to clean up are from malware, fraud, "traditional" crime (and attempts at such) that have taken on a 'net communications component, and the usual tsunami of noise and bot blather that lands on every public-facing port I have open.
Tiered internet? That's a misnomer, I think. Big internet users pay for the bandwidth they (or their visitors) use. More traffic means higher costs. I don't care if some Comcast user has already paid for "his" bandwidth... serving up a streaming video to him isn't only using his bandwidth. I don't know where people get that idea. But regardless, if SBC or Verizon or any other carrier wants to screw with per-site or per-visitor metering or biasing, they're welcome to. Other ISPs will just set a price that's easier to predict and work with, and win the business away from the people trying to make it more complicated. But how much time do I have to give "upper management" or "government meddling" vs. attempted attacks, fraud killing, malware, etc? It's not even close. The bad guys are much more of an issue.
This is like Microsoft checking its own code for security holes. If there is a weakness then resources could be better used by trying to eliminate the weakness instead of finding theoretical ways it could be exploited - because there's always the way you didn't think of and THAT's the one that's going to get you.
Homeland security is going to turn around and tell everyone that we're NOT ready for a "terrorist cyber attack"? No, it makes much more political sense to say "see? Our networks can survive millions of nerf-ball hits; more funding please."
Aren't "enterprise sector" and "private sector" the same thing (as opposed to "government sector")?
When did we install Communism? Did I miss something?
Not communism, but capitalist oligarchism. "Enterprise sector" is the Fortune 500 that can buy politicians to manipulate the market to their ends. "Private sector" is everyone else, competing on an increasingly tilted playing field. Hope this clears things up.
Hrm, wonder how this will affect companies planning stress tests of their systems during that time period. Like for example the DDO stress test that starts on the 7th. It's wonderfully nice of the government to move the schedule at the last minute like this. I'm sure they won't be specifically targeting a small internet games company like Turbine... but I'd feel for any company who's planned tests will get nice and invalidated because the government decided that'd be a nice day to DDOS them.
Your company has been identified by the Department of Homeland Security as potentially vulnerable to cyber attack. During the week of February 6th - February 10th, the DoHS will be testing cyber infrastructure as part of our Cyber Storm security exercise. In order to participate, you will need to supply us with [insert favorite hacking data here]...
The headline made me think of an old sierra game set in the the Earthsiege (WOO GIANT ROBOTS) universe: Misson Force: Cyberstorm [scifi.com] (its abadonware, download here [agamesroom.com]). I picked it up from a bargin bin about 2 years after it came out, one of the only turn-based games I've ever enjoyed. Probably not related, but then again the flunkie that came up with the name could well be a gamer.
I thought for a minute there they were talking about IRC back in the late 90's. Now THERE was a storm of cybering for you. Not that I would..ummm...have any personal knowledge or anything.
Pshhh, big deal. This has already done before by Alan Greenspan, my hero. The only difference is he didn't have some big PR campaign. He's old school, and just slapped those bitches up the side of the head without any warning at all.
What, you don't believe me? See this historical proof [rdwarf.com] and prove it to yourself. Alan Greenspan is a l33t h4xor, that fact is undeniable!
While I think this article is talking about a table top or paper drill, it does hint at a bigger question. How do you do realistic pen testing on a system that must be 100% configuration controlled? I think you have to assume that the Pen Testing will take the system into an unknown state though you should know the range of that unknown state, (it may not effect the entire system.) From that you can conclude you need to have a plan to take the system or parts of the system from an unknown configuration state back to the current baselined configuration state. But is this possible? How long does it take? What methods do you use? Does anyone on slashdot have any experience with such a plan? Has anyone had to write one or even enact one?
What makes the government(s) think their fake attack will be anything like a genuine attach? For example, the UK government has a long and famous history of botching every computer initiative (e.g. UK tax credit theft via gov web site [com.com]).
I doubt the Department of Homeland Security has anything like a globally distributed botnet, or permission to run DDoS like a real attacker might. The virus attack [com.com] on the Russian stock market is not something goverments can replicate.
The only winners will be the companies who sell the extra bandwidth!
Suppose their attacks allow them to get into various machines and networks, what will they do with the data that is accesible in those machines?
Is this just another end run around warrantless search and seizures of data?
What kind of oversite is there on this process and how can we be sure the information is not used, stored, or otherwise desiminated among the various US spook agencies and their foreign lackeys.
And how much do you want to bet Google will be a very well excercised target since they have been fighting the governments abuse of power already.
Suppose their attacks allow them to get into various machines and networks, what will they do with the data that is accesible in those machines?
Well, according to TFA, "IT-ISAC has eight members participating in the exercise, the center's Web site states. The participants are Cisco Systems, Citadel Security Software, CA (formerly Computer Associates), Computer Sciences Corp., Intel, Microsoft, Symantec and VeriSign." So those companies seem to have signed up and are ready to have their networks accessed a
DO NOT CONNECT TO THE INTERNET FROM 12:01 AM GMT ON FEB. 29 TO 12:01 AM GMT, MARCH 1 !!
*** *** Attention ***
It's that time again!
As many of you know, each leap year the Internet must be shut down for 24 hours in order to allow us to clean it. The cleaning process, which eliminates dead email and inactive ftp, www and gopher sites, allows for a better-working and faster Internet.
This year, the cleaning process will take place from 12:01 a.m. GMT on Feb. 29 until 12:01 a.m. GMT on March 1. During that 24-hour period, five powerful Internet-crawling robots situated around the world will search the Internet and delete any data that they find.
In order to protect your valuable data from deletion we ask that you do the following:
1. Disconnect all terminals and local area networks from their Internet connections.
2. Shut down all Internet servers, or disconnect them from the Internet.
3. Disconnect all disks and hardrives from any connections to the Internet.
4. Refrain from connecting any computer to the Internet in any way.
We understand the inconvenience that this may cause some Internet users, and we apologize. However, we are certain that any inconveniences will be more than made up for by the increased speed and efficiency of the Internet, once it has been cleared of electronic flotsam and jetsam. We thank you for your cooperation.
Kim Dereksen Interconnected Network Maintenance staff Main branch, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Sysops and others: Since the last Internet cleaning, the number of Internet users has grown dramatically. Please assist us in alerting the public of the upcoming Internet cleaning by posting this message where your users will be able to read it. Please pass this message on to other sysops and Internet users as well. Thank you.
They'll conduct the exercise, discover that there are serious problems--just as every other evaluation of our cybersecurity has discovered. They'll make a report, the report will note that to fix things it would be necessary to spend money. And involve uncomfortable decisions like reducing our dependence on a monoculture of Microsoft Windows.
The decision-makers will decide (as they have so far about everything involving actual defensive measures involving the homeland that they would prefer to spend the money in some other way. They'll appoint yet another cyber defense "czar" as evidence of action, he will start with the clear understanding that the one thing he can't do is get the funding to implement the measures recommended in the report.
And when the actual attack happens and is devastating, they'll say nobody could have anticipated it.
"Cyber" this and "Cyber" that. I'm just about as sick and tired of that term as I am "rampant piracy". Somehow, I think certain portions of the United States Federal Government, specifically those involving national security, have been taken over by either small, odious children or full-grown chimpanzees. At this point I can't really tell which.
When I participated in some security tests related to the banking industry, one thing that was never played around with was the announced timing of the testing window. There was a type of security test that involved surprise (e.g. testing clarity of thought of a bank teller in a hold up situation) but these didn't have announced testing windows at all: you compromised the test if the test subjects knew it was "just a test".
The type of test I participated in wasn't invalidated by this lack of surprise because it was deliberately designed to expose procedural flaws and systematic gaps that fell between different areas of responsibility. The lack of surprise was a nuscience in the design of the test, but it was planned for and accounted from the very beginning. Having an announced testing window was a necessary security feature and not a flaw in the test.
These tests either were performed within the announced window of time or they were cancelled outright. Delay was out of the question. Delay was insecure. Cancelled tests were a nuscience for the test teams because it meant almost a month delay before they'd be allowed to perform the test, but the insecurity introduced by saying "Oh wait, the tests are back on schedule" or "Oh we'll just delay the test window a few days" was unnaceptable to security.
I've heard a time (though I didn't participate) in a test where a piece of equipment failed the day before the two day test window. Without this piece of equipment data measurements would be fuzzed by an order of magnitude on one part of the test. A replacement was ordered but on the day the tests were to begin it still required a day of prep time. To you and me our first inclination might be to simply delay the test a day. That was not acceptable to the security team. The test went on with the bad piece of equipment and the test results were compromised but in only that part of the test. Another test window was scheduled six weeks in the future and the test team's budget was increased to have redundant pieces of certain test equipment on hand and ready as part of the design of new testing procedures.
What seems almost absurd was the idea of moving forward the timeframe of an announced security test. There were times when test teams were very ready ahead of time, but they used the time to double and triple check their preparation, take documentation for next test, meet and discuss the game plan, and use the extra time productively while waiting for the arrival of the upcoming announced testing window. Why not just go ahead with the tests? Because once again, moving the announced test window was a security risk. And performing the test outside a test window was considered a break-in by security, and unnecessary for properly designed tests by the test teams.
I know banking security differs from computer security, but it still seems rather insecure and dangerous to move an announced test window period at all. What's worse is that it seems unnecessary, unusual, and odd to move the test period forward. If the test requires surprise, then it's either a poorly designed test or it was compromised by having an announced test window to begin with. If we're dealing with computer security on an international scope, then it would seem incredibly helpful to take the extra test time and double check the game plan. Tests inside a single banking company with far fewer issues of timing, language, and politics welcomed an extra week to plan and prepare before most tests of even moderate complexity. It seems arrogant, ignorant, or careless to say "Oh, we don't need this extra time before the tests. We'll deliberately tamper with our security and throw away this extra time we could use to prepare and coordinate this very complex international test."
So what's really going on here?
Is this just a poor test design that graduated to an international scope?
Is this good test being ignorantly executed by teams on an international scope?
I wonder (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I wonder (Score:3, Funny)
It was a secret military project to create a defense system capable of protecting the nation.
But... It became sentient
Re:I wonder (Score:3, Funny)
From TFA (Score:3, Funny)
"IT-ISAC has eight members participating in the exercise, the center's Web site states. The participants are Cisco Systems, Citadel Security Software, CA (formerly Computer Associates), Computer Sciences Corp., Intel, Microsoft, Symantec and VeriSign."
In other words, little, if any.
Re:From TFA (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Damage (Score:5, Interesting)
They caused more damage to us with childhood tactics ( like locking out system accounts ) than doing 'real' tests. We were screwed for a week trying to undo damage, and trying to figure out how it was happening again and again.
Posting anonymously for obvious reasons.
Parent
Re:Damage (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:I wonder (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Insanity Re:Call For A Red (Score:3, Insightful)
"The Mohammed cartoons are a transparent provocation by NATO intelligence through a Danish right wing newspaper of limited circulation."
I'm sure that makes much more sense to the conspiracists than the issue as put forward by both the original publisher (ma
good job (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope no real attacks take place during this time though...
Re:good job (Score:2, Insightful)
I also wonder how much this issue has influenced the court's handling of the "Crackberry" patent infringement case (not trying to start flame war-that time of disrupted communications when many people/agencies were using their Blackberries because nothing else was working-that really scared a l
Re:good job (Score:5, Funny)
Clock out of work when the attack happens and go to the corner pub?
Parent
A good idea.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: A good idea.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A good idea.... (Score:2)
Re:A good idea.... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
How to parcipate... (Score:5, Funny)
Then go home for a couple days!
WooHoo!
Re:How to parcipate... (Score:2)
So.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Thank Ford! (Score:5, Funny)
Post-Superbowl? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Post-Superbowl? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Post-Superbowl? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
More worrisome threats (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More worrisome threats (Score:5, Interesting)
All admins do not necessarily agree with this. Most of messes I have to clean up are from malware, fraud, "traditional" crime (and attempts at such) that have taken on a 'net communications component, and the usual tsunami of noise and bot blather that lands on every public-facing port I have open.
Tiered internet? That's a misnomer, I think. Big internet users pay for the bandwidth they (or their visitors) use. More traffic means higher costs. I don't care if some Comcast user has already paid for "his" bandwidth... serving up a streaming video to him isn't only using his bandwidth. I don't know where people get that idea. But regardless, if SBC or Verizon or any other carrier wants to screw with per-site or per-visitor metering or biasing, they're welcome to. Other ISPs will just set a price that's easier to predict and work with, and win the business away from the people trying to make it more complicated. But how much time do I have to give "upper management" or "government meddling" vs. attempted attacks, fraud killing, malware, etc? It's not even close. The bad guys are much more of an issue.
Parent
Re:More worrisome threats (Score:3, Funny)
I think you are underestimating upper management.
This sounds extremely logical (Score:4, Interesting)
Homeland security is going to turn around and tell everyone that we're NOT ready for a "terrorist cyber attack"? No, it makes much more political sense to say "see? Our networks can survive millions of nerf-ball hits; more funding please."
Re:This sounds extremely logical (Score:3, Interesting)
"Cool! Well, right then. Turns you aren't actually needed after all so we're shutting your dept. down."
You don't understand how the game is played. The DHS depends on terrorism for their funding, but; they are the terrorists.
KFG
Re:This sounds extremely logical (Score:2)
Wait a minute (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
DDO Stress test (Score:2, Interesting)
Time to Go Phishing (Score:5, Funny)
I can see it now...
FROM: cyberstorm@dohs.gov
TO: unlucky.recipient@yourcompany.com
SUBJECT: Participation in Cyber Storm exercise
Your company has been identified by the Department of Homeland Security as potentially vulnerable to cyber attack. During the week of February 6th - February 10th, the DoHS will be testing cyber infrastructure as part of our Cyber Storm security exercise. In order to participate, you will need to supply us with [insert favorite hacking data here]...
That was a game... (Score:2)
Cyber Storm? (Score:4, Funny)
And so it begins. (Score:2, Funny)
nice war game (Score:2)
Greenspan (Score:2)
What, you don't believe me? See this historical proof [rdwarf.com] and prove it to yourself. Alan Greenspan is a l33t h4xor, that fact is undeniable!
Wierd. (Score:3, Interesting)
I didn't know that computers only speak English.
Hmmm... learn sumthin new evry day.
recovery during pen testing (Score:3, Interesting)
Goverments can't hack it (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt the Department of Homeland Security has anything like a globally distributed botnet, or permission to run DDoS like a real attacker might. The virus attack [com.com] on the Russian stock market is not something goverments can replicate.
The only winners will be the companies who sell the extra bandwidth!
Digg and Slashdot (Score:4, Funny)
What about the information gathered??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this just another end run around warrantless search and seizures of data?
What kind of oversite is there on this process and how can we be sure the information is not used, stored, or otherwise desiminated among the various US spook agencies and their foreign lackeys.
And how much do you want to bet Google will be a very well excercised target since they have been fighting the governments abuse of power already.
Your tinfoil hat is on a bit too tight (Score:3, Insightful)
Suppose their attacks allow them to get into various machines and networks, what will they do with the data that is accesible in those machines?
Well, according to TFA, "IT-ISAC has eight members participating in the exercise, the center's Web site states. The participants are Cisco Systems, Citadel Security Software, CA (formerly Computer Associates), Computer Sciences Corp., Intel, Microsoft, Symantec and VeriSign." So those companies seem to have signed up and are ready to have their networks accessed a
Shouldn't they wait for the next Leap Day? (Score:5, Funny)
Original Message - 1996
DO NOT CONNECT TO THE INTERNET FROM 12:01 AM GMT ON FEB. 29 TO 12:01 AM GMT, MARCH 1 !!
*** *** Attention ***
It's that time again!
As many of you know, each leap year the Internet must be shut down for 24 hours in order to allow us to clean it. The cleaning process, which
eliminates dead email and inactive ftp, www and gopher sites, allows for a better-working and faster Internet.
This year, the cleaning process will take place from 12:01 a.m. GMT on
Feb. 29 until 12:01 a.m. GMT on March 1. During that 24-hour period, five powerful Internet-crawling robots situated around the world will search the Internet and delete any data that they find.
In order to protect your valuable data from deletion we ask that you do the following:
1. Disconnect all terminals and local area networks from their Internet
connections.
2. Shut down all Internet servers, or disconnect them from the Internet.
3. Disconnect all disks and hardrives from any connections to the Internet.
4. Refrain from connecting any computer to the Internet in any way.
We understand the inconvenience that this may cause some Internet
users, and we apologize. However, we are certain that any
inconveniences will be more than made up for by the increased speed and efficiency of the Internet, once it has been cleared of electronic flotsam and jetsam. We thank you for your cooperation.
Kim Dereksen
Interconnected Network Maintenance staff
Main branch, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Sysops and others: Since the last Internet cleaning, the number of
Internet users has grown dramatically. Please assist us in alerting
the public of the upcoming Internet cleaning by posting this message
where your users will be able to read it. Please pass this message on to
other sysops and Internet users as well. Thank you.
Hurricane CyberPam (Score:3, Insightful)
The decision-makers will decide (as they have so far about everything involving actual defensive measures involving the homeland that they would prefer to spend the money in some other way. They'll appoint yet another cyber defense "czar" as evidence of action, he will start with the clear understanding that the one thing he can't do is get the funding to implement the measures recommended in the report.
And when the actual attack happens and is devastating, they'll say nobody could have anticipated it.
See also Hurricane Pam [fema.gov]
"Cyber Storm" (Score:3, Insightful)
Disturbingly Odd Timing (Score:4, Interesting)
The type of test I participated in wasn't invalidated by this lack of surprise because it was deliberately designed to expose procedural flaws and systematic gaps that fell between different areas of responsibility. The lack of surprise was a nuscience in the design of the test, but it was planned for and accounted from the very beginning. Having an announced testing window was a necessary security feature and not a flaw in the test.
These tests either were performed within the announced window of time or they were cancelled outright. Delay was out of the question. Delay was insecure. Cancelled tests were a nuscience for the test teams because it meant almost a month delay before they'd be allowed to perform the test, but the insecurity introduced by saying "Oh wait, the tests are back on schedule" or "Oh we'll just delay the test window a few days" was unnaceptable to security.
I've heard a time (though I didn't participate) in a test where a piece of equipment failed the day before the two day test window. Without this piece of equipment data measurements would be fuzzed by an order of magnitude on one part of the test. A replacement was ordered but on the day the tests were to begin it still required a day of prep time. To you and me our first inclination might be to simply delay the test a day. That was not acceptable to the security team. The test went on with the bad piece of equipment and the test results were compromised but in only that part of the test. Another test window was scheduled six weeks in the future and the test team's budget was increased to have redundant pieces of certain test equipment on hand and ready as part of the design of new testing procedures.
What seems almost absurd was the idea of moving forward the timeframe of an announced security test. There were times when test teams were very ready ahead of time, but they used the time to double and triple check their preparation, take documentation for next test, meet and discuss the game plan, and use the extra time productively while waiting for the arrival of the upcoming announced testing window. Why not just go ahead with the tests? Because once again, moving the announced test window was a security risk. And performing the test outside a test window was considered a break-in by security, and unnecessary for properly designed tests by the test teams.
I know banking security differs from computer security, but it still seems rather insecure and dangerous to move an announced test window period at all. What's worse is that it seems unnecessary, unusual, and odd to move the test period forward. If the test requires surprise, then it's either a poorly designed test or it was compromised by having an announced test window to begin with. If we're dealing with computer security on an international scope, then it would seem incredibly helpful to take the extra test time and double check the game plan. Tests inside a single banking company with far fewer issues of timing, language, and politics welcomed an extra week to plan and prepare before most tests of even moderate complexity. It seems arrogant, ignorant, or careless to say "Oh, we don't need this extra time before the tests. We'll deliberately tamper with our security and throw away this extra time we could use to prepare and coordinate this very complex international test."
So what's really going on here?