Pentagon To Spend $500 Million On Cyber Defense 55
hostedftp found a story about the Pentagon's plan to shell out half a billion dollars on cyber defense in the next year. The article says, "The $500 million is part of the Pentagon's 2012 budget request of $2.3 billion to improve the Defense Department's cyber capabilities."
Well... (Score:2)
Palantir probably will. (Score:2)
They're pretty big in that space.
They plan on spending the $500 million... (Score:5, Funny)
...on upgrading all their trial copies of Mcafee.
Re: (Score:1)
+5 hilarious
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm, $500 million wouldn't cover that cost...
500 million here (Score:1)
500 million there [slashdot.org]. Pffft chump change...
Re: (Score:2)
sonds good (Score:2)
sounds like a good use of the money. I mean that's only half the cost of a single stealth bomber to improve security so that we don't get p0wned by some hacker.
Re:sonds good ... until you read it. (Score:3, Informative)
From TFA:
Hey, it's even cooler than Web 2.0 'cause, you know, it's like 3.0.
Anyone got the spec's for "Cyber 2.7"?
Here's an idea. You can have it for free.
How about you have a department of nothing but hackers who try to c
Re: (Score:2)
Here's an idea. You can have it for free.
How about you have a department of nothing but hackers who try to crack your systems. As they get through, they report what they did and you fix it? No 3.0 needed.
Out of curiosity how does one form an entire department of highly skilled and reliable workers AND perform security clearance background checks on them for free?
Am I missing something here? (Score:1)
Unplugging the computer from the network is free. It's also free to not invest in wireless.
Re: (Score:2)
AKA (Score:2)
Pentagon to spend $500 Million on Cyber Defense
...Otherwise known as the internet kill-switch.
"Network-Centric Warfare" (Score:3)
Re:"Network-Centric Warfare" (Score:5, Insightful)
the term "cyberwarfare" is still stupid.
it's espioage, sabotage or disruption of communication.
spending 500 million to defend yourself against espioage, sabotage or disruption is a very good idea.
Calling it "cyberwarfare" though conjours up far too many images from bad movies.
Re: (Score:3)
No worse than naval warfare. Conjures up images of sumo wrestling.
And don't get start on air combat.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. These are people who have lived it and understand that there are different flavors. If it wasn't "cyber" it would be some other buzz prefix that could be even more irritating.
Naval surgeon (Score:2)
Old joke:
"What kind of job do you do?" a lady passenger asked the man seated next to her on the airplane.
"I'm a naval surgeon," he replied.
"Goodness!" said the lady, "How you doctors specialize these days!"
Re: (Score:2)
it's espioage, sabotage or disruption of communication.
Actually, the book the OP was referring to, Network Centric Warfare (NCW), does not take the stance you are describing -- I think that's why he brought it up. The discussion of the use of communication networks in war extends beyond what public discourse usually touches on.
It's basically about the use of communication networks to increase situational awareness, plus everything else we tend to talk about.
Anyone used to be able to request a free paperback copy of NCW from some govvy site or another. It's over
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but where are we gonna get our jokes about hacking the gibson then?
Re:"Network-Centric Warfare" (Score:5, Funny)
That article gave me an idea for a new wikipedia warning: "this article contains too many buzzwords".
Re: (Score:2)
I've actually seen a warning similar to that, I can't find any examples right now but it says something like "this article reads like an advertisement, it contains too many marketing terms."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The phrase like a drunken sailor [wikipedia.org] never fit so well.
Re: (Score:3)
People sneer at "cyberwarfare"
Sure, because using the tools that could create a prosperous and peaceful world to inflict dead weight losses on ourselves and others is retarded.
The War Model of conflict resolution is moronic: it involves infliciting massive dead weight loss burdens on your own economy so you can try to destroy your enemy's economy. The War Model has dramatically failed to end poverty, drug use and terrorism in the past forty years. Anyone who invokes the War Model today is an idiot who hasn't noticed how massively it
It's always good to have large sums of money... (Score:4, Insightful)
Since you know... (Score:1)
As long as the DHS isn't in charge of it....... (Score:2)
$500 billion for Cyber Toilets (Score:4, Funny)
The government is planning on spending $500 billion on Cyber Toilets. A spokesman stated, "It is our goal to get 90% of America's asses covered with Cyber Toilets within the next ten years." A DARPA study revealed that Americans spend an average of 15 minutes on the throne each and every day. Advances in wireless and tablet technology mean that this could be utilized as productive time to leverage the ailing economy. The spokesman continued, "The Japanese not only have shitters that can wash and dry your tush, their potties can roll excellent sushi's, too. We can not, as a country, afford to fall behind in this important technology sector." Recently, a special test program involving US Air Force UAV pilots, proved that pilots were perfectly able to hit targets while taking a dump.
A member of Congress stated, "We can not say 'no' to any spending bill with the word 'cyber' in it. Oooh! 'Cyber' . . . it makes me feel so macho!"
that's nothing (Score:4, Informative)
How about John Boner's $450 million earmark spending the Pentagon's budget on a project it doesn't even want [americanprogress.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
From TFA:
the House bill would seem to significantly tarnish the commitment of Rep. Boehner and his colleagues in the House to spending cuts and the end to earmarking.
When has the party of Big Government Conservatives ever actually reduced spending? They did co-operate with the fiscally-responsible Clinton Administration to reduce the size of the pork barrel at that time, but I can't think of any case in the past generation when the Big Government Conservatives have ever voluntarily worked to reduce the size of government. Reagan grew government dramatically, as did both Bushes, the second even more rapidly than the first, and both with the support of Republ
Re: (Score:2)
Increasing spending (mostly on defense) while cutting taxes is called starving the beast, that was a strategy for Republicans under Reagan. It didn't really work though.
You want to talk about cutting spending for real, there is a plan for that: http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/ [house.gov] It can't be talked about because it touches the sacred cows of Social Security and Medicare, and without them there can't be any meaningful cuts.
Re: (Score:2)
That's simply how things work in the American form of Hypocrisy...er, Democracy.
Spend months firing up the base, build the level of anger and hate, and when it pays off at the ballot box, immediately proceed to violate every promise made.
This is not the exclusive domain of any one political party, but happens when fear, hate and an uninformed populace form a perfect storm in voter polling.
There are a couple of reasons the whole system doesn't implode. First, every "side" is guilty to some extent at s
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, someone needs to start reading news more. It's been canceled today by the Republican controlled house. Obama wanted to cancel it before, just like Dubya did, but couldn't do it while Democrats were in charge in congress. Defending this program purely because it provides jobs in his state is definitely a stain on Boehner's credentials as a fiscally conservative guy (though he wants to be seen as one [ibtimes.com]) but it's a victory for Tea Party and true conservative Republicans.
$500M Fine... (Score:2)
take it from a less merit worthy program. You've already got nearly $700B tax payer dollars. If you'd like some suggestions how about starting here:
Re: (Score:2)
Peanuts. To really cut defense you must cut defense systems. That means cutting jobs in Congress-Critters states. Don't forget, government doesn't create jobs...errr...unless it is related to defense spending in your district.
The Best Encryption On Earth! (Score:1)
PFSense (Score:2)
That is a lot of PFSense boxes
$500M of tax money to improve Windows security? (Score:1)
The military is reaching out to commercial companies for the latest technologies and technical experts to safeguard the Pentagon’s computer networks
Here you go... (Score:2)
Hmm, okay: if it's important to security, don't put it on the damned Internet, and rip the network and wireless cards out of any device that has the data. Station armed guards around the building. Better yet, scribble the information on a napkin in an ancient native language and make it look as unimportant as possible.
You're welcome...please send my 500 million dollar check. Hey you know what, I'll even make it half price and charge you 250 million.
Cisco to offer 500 Million Dollar Firewall (Score:2)
Update, 16 Feb 2011: Cisco to offer 500 Million Dollar Firewall
1.3 for cyber attack? (Score:1)
0.5 billion on cyber defense and 2.3 billion total for the cyber program. That means 1.3 billion on cyber attack?
Actual security (Score:1)
They could give two million, I could do a study for them and actual security would be just as good as before.