U.S. Defense Secretary Warns of a Possible 'Cyber-Pearl Harbor' 190
SpzToid writes "U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta has warned that the country is 'facing the possibility of a "cyber-Pearl Harbor" and [is] increasingly vulnerable to foreign computer hackers who could dismantle the nation's power grid, transportation system, financial networks and government.' Countries such as Iran, China, and Russia are claimed to be motivated to conduct such attacks (though in at least Iran's case, it could be retaliation). Perhaps this is old news around here, even though Panetta is requesting new legislation from Congress. I think the following message from Richard Bejtlich is more wise and current: 'We would be much better served if we accepted that prevention eventually fails, so we need detection, response, and containment for the incidents that will occur.' Times do changes, even in the technology sector. Currently Congress is preoccupied with the failure of U.S. security threats in Benghazi, while maybe Leon isn't getting the press his recent message deserves?"
Well, that explains it (Score:5, Interesting)
I could never understood why America doesn't improve its cybersecurity, but if the plan is the same as with Pearl Harbor that would explain it. The US leaves their systems open and lures China to attack them to get a convincing casus belli for their counterattack, just like they did in WW2.
Ask a cranky 'ol guy (John Dvorak) (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2410931,00.asp [pcmag.com]
He's still good for entertainment some days. And he's got this one nailed: "Cyber War? Bring It On! : The so-called imminent threat of cyber-attack by U.S. enemies is another in a long line of fear-mongering propaganda lines."
Another Translation: (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a guess, but it seems a likely guess given the fact that technically knowledgeable people use different language and recommend examination of code for security problems and sloppiness.
Some of those who want government corruption want continuous war because government "defense" contracts provide easy profits, and it is easy to keep corruption secret.
If they get easy money, the corrupters don't care who is killed, what lives and property are destroyed, or how much money is wasted. For example, the book Funding the Enemy: How U.S. Taxpayers Bankroll the Taliban [amazon.com] provides a huge amount of detail about a small part of the corruption.
Divide the cost to the U.S. taxpayer of just the war in Afghanistan ($574,624,781,538) [costofwar.com] by the population of Afghanistan (35,320,445) [google.com]. The U.S. taxpayer has already paid 16,268 hard-earned dollars for every man, woman, and child in Afghanistan. The results: Mostly, things are worse.
If those who want corruption can't get the taxpayers to pay for killing other people, they want "cyber war". See, for example, Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran [slashdot.org].
The U.S. government has invaded or bombed 27 countries since the end of the 2nd world war.
Constant war makes us poor.
Re:you mean they could have spent less money spyin (Score:4, Interesting)
> There is more likelihood of a million monkeys randomly typing for a million years to
> create one of Shakespeare's plays than for creating a truly secure OS in the manner
> described. And even coming close could not be done before whatever product is
> completely, totally irrelevant from obsolescence.
The first question in many security cases is "WTF was the idea behind connecting it to the internet?" Many SCADA systems are controlled by Windows computers which are often net connected. Disconnect the system from the net (wired and wireless), and turn off autorun/autoplay on the machines, disable USB port access for all but authorized personnel. It may not be perfect, but it'll be a lot better than today.