dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
465
share rss forum feed


Rebrider
Been There Done That
Premium
join:2000-11-23

1 recommendation

Pentagon to boost cybersecurity force

You think they finally have a clue?

“Given the malicious actors that are out there and the development of the technology, in my mind, there’s little doubt that some adversary is going to attempt a significant cyberattack on the United States at some point,” said William J. Lynn III"

»www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat···?hpid=z1



GILXA1226
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-29
Dayton, OH

I think they've had a clue about it for a while now, at least the last 4-5 years. The problem is the implementation and typical government BS. First each service was going to have their own setup, then the Cyber Command was setup, but under the USAF, which of course pissed off the Army, Navy and to a lesser extend USMC, so it was moved to a Joint Command and last I heard they were having difficulties getting it staffed due to location of the command. It's been a while since I've heard anything new.
--
We don't give a d@mn for the whole state of Michigan... we're from OHIO! O!H! ... I!O!



scelli
Native New Yorker
Premium
join:1999-08-07
FLOT/FEBA
kudos:1

1 recommendation

said by GILXA1226:

I think they've had a clue about it for a while now, at least the last 4-5 years. The problem is the implementation and typical government BS. First each service was going to have their own setup, then the Cyber Command was setup, but under the USAF, which of course pissed off the Army, Navy and to a lesser extend USMC, so it was moved to a Joint Command and last I heard they were having difficulties getting it staffed due to location of the command. It's been a while since I've heard anything new.

Just another typical Charlie Foxtrot for those of us all too familiar with what comes with any military operation marked out as being under the auspices of a (so-called) "Joint Command".
--
The maximum effective range of an excuse is ZERO meters!

Secyurityet

join:2012-01-07
untied state

1 recommendation

reply to Rebrider

If they would just byte the bullet, and move off the web onto a proprietary network, they wouldn't NEED uscybercom.

You can't infiltrate a network you can't get to.

But nobody wants to spend the money...



Rebrider
Been There Done That
Premium
join:2000-11-23

+ 1



GILXA1226
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-29
Dayton, OH
reply to Secyurityet

said by Secyurityet:

If they would just byte the bullet, and move off the web onto a proprietary network, they wouldn't NEED uscybercom.

You can't infiltrate a network you can't get to.

But nobody wants to spend the money...

They already do that to some degree with the SIPRNet, and I have to think, if it was a cost effective replacement they would have moved all of their systems over. I'm sure somewhere there is an AoA document that explains why they haven't moved everything off.
--
We don't give a d@mn for the whole state of Michigan... we're from OHIO! O!H! ... I!O!

Secyurityet

join:2012-01-07
untied state

said by GILXA1226:

They already do that to some degree with the SIPRNet, and I have to think, if it was a cost effective replacement they would have moved all of their systems over. I'm sure somewhere there is an AoA document that explains why they haven't moved everything off.

I'm just talking about NIPRNet.

I don't even want to address the other networks.