Defense One reports:
The United States should be conducting more disruptive cyber attacks against nations like Russia, according to Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
“I don’t think we are using all of our cyber-capability to disrupt” actors in Russia targeting U.S. interests, he said at The Washington Post’s cybersecurity summit on Thursday.
[...]
But Rep. Rogers cautioned that the private sector networks, which comprise 85 percent of the networks in the United States, are “not prepared to handle” even present-day hacks from nation states, much less a coordinated retaliatory back and forth of extremely sophisticated attacks, the sort of volleying that might be characterized as cyber war.
“If your [chief intelligence officer] says he’s ready for what’s coming, find a new CIO,” he said.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday October 15 2014, @01:50PM
What he wants is more money. There might even be a valid case where he needs it.
He was going to get more cyber warfare whether he wanted it or not.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2, Informative) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday October 15 2014, @02:40PM
Mike Rogers is the biggest warmonger in DC. He's the guy that did the talk show rounds to call Ed Snowden a traitor and call for his head on a spike.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 3, Insightful) by zocalo on Wednesday October 15 2014, @03:07PM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by cwix on Wednesday October 15 2014, @04:27PM
Just like all politicians, he gets elected based upon nothing more concrete then the party he belongs to.
I cannot think of any recent politician that gets elected based upon their actual positions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15 2014, @06:55PM
At least Republicans get elected based on their position, because their position is whatever the GOP tells them it should be; if they don't, they get mocked as "RINO"s and sometimes even kicked out of the party.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday October 16 2014, @01:06AM
Yeah, and the pile of Democrats bitching about Obama doing all the same shit GWB did is .... where is it? Do you have a microscope by chance?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 16 2014, @03:33AM
You certainly won't find them reading Drudge. I have been deep in the progressive grassroots for going on 20 years now, and those of us who celebrated Obama's first win are as angry about his continuation of Bush's policies as we were when Bush was doing them. I read Drudge all the time to get the other side, and partisans on the right are much closer to partisans on the left than either of them are to the statists in each party. You would never get them to admit in in mixed company, because the political discourse in America has become so reflexively toxic, but beneath the rhetoric there is a consensus brewing and *spoilers* it doesn't look good for the bankers and Masters-of-the-Universe.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Funny) by MrGuy on Wednesday October 15 2014, @02:10PM
...we'll need a national cyber shield, which will be an array of satellites in outer space with laser beams to shoot down incoming cyber attacks. That way, we'll finally all be safe! Sure, it will cost trillions of dollars over a decade and never work, but what are you, some kind of defeatist commie? Why oh why won't you think of the children?
(Score: 3, Funny) by kaszz on Wednesday October 15 2014, @02:23PM
Already invented [wikipedia.org]. You are 31 years too late :P
However parts of it seemed to work too good for the Russians. Enough for them to threaten to abandon disarmament deals.
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Wednesday October 15 2014, @02:24PM
Psst. That was the joke.
Now I feel old.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 15 2014, @10:06PM
Do not mod up as funny the people who dumbly *explain* the joke that someone else has just made
Yours,
Someone who got the actual joke
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by WizardFusion on Wednesday October 15 2014, @02:32PM
What they will try to do is build a Great FireWall Of America, and you will all be kept "safe" from the outside world
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Wednesday October 15 2014, @02:45PM
Getting sharks into space to man the satellite space lasers won't be cheap ... but it will be worth every penny.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Gaaark on Wednesday October 15 2014, @04:04PM
...we'll need a national cyber shield, which will be an array of sharks in outer space with frikkin' laser beams to shoot down incoming cyber attacks.
There.... doesn't that sound better? (Pinkie up!)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15 2014, @02:22PM
“If your [chief intelligence officer] says he’s ready for what’s coming, find a new CIO,” he said.
ME! I'm completely and utterly unprepared to do that job.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday October 15 2014, @02:39PM
Umm, yes, that is a correct assessment, we are not using all our cyber-capability to disrupt actors in Russia.
Rep. Rogers seems to have skipped the step where we discuss whether attacking actors in Russia is necessary or a good idea.
To be clear, Rogers is implying that some recent attacks on American financial companies originated from Russia and the Russian government knows about them but is not stopping them. He seems to think the black-hats are analagous to a paramilitary militia, supported and collaborating with the Russian government, but loosely affiliated so the Russian government can deny any connection to them. There is a good chance he is right. He's chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and he get briefed on this sort of thing. If I were Putin, I would definitely want to have a disposable auxiliary force like that at my command.
That still doesn't mean an active counter-attack is a good idea. Attacking the Russian outlaws electronically is nonsense; they can just trash their workstations, buy new ones, and be back in business by Friday. In the mean time the US would be tipping its hand to the Russians, showing them what attacks they have in their arsenal. So, even before we get to the ethical question (which is still very much open), I don't see any benefit to the US from counter-attacking.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday October 15 2014, @02:57PM
I'm curious -- are there instances of US law enforcement going after black hatters who attack sites located only in places like China or Russia?
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday October 15 2014, @05:22PM
I'm not aware of any major attacks that only affected Russia or China. But how would I hear about them?
Interesting point. Let's just say that for a government to sanction a criminal gang to do its dirty work is a pretty freaking obvious idea to anyone who knows anything about real-world espionage.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15 2014, @06:59PM
That classified, highly sensitive conversation was completed just about 12 years ago, now, but I can offer an informed brief: foreigners have no rights; recognizing national sovereignty substantially hampers US efforts to establish peace among all peoples; we must win by any means necessary. There were a few, weak counter arguments at the time, but they were easily shouted down with "TERRORISTS!" and the surrender monkeys have been marginalized since. You are aware that there has never been an armistice ending the Cold War, aren't you? Nevermind the electronic warfare - a couple of drone strikes on downtown Moscow datacenters would send Putin a clear message and have him on his knees by dinner.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday October 16 2014, @12:28AM
"That still doesn't mean an active counter-attack is a good idea."
Perhaps there's a rule that one ought to secure one's own resources before attacking anyone else? ;-)
Asfair, there's a lot of high impact low hanging fruit in USA..
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday October 16 2014, @04:55PM
That doesn't necessarily follow.
Someone else posted this here a few weeks back...seems applicable here as well:
www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/BUGGER
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15 2014, @03:36PM
Remember that old line? And all the ones about not allowing anything of a sensitive nature to be connected to the Internet? Of course that was before it was discovered how much money could be made and/or lost through the inevitable "arms race" if everyone ignored it for the $$$. Of course for the US banks the government will fire up the presses ever faster for.
Interesting times yet?
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Wednesday October 15 2014, @03:59PM
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday October 15 2014, @05:24PM
You're off topic, but who is calling to assassinate journalists?
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Wednesday October 15 2014, @06:08PM
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday October 15 2014, @07:01PM
Yeah, the problem with democracy is that you sometimes get people like Peter King elected. My real fear is that his voters considered him the lesser evil.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.