Posted on 12/15/2004 4:47:55 PM PST by SandRat
It's the evil them versus the inept us.
Today’s threats to U.S. national security range from the bloody reality of terrorist suicide bombers to weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. information infrastructure is a vital element of U.S. national security, but the design and management of software render its terminals, nodes and networks demonstrably vulnerable to malicious manipulation. Insofar as the government’s role, the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations recognized their limited leverage over public/private systems and prudently opted to plead for partnerships in policing the information highway. However, the public sector has been reluctant to share data on cyberattacks, fearing that it would be mishandled to the detriment of business and privacy. Further, the goal of leadership has been undercut by the poor track records of federal agencies in reducing vulnerabilities.
The U.S. Congress has tried to spur corrective actions, but it enacted laws that lack incentives for owners to self-police their networks, and it failed to demand accountability or provide sanctions when they did not.
News media coverage has added heat without light to the discussion. Articles titled “cyberterrorism” routinely garner front-page coverage, while those on worms, viruses, phishing, spyware and Trojan horses must duke it out for a few column inches in the financial section.
An apathetic user community tolerates the cyberthreat as an expensive but insurable nuisance. The deciding vote on software security is being cast in the marketplace by buyers who readily acknowledge a growing dependence on efficient automated information systems and who rush to purchase software that features the coolest backward-compatible functionality. However, either they resist buying, or they do purchase but mismanage products that, however imperfect, do reduce system vulnerability.
Industry’s role often is under fire. Federal policy is criticized because many believe that the software industry has manipulated the federal legislative and executive branches. Despite pleas of mea culpa from industry leaders and vows to reform, the software industry has deflected criticism of its faulty software by citing buyer preferences and by blaming security breaches on sloppy operating practices.
To date, the software industry has opted for a strategy that favored maintenance of a competitive market position over product reliability and security. However, that policy now is being rethought. Reports from task forces of the National Cyber Security Partnership—a group of security technology experts, academics and business and government officials—call for improving security across the software development life cycle and propose that security be placed at the heart of the software design process.
Corporate indifference to the cyberthreat also is under fire. A Corporate Governance Task Force has challenged the user community to integrate information security governance into corporate governance, effectively making chief executive officers (CEOs)—rather than chief information officers (CIOs)—accountable for security.
A lack of agreement on threat sources and trends is yet another excuse for keeping cybersecurity fixes on the back burner. Business Week reported surveys showing that “for a third year in a row, attacks on computer networks have fallen.” This is the lowest level of reported unauthorized use of systems since 1999, due, in the view of one commentator, to “organizations becoming savvier about security.” Or, perhaps it is due to savvier reporting?
Don O’Neill of the Center for National Software Studies sees no lessening of cyberthreats. In an “Open Forum” column in the June 2004 issue of CrossTalk,he writes that both threat and vulnerability are increasing because of neglect by venders in “product trustworthiness and inadequate user commitment in security readiness.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security also sees no diminution in threat. An April 2004 report by its Office of Inspector General, titled Progress and Challenges in Securing the Nation’s Cyberspace, finds that speed, virulence and maliciousness of cyberattacks and computer vulnerabilities have increased dramatically in recent years.
Adding strident voice to alarms of cyberterrorism is Robert Cook, CEO of Sigaba, who notes sophistication by terrorists in using Internet tools.
That terrorists value the power of information systems in furthering their agenda is not at issue. But, beyond a suspicious pattern of probes on the Internet, a plausible rationale is yet to surface for terrorists intentionally damaging the information infrastructure they depend on.
The United States has been on heightened alert to a threat of cyberterrorism since September 11, 2001. This includes fears that attacks would cripple power systems, air traffic control, banking and communications. But, security expert Bruce Schneier writes in his June 2004 Cryptogram, “The impending cyberwar was a big dud … caused,” he reasons, “by a misunderstanding of both the attackers and the attacks.” Schneier claims that less than 1 percent of all attacks on the Internet have originated from countries on the U.S. government’s Cyber Terror Watch List, while 35 percent originated from inside the United States.
The insider threat is a significant cybersecurity menace. Writing in The Washington Post about industry attempts to curb the insider threat, Jonathan Krim says, “Computers are so pervasive that almost any employee is a potential threat.” He adds that the extent of this threat is hard to measure because so much goes unreported and that “despite all of the new measures available, security experts say that companies remain woefully inattentive.”
In his book Beyond Fear, Schneier argues there is no single level of security applicable for all users. Instead, there is a condition to be determined by each consumer, based on their threat and risk assessments, and then only after application of tradeoffs to reach a comfort level. He suggests this approach to risk assessment:
• What assets are held so dear as to demand protection? • How vulnerable are those assets and from what specific threat? • What tradeoffs are available to raise security to the user’s comfort level?
The full version of this article is published in the January 2005 issue of SIGNAL Magazine, in the mail to AFCEA members and subscribers January 3, 2005. For information about purchasing this issue, joining AFCEA or subscribing to SIGNAL, contact AFCEA Member Services.
~ and ~
Ummmm, no; no it's not. I won't go into *what it is*, as I'd probably get in trouble... aw, what the heck:
Islam, The Cult of Murder™.
Islam, The Cult of Terror™.
Islam, The Cult of Boy-Buggering™.
Islam, The Cult of Women-Chattelling™.
Islam, The Cult of Horror™.
Islam, The Cult of Rape™.
Islam, The Cult of Ritual Killing™.
Islam, The Cult of Beheading™.
Islam, The Cult of Deviants™.
Islam, The Cult of Hate™.
Islam, The Cult of Lies™.
Islam, The Cult of Female Mutilation™.
Islam, The Cult of Death™.
Islam, The Cult of Christian & Jew Killing™.
Islam, The Cult of Infidel Murder™.
Islam, The Cult of The Mentally-Ill™.
Islam, the Cult of Evil™.
Islam, the Cult of Poverty™.
Islam, the Cult of Illiteracy™.
Islam, the Religion of Peace™, and THEY'LL KILL YOU TO PROVE IT!
Tech WOT
"Islam is", Khataw preaches, "a peaceful religion that is focused on charity and goodwill toward others."
~ and ~
"Not to mention that Islam came to save humanity from ignorance and oppression. Islam is not a threat to any society. Islam calls for harmony and peaceful co-existence with other religions. It does not permit aggression, violence, injustice, or oppression. At the same time, it calls to morality, justice, tolerance, and peace."
None of that is even mentioned anywhere but in your reply-----
snoozing again?
Click the links, SR; they're clickable and easily accessed, chum.
From sexual temptation...beat women into submission (Islam, that is).
From pederasty...Hey, imam just want to have fun.
From pornography..."Don't ask the imam...don't tell the imam."
From lying and deceit...imam say, "do whaaaaaat?"
w, you are so freaking prescient and astute, man. I'm in awe... truly.
Like you, I am slowly but surely coming to know the enemy...keep kicking.
Ping..."Arise, kill, eat..."
I hope this wasn't a false alarm...I thought there might be tussle here...there was a flash of heat...
Ahhhh... has the sun finally gone down to allow us creatures of the night to rise up and feast upon the rotting flesh of Islam?
Hmmmm, imam get crunchy when cooked with pork...pull out those whiskers and pass the BBQ sauce.
Mmmmmmmmm.... I like my Imam crispy. Like bacon.
'specially the Saudi ones ;o)
And then take an Islam and wipe your Mohammed with the "holy" Koran.
=====
Ummm... would that be the same "holy" Koran that the Pope has been kissing?
Tell me you're kidding...did the Pope really kiss the Quoran?
Tell me you're kidding...did the Pope really kiss the Quoran?
=====
No... I am not kidding. There was also pic of the Pope kissing the Quoran on a Freeper thread several days ago, as he groveled before one of the Islamic creeps (trying to make him feeeeeeeeeeel good).
As I recall, my comment was simply this: "Eeeeyuch" !!!
Thanks for the ping!
Rome: War on terror spreads anti-Christian stance
Posted by GeekDejure to Pyro7480
On News/Activism 12/03/2004 1:55:44 PM CST · 25 of 39
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1293755/posts
See Reply #26 for disgusting pic of Pope kissing the Koran !!!
Ick! Please wait until he is done kissing it... out of courtesy, of course.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.