FUD

...now browsing by tag

 
 

Cyber Fear Echo Chamber

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009



 

Theologians, Politicians, and Financiers agree! When in doubt use a little fear and not FUD.

Interesting how things pick up right where we left off; with discussion of MAD and CyOffensive Stratagies. A policy of ‘deterrence’ only works when you are not bluffing, and can neutralize your opponent. Hence
Can America take over the internet?”, because thats the only way such a policy would be effective. CyWar is more of a guerrilla operation, there is no specific target to nuke.

 

A threat pops up here, we whack it down, and another one comes up here – this is the environment that many of your enterprise cybersecurity officers are facing,”Bruce McConnell, counselor to DHS’ top cybersecurity official


Threats like al Qaeda?

 

I don’t think they’re the most capable in the world, but they have some capability,”Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff


I am worried about some terrorist group [with] the capability to destroy the U.S. money supply,” The impact of such an attack would be “an order of magnitude greater” than the Sept. 11 terrorist attacksthe former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell


Spottswoode: From what Intelligence has gathered, it would be 9/11 times 100.
Gary:9/11 times 100? Jesus, that’s–”
Spottswoode: “Yes, 91,100.

Kim Jong Il:It will be 9/11 times 2,356.”
Chris:My god, that’s… I don’t even know what that is.”
Kim Jong Il: Nobody does.” – Team America World Police

 


FBI Suspects Terrorists Are Exploring Cyber Attacks

While there is no evidence that terrorist groups have developed sophisticated cyber-attack capabilities, a lack of security protections in U.S. computer software increases the likelihood that terrorists could execute attacks in the future, the official warned.

If terrorists were to amass such capabilities, they would be wielded with “destructive and deadly intent,”

Cyber agencies mum on how they try to identify cyberattackers

Identifying the sources of cyberattacks might not be technically possible in all cases, federal agencies can draw conclusions based on motive and the consequences of the attack

There is “no evidence” terrorists are ready for CyWar, but Chertoff seems to think they have some capability, and McConnell is worried they will destroy the economy before the bankers finish it off.  I almost feel like some of these people are doing the work of the terrorists by striking fear of  “destructive and deadly” CyAttacks into the hearts of hard working men and women.

McAfee stirred things up the month with some secondhand fearmongering.

Nations all over the world are gearing up for a cyber war and that everyone must adapt to these threats”David Dewalt, McAfee president and CEO

Now the media, which knows exactly squat about CySec, can only put into the echo chamber what they are fed into the. Which is exactly what happens with the McAfee statements.

McAfee Cautions About The Possibility Of Cyber Wars

Cyber Warfare Warning Sounded

Cyber Warfare Warning Sounded
In its annual report on cybercrime, McAfee says that the age of cyber warfare has arrived.

FBI Suspects Terrorists Are Exploring Cyber Attacks

Separately, the computer anti-virus company McAfee Inc. issued a report by Paul Kurtz, who led the cyber-security review for the Obama transition team. He concluded that some cyber-attacks in 2007, including Israeli cyber-attacks on Syria and U.S. cyber-weapons employed in Iraq, constitute cyber-warfare.

Cyber ‘cold’ war may have started

Cyber ‘cold’ war may have started


Hold the phone. A cyber cold war? I’ve been talking about this for several months now. To clarify it is not a ‘cyber cold war’, it is The Cold War. The established and powerful military industrial complex, which Dwight Eisenhower warned us against, is moving its resources into the Intelligence Industrial Complex. The same old players, now working the intelligence angle; The Cold War.

 

CyberWar is a Racket

Under the threat of war, the cost of defense is never too high. A nation is under significant obligation to protect its investments where ever they may be. What we see now, is the transition from physical to electronic defense. The United States is returning to Cold War status. In preparation for this the advancement of technology and the power of the intelligence community is of the foremost importance. In order to maintain a position of dominance, the government must sustain its partnership with wartime industry. Through a metamorphosis of the “military industrial complex”, into a new “intelligence industrial complex”, this accomplishment can be witnessed. The ever present fear of terrorism will still be used as justification for sustained engagement. The new terrorist threat comes from what the media refers to as hackers.

 

Its not even McAfee’s report. It’s Richard A. Clarke’s. See how this works? The Public-Private sycophants spoon feed the media into a frenzy to get them stirred up. The media echo chamber picks up the supplied message, and unsuspecting members of the public become influenced by it and believe the lie, which causes them to be more than willing to vote for any sort of legislation that could remedy the issue. Sounds like we’ve gone back to the Hegelian scheme once again.

Dick Destiny
The report itself is attributed to Paul Kurtz, another of Richard Clarke’s
men. Buttressing quote is furnished by Greg Rattray, another in a small
circle of individuals all known for pushing the coming age of cyberwar.

Paul Kurtz, if you remember, was one of my first picks for CyCzar.

CzarWars Episode 1
Paul Kurtz an Obama advisor who served in the national security council
under bush and Clinton, he has in the white house for long enough to
know its politics. Kurtz is also one of the people quoted in the
findings on which the Cybersecurity Act was drafted saying “the United
States is unprepared to respond to a `cyber-Katrina’ and that `a
massive cyber disruption could have a cascading, long-term impact
without adequate co-ordination between government and the private
sector”. Here is a person that fits my criteria, he is technical,
political, and a possesses an overwhelming desire to over-hype the
cybersecurity threat with the understanding that it will create revenue
to his and others private interests. It’s all about the money. If you
check out the consulting team Paul B. Kurtz is on, it’s also about the
cyber-FUD.


He is also mentioned in the CySecurity Act of 2009:

 

(6) Paul Kurtz,
a Partner and chief operating officer of Good Harbor Consulting as well
as a senior advisor to the Obama Transition Team for cybersecurity,
recently stated that the United States is unprepared to respond to a
`cyber-Katrina’ and that `a massive cyber disruption could have a
cascading, long-term impact without adequate co-ordination between
government and the private sector.’.


The people who stand to make the most profit from a little cyFear create a report. They give it to a company whose name is well known to the general public. The company feeds the report into the media echo chamber which bounces it back and forth making it seem legitimate. The public believes the lie, and is now willing to continue funding the people who stand to make the most profit from a little cyFear.

Hegelian Dialectic – Step 1: need $$$ Step 2: FUD Step 3: $$$

 

 

Despite the apparent lack of leadership or direction, the money is still getting spent. It seems that many of the recommendations set out in the proposed bill 773 are being implemented. Regional CySecurity Centres, and competitions to recruit skilled workers are two I can think of at the moment. In addition to competition based recruitment, thousands of skilled CyOps (Cyber Operators) have been offered employment for the purpose of national CySecurity. It is not just regional centres, which as the bill suggested would be facilitated by existing local institutions, but there are many new structures being constructed.


It’s almost as if they are taking CySecurity and the CyWar seriously, while appearing to seem incompetent. I know what you’re thinking, it’s the government, “
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence”, but I’ve never agreed with that statement. I know that by feigning incompetence you can avoid responsibility, it’s even in the Art of War; “Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.

By preventing unwanted meddling with development of CyDefenses, the NSA and DHS and their corporate partnerships are actually throwing a fair amount of money at the problem. The issue with the CyCzar, and apparent lack of focus, could be a clever ruse.

So what is the real plan?
Monitoring, storeing and most importantly indexing every communication possible. Why else would the NSA be in charge? Now they have their own Air Force unit, where the CyWar will begin to merge with NetCent Ops. Imagine! A mobile militarized and offensive arm of the NSA; for those hard to reach communications during the next Cold War years.

CyWar is job security for an industry who has run out of sophisticated enemies to fight on the ground.


Bonus:

Buzzword: “IT Eco-System”
Freudian Typo:

Senate Panel: 80 Percent of Cyber Attacks Preventable

We need to, as a nation and as an IT echo system, continue to make it more simple for people to institute protections to determine if they’ve been compromised and to make sure they stay secure,” said Reitinger, a former Microsoft executive.

Can America Take Over the Internet?

Friday, September 11th, 2009

Original Title : Cyber FUD s773

9.11.2009 – I haven’t forgotten.

A final straw has just broken this camel’s back.  I’m not exactly sure why it suddenly became such a big issue, but the story about “Obama can shut down the Internet” really topped the charts there for a while. I even had someone ask me about it without the facilitation of an electronic or analog device.  Today, I saw one more headline about the topic then was good for me, and as I said it was the last straw.  The thing that bothers me more then the sudden influx of news stories suddenly paying attention to this legislation is that nothing regarding the president’s powers has changed since its introduction. A few of us were making noise about this months ago, and it was no big deal. So some mainstream media must have picked up on it, and the type of people who take in that sort of information ate it up. In what seems to be par for the course, those covering the story have no idea what they are talking about, and are just playing on the popularity of the subject to attract attention to their publication. 

Internet Takedown Links

Let’s just skip over the fertile male bovine fecal matter, and get to the point.

Can Obama Shut Down the Internet?  – New Legislation Gives President Emergency Control.

That is a whole load of ignorance. Obama wouldn’t know how to turn off the internet even if such a thing was possible.  Yes the new legislation does contain wording related to the executive powers of control over critical infrastructure, but in reality this is nothing new. 

Lawmakers strike new tone with proposed bill giving Obama power to shut down Internet

When the bill was release in April, Leslie Harris, president and CEO at the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), which promotes democratic values and constitutional liberties for the digital age, told Network World: “We are confident that the communication networks and the Internet would be so designated [as critical infrastructure], so in the interest of national security the president could order them disconnected.”


I suppose this is the right day for this article.

In time of emergency the government has the power to seize control over anything and everything they desire. This includes the communications infrastructure and access to the internet.  If the people covering this story were aware of this, they might have expressed their concern over the redundancy of this power; why are they reminding us of this now?

Existing laws already give the president broad discretion on how to respond to cyberattacks, despite language in a Senate bill that proposes giving the president specific powers during such events, according to experts.

Experts debate expansion of president’s cybersecurity powers

The president has that power under the National Security Strategy, Addicott said. The most recent National Security Strategy was published in 2006.

Addicott said the bill — S.773 — probably included the language to more clearly define how government officials expect to react to a potential threat, Addicott said. There are precedents for presidents acquiring authority in situations where they do not legally need it, he said.


The people pushing this legislation are using scare tactics to advance their agenda. Using the threat of a cyber-911 or cyber-pearl harbor type of event as leverage to wedge the legislation into existence, they are merely trying to grow a new teat on Uncle Sam’s buttocks for them to feed from.

New Threat Scenarios Drive Cybersecurity Planners to Mull Responses

“It could even be a panic if you think about it,” Meyerrose said. “A story catches hold, there’s an attribution that says that country x has infiltrated something and nobody can take anything out of an ATM, or your power is going to go off or your water is going to turn off or whatever. And then a panic ensues. Those are the kinds of things (to consider) when you’re talking about cyber 911s or cyber Pearl Harbors, in my view.”

Meyerrose said laws are in place already for a situation like the one eight years ago, when the United States was attacked and President Bush ordered all aircraft grounded until further notice. But those aren’t easily applicable to cyberspace.

“There are already provisions I believe — and most of the folks in the business and the government believe — that give the powers to the president that allow to effectively do what needs to be done in times of national emergency,” Meyerrose said.

“I would be troubled if the president didn’t have some sort of emergency powers” for the Internet, he added. “The real ambiguity is, what’s the trip wire for making it a national emergency?”

 Obama Administration Seeks “Emergency Control” of the Internet

True enough as far as it goes, these “free market” cheerleaders are extremely solicitous however, when it comes to government defense and security contracts that benefit their clients; so long as the public is spared the burden of exercising effective control as cold cash greases the sweaty palm of the market’s “invisible hand”!


Of course Meyerrose is the former head of technology for the US Spymaster, and is now the traveling salesman for the Harris Corporation which works with the NSA on U.S. SECRET level encrypted communications. In  2008 it was the number one recipient of funds from the Department of Commerce, and makes billions of dollars a year in revenue. Security and cyber is their business. With the cybercommand being hosted by the NSA, I’m sure Harris <HRS> is a stock symbol to watch.

Internet security bill continues to cause uproar

Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which represents a cross-section of IT companies including Verizon and Nortel, has criticized what he calls vaguely worded language in the latest version.

“It is [still] unclear what authority … is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill,” he states.

However, there are those who say the recommendations make sense. James Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies compared the provisions to President Bush’s decision to shut down airlines after the 9/11 attacks.

“It seems foolish not to have the same authority for cyberspace,” he said, quoted by TheHill.com. “It’s not that the president will wake up in a bad mood one day and implode Yahoo. This would apply only to s
evere national emergencies. … This is a great opportunity to blast us into a new level of discussion about cybersecurity.”


Ok, so not everyone writing about this is in need of immediate cranial rectal extraction, just most of them.  Lewis’ statement points something out that is important to note.


James Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies compared the provisions to President Bush’s decision to shut down airlines after the 9/11 attacks.


Next time you read a story that says ‘the government can’t shut down the internet because 90% of the infrastructure is privately owned’, I want you to think for a moment; did the government own the airlines?  Remember, once these systems are designated as critical infrastructure, regardless of their ownership, they will be required to comply with federal standards which put them indirectly under government control. Depending on who is attached to these networks, the systems will fall under control of either Homeland Security or the NSA.  Both competent agencies with the publics best interests at heart.

Obama Administration Seeks “Emergency Control” of the Internet

Drafted by Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), “best friends forever” of the National Security Agency (NSA) and the telecommunications industry, they were key enablers of Bush-era warrantless wiretapping and privacy-killing data mining programs that continue apace under Obama.


Once the ‘emergency’ is declared, and the networks are commandeered, privacy’s already dead zombie corpse is beheaded and killed with fire, so not even the illusion of privacy would remain. 

The initial question remains. Can America Take Over The Internet?

My initial reactionary response to this absurd question is “of course not”.  Though after some discussion it seems to be that with enough pressure from the United States, most international corporations, telecommunications providers, and ISP’s are likely to cave and accept the forced compliance standards.  After all if America gets the DNSSEC root, then the DHS will be able to shut down pretty much whatever they want on an international scale, not to mention that the IANA was a US Department of Defense contract which ICANN was created to handle after the death of John Postal

New Agreement Means Greater Independence in Managing the Internet’s System of Unique Identifiers

“The United States Department of Commerce has clearly signaled that multi-stakeholder management of the Internet’s system of unique identifiers is the way ahead and ICANN is the obvious organization to take that responsibility,”- ICANN will no longer have its work prescribed for it. How it works and what it works on is up to ICANN and its community to devise;- ICANN is not required to report every 6 months as it has been under the MOU. It will now provide an annual report that will be targeted to the whole Internet community; – There is no requirement to report regularly to the DOC. The DOC will simply meet with senior ICANN staff from time to time. “The ICANN model of multi-stakeholder consultation is working and this agreement endorses it.


No requirement to report to the Department of Commerce, they can just come over for drinks every once in a while to see how things are going.   “Multi-stakeholder consultation”, makes me wonder where the ICANN is getting its funding.  Strangely enough, the federal funding for ICANN seems to be incompletely listed

ICANN Funding

It is unclear from the above paragraph whether ICANN inherits IANA’s self-proclaimed mandate of ‘Preserving the central coordinating functions of the global Internet for the public good.’ However, it would appear that it is in a good position to assert end-users should be willing to pay. If they are not, then the internet should be allowed to fall apart. Certainly the regulatory authorities who have largely stepped aside to allow this experiment to happen ‘would like to see an economically rational and practical charging system – a contribution per name registered for example.’ Therefore ICANN devises a funding scheme that not only takes account of internediary functions, but goes directly to the beneficiaries of the connectivity ICANN preserves and asks them for a contribution appropriate to the value of their benefit. ICANN provides security and stability. What is the price of that stabilty and security? What further can ICANN do to provide these services? It is in terms of the above argument that, apart from registry contributions, well-wisher contributions (disallowed as political contirbutions long-term?), we devised a quadripartite funding plan which can draw income from the end-user services ICANN provides. However it is not suggested that ICANN, in its not-for-profit guise, should operate these income streams directly -this would hazard the not-for-profit status of ICANN and threaten its mandate-, but that it be an agreed beneficiary on a cost-recovery basis, whilst any other pooled income accrues to internediaries pro rata.


So now, I believe, the question should be: “Can the World Take The Internet From the USA?”
Click to continue »

Twitter links powered by Tweet This v1.8, a WordPress plugin for Twitter.

Get Adobe Flash player