[Vision2020] Panetta Warns of Dire Threat of Cyberattack on U.S.

[Paul Rumelhart]

I think the person that decided that the computer that controls the switch which if set wrong can derail passenger trains should be connected to the Internet at large should be taken out back and shot.

If the computers that control the switches need to be connected to each other and to the control station, that should be a network that has NO connections with any other network. If data needs to go out to the Internet for whatever reason, it should be done through a system that allows for read-only access to statistics that have been compiled for that purpose on the safe network.

In my opinion, that is where we should be putting time and resources.  Isolating priority networks and securing the gateways to the data and the physical hardware involved.  Pass legislation forcing certain sectors to have to meet stringent networking layout standards, and you won't have to worry about whether a worm has been planted in Windows or whatever.

Paul




________________________________
 From: Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
To: vision2020 at moscow.com 
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 10:01 AM
Subject: [Vision2020] Panetta Warns of Dire Threat of Cyberattack on U.S.
 

 
 
________________________________
 
October 11, 2012
Panetta Warns of
Dire Threat of
Cyberattack on U.S.
By ELISABETH BUMILLER and THOM SHANKER
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta warned Thursday that the United States was facing the possibility of a 
“cyber-Pearl Harbor” and was increasingly vulnerable to foreign computer hackers who could dismantle the nation’s power grid, transportation 
system, financial networks and government. 
In a speech at the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum in New York, Mr. 
Panetta painted a dire picture of how such an attack on the United 
States might unfold. He said he was reacting to increasing 
aggressiveness and technological advances by the nation’s adversaries, 
which officials identified as China, Russia, Iran and militant groups. 
“An aggressor nation or extremist group could use these kinds of cyber 
tools to gain control of critical switches,” Mr. Panetta said. “They 
could derail passenger trains, or even more dangerous, derail passenger 
trains loaded with lethal chemicals. They could contaminate the water 
supply in major cities, or shut down the power grid across large parts 
of the country.” 
Defense officials insisted that Mr. Panetta’s words were not hyperbole, 
and that he was responding to a recent wave of cyberattacks on large 
American financial institutions. He also cited an attack in August on the state oil company Saudi Aramco, which infected and made useless more than 30,000 computers. 
But Pentagon officials acknowledged that Mr. Panetta was also pushing 
for legislation on Capitol Hill. It would require new standards at 
critical private-sector infrastructure facilities — like power plants, 
water treatment facilities and gas pipelines — where a computer breach 
could cause significant casualties or economic damage. 
In August, a cybersecurity bill that had been one of the 
administration’s national security priorities was blocked by a group of 
Republicans, led by Senator John McCain of Arizona, who took the side of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and said it would be too burdensome for 
corporations. 
The most destructive possibilities, Mr. Panetta said, involve 
“cyber-actors launching several attacks on our critical infrastructure 
at one time, in combination with a physical attack.” He described the 
collective result as a “cyber-Pearl Harbor that would cause physical 
destruction and the loss of life, an attack that would paralyze and 
shock the nation and create a profound new sense of vulnerability.” 
Mr. Panetta also argued against the idea that new legislation would be 
costly for business. “The fact is that to fully provide the necessary 
protection in our democracy, cybersecurity must be passed by the 
Congress,” he told his audience, Business Executives for National 
Security. “Without it, we are and we will be vulnerable.” 
With the legislation stalled, Mr. Panetta said President Obama was 
weighing the option of issuing an executive order that would promote 
information sharing on cybersecurity between government and private 
industry. But Mr. Panetta made clear that he saw it as a stopgap measure and that private companies, which are typically reluctant to share 
internal information with the government, would cooperate fully only if 
required to by law. 
“We’re not interested in looking at e-mail, we’re not interested in 
looking at information in computers, I’m not interested in violating 
rights or liberties of people,” Mr. Panetta told editors and reporters 
at The New York Times earlier on Thursday. “But if there is a code, if 
there’s a worm that’s being inserted, we need to know when that’s 
happening.” 
He said that with an executive order making cooperation by the private 
sector only voluntary, “I’m not sure they’re going to volunteer if they 
don’t feel that they’re protected legally in terms of sharing 
information.” 
“So our hope is that ultimately we can get Congress to adopt that kind of legislation,” he added. 
Mr. Panetta’s comments, his most extensive to date on cyberwarfare, also sought to increase the level of public debate about the Defense 
Department’s growing capacity not only to defend but also to carry out 
attacks over computer networks. Even so, he carefully avoided using the 
words “offense” or “offensive” in the context of American cyberwarfare, 
instead defining the Pentagon’s capabilities as “action to defend the 
nation.” 
The United States has nonetheless engaged in its own cyberattacks 
against adversaries, although it has never publicly admitted it. From 
his first months in office, Mr. Obama ordered sophisticated attacks on 
the computer systems that run Iran’s main nuclear enrichment plants, 
according to participants in the program. He decided to accelerate the 
attacks, which were begun in the Bush administration and code-named 
Olympic Games, even after an element of the program accidentally became 
public in the summer of 2010. 
In a part of the speech notable for carefully chosen words, Mr. Panetta 
warned that the United States “won’t succeed in preventing a cyberattack through improved defenses alone.” 
“If we detect an imminent threat of attack that will cause significant 
physical destruction in the United States or kill American citizens, we 
need to have the option to take action against those who would attack 
us, to defend this nation when directed by the president,” Mr. Panetta 
said. “For these kinds of scenarios, the department has developed the 
capability to conduct effective operations to counter threats to our 
national interests in cyberspace.” 
The comments indicated that the United States might redefine defense in 
cyberspace as requiring the capacity to reach forward over computer 
networks if an attack was detected or anticipated, and take pre-emptive 
action. These same offensive measures also could be used in a punishing 
retaliation for a first-strike cyberattack on an American target, senior officials said. 
Senior Pentagon officials declined to describe specifics of what 
offensive cyberwarfare abilities the Defense Department has fielded or 
is developing. And while Mr. Panetta avoided labeling them as 
“offensive,” other senior military and Pentagon officials have recently 
begun acknowledging their growing focus on these tools. 
The Defense Department is finalizing “rules of engagement” that would 
put the Pentagon’s cyberweapons into play only in case of an attack on 
American targets that rose to some still unspecified but significant 
levels. Short of that, the Pentagon shares intelligence and offers 
technical assistance to the F.B.I. and other agencies. 
Elisabeth Bumiller reported from New York, and Thom Shanker from Washington.

-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com




=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20121012/b4b01b3f/attachment-0001.html>