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

[Art Deco]

I agree.  There are many systems that should not be connected to the
internet.  There is no real security anywhere on the internet for various
reasons.

In addition, the internet and the various uses of it need to be redesigned
and regulated to prevent the huge amounts of identity theft, fraud,
industrial espionage, forging of email origins, spam, etc now occurring and
whose numbers continue to grow.

It is easy to see who is blocking these changes in the USA.  The initial
article makes it clear.

Save big business a few bucks and put the our country and its citizens at
continuing growing security and internet crime risk.  Where are the Barry
Goldwaters, William Buckleys, et al when the GOP so desperately needs them?

w.

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>wrote:

> 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.
>
>  [image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/>
>
>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&sn2=336c557e/4f3dd5d2&sn1=2128f258/fca23f25&camp=FSL2012_ArticleTools_120x60_1787511c_nyt5&ad=Sessions_120x60_Aug20_NoText_Secure&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fthesessions>
>
> ------------------------------
> October 11, 2012
> Panetta Warns of Dire Threat of Cyberattack on U.S. By ELISABETH BUMILLER<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/elisabeth_bumiller/index.html>and THOM
> SHANKER<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/thom_shanker/index.html>
>  Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/leon_e_panetta/index.html?inline=nyt-per>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<http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/connecting-the-dots-after-cyberattack-on-saudi-aramco/>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<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/cyberwarfare/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>,
> 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
> =======================================================
>
>


-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20121012/3069b254/attachment-0001.html>