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.<br><br>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.<br>
<br>It is easy to see who is blocking these changes in the USA. The initial article makes it clear.<br><br>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?<br>
<br>w.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Paul Rumelhart <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif">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.<br>
<br>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.<br>
<br>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.<br><br>Paul<br><div><span><br></span></div><div><br></div> <div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt">
<div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt"> <div dir="ltr"> <font face="Arial"> <hr size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span></b> Art Deco <<a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b> <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a> <br> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b> Friday, October 12, 2012 10:01 AM<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b> [Vision2020] Panetta Warns of Dire Threat of Cyberattack on U.S.<br> </font> </div><div><div class="h5"> <br><div>
<div>
<div>
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nytimes.com/" target="_blank"><img src="" alt="The New York Times" align="left" border="0" hspace="0" vspace="0"></a>
</div>
<div>
<a rel="nofollow" href="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" target="_blank">
<br></a>
</div>
</div>
<br clear="all"><hr align="left" size="1">
<div>October 11, 2012</div>
<h1>Panetta Warns of
Dire Threat of
Cyberattack on U.S.</h1>
<h6>By
<span>
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/elisabeth_bumiller/index.html" title="More Articles by ELISABETH BUMILLER" target="_blank"><span>ELISABETH BUMILLER</span></a></span> and <span>
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/thom_shanker/index.html" title="More Articles by THOM SHANKER" target="_blank"><span>THOM SHANKER</span></a></span></h6>
<div>
<div>
Defense Secretary <a rel="nofollow" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/leon_e_panetta/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Leon E. Panetta." target="_blank">Leon E. Panetta</a>
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. </div>
<div>
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.
</div>
<div>
“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.” </div>
<div>
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 <a rel="nofollow" title="Bits blog post on attack" href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/connecting-the-dots-after-cyberattack-on-saudi-aramco/" target="_blank">an attack in August</a> on the state oil company Saudi Aramco, which infected and made useless more than 30,000 computers. </div>
<div>
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. </div>
<div>
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. </div>
<div>
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.”
</div>
<div>
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.” </div>
<div>
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. </div>
<div>
“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.” </div>
<div>
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.” </div>
<div>
“So our hope is that ultimately we can get Congress to adopt that kind of legislation,” he added. </div>
<div>
Mr. Panetta’s comments, his most extensive to date on <a rel="nofollow" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/cyberwarfare/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" title="More articles about cyberwarfare." target="_blank">cyberwarfare</a>,
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.” </div>
<div>
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. </div>
<div>
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.” </div>
<div>
“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.” </div>
<div>
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. </div>
<div>
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. </div>
<div>
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. </div>
<div>
<div>Elisabeth Bumiller reported from New York, and Thom Shanker from Washington.</div> </div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br><a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br><br><img src=""><br><br>
</div><br></div></div>=======================================================<br> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br> <a href="http://www.fsr.net/" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================<br><br> </div> </div> </div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all">
<br>-- <br>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br><a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br><br><img src="http://users.moscow.com/waf/WP%20Fox%2001.jpg"><br><br>