Bite - possibly the worst spinners on the planet
|
|
|
US reveals spend on cyber defence
THE US MILITARY has spent more than $100 million defending its computer network from cyber attacks.
Brigadier General John Davis of the US Strategic Command, which is responsible for military cybersecurity, said the cash was spent over the last six months responding to incidents that affected the Pentagon's networks.
The money also went toward training and investment in tools and technologies needed because of infiltrations and viruses.
It is fairly clear, however, that $100 million is not enough as it seems that the US is only really able to 'react' to such attacks rather than building systems that can provide better protection.
A good defence would deal with the less sophisticated threats while allowing more resources to tackle real attacks. µ
L'Inq
CNN
Share this:
Share
Saw a spiffy ad on TeeVee last night which was the typical situation room a la Norad only this one was defending against a cyber attack (only it was really just an exercise). Lockheed-Martin, the defense contractor, sponsored it and I'd guess that's where a big chunk of that $100mil went. If we assume what's known in UK circles as the "BOWMAN" effect you can bet that what we're doing is paying premium prices to the usual suspects to reinvent anti-malware software and other standard techniques and since they're relative neophytes at this game (with a lot of NIH mindset thrown in) what we'll end up with will probably suck.
I don't know about this being a waste. Consider that this is less than a single F-22 fighter's total procurement cost. If $100M stops viruses from some of the producer countries from being consumed by hosts here, then the bandwidth and denial of service saving of even just one single major worm/virus epidemic will pay for itself. Just remember, your system can be infection free, but that doesn't mean a thing if the rest of your neighbors are infected and clogging all the bandwidth on your ISP or the backbone. I don't know about you, but I don't like paying something and getting nothing at any time.
Presumably spending 100 million dollars in 6 months is a good thing, because a fat budget gives more security, job security that is. Since they are concerned about malware, it is clear that we are talking about MS Windows and Unix (including Linux). Apparently there is nothing wrong with the fact that a new critical security issue is being reported almost every day for MS Windows and Unix. People not connected to the IT industry would probably call that nuts, but then again, security problems are an excellent excuse to justify a fat budget.
Nobody would care if we had only a few security problems per year *). That is bad for business. Spending 100 million dollars on virus research, firewalls, daily updates, fixing systems etc. is so much more attractive.
Very Miserable Situation. Makes me wonder what big IT companies like hp have to say about this. Seems they have nothing better to offer than MS Windows or Unix garbage.
*) Most problems related to inherited legacy software from Unix.
There is, reading between the lines, an Implied Offer of QuITe Alien Help in this posting on Current Military Spending Matters ..... http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/04/gates_on_the_defense_budget.php#comment-1465430
It would be Offering a Novel HyperRadioProActive Capability which is most definitely Missing in the Field and in Tangent Environments..... and which would Posit to dDeliver Effective Constructive Command and Control too, which is something which is most definitely Missing too.
And it is not expensive whenever IT only costs what IT costs to Run ITs Drivers for the Systems will then Generate All the Extra Energy for Unlimited Wealth and Power, which does make IT more than just Attractive, even to the the Military Closed Mind as it does not Deliver any Battle Fatigue or Post Traumatic Stress Disorders or Psychopathic Tendencies.