I must admit, I don't have a decade in the .mil, don't really ever plan to. Nor am I a 20 year old naive kid enfatuated with an article he read on a board somewhere. I've been watching the articles for quite a while, and you've probably read more than I have of them as well. I work for the .gov, and with that I recognize there are many money holes and inherent issues with new projects. What annoyed me was the lack of decent response, and in it's place what felt a tad like a flippant condescending one. That obviously could be mainly due to the pessimism of years dealing with the military, and your obvious higher level of knowledge on the issues in question; none the less I hope a posted article would warrant at least a bit of attention/effort above a single sentence stating the obvious. The quote about people using computers like weapons after six months of training is obviously a stupid statement on the part of the speaker, I think any of us who have been working and learning all we can about ethical hacking and security understand that. It's like so many other statement's fed to the public by the governmnent, full of crap to appease the ignorant masses.
Looks like the Air Force is finalizing their location and whatnot for the Cyber Command. Very interesting article on it.http://www.wired.com/politics/security/ ... ntPage=all
"We have to change the way we think about warriors of the future," Lord enthuses, raising his jaw while a B-52 traces the sky outside his windows. "So if they can't run three miles with a pack on their backs but they can shut down a SCADA system, we need to have a culture where they fit in."
What I wrote there was a simple stating of the obvious, that they're finalizing their location, and that I found the article interesting. And an accompanying quote from the article where the acting commander talks about the branch not caring so much about the potentials being overly physically fit, as long as they had some semblence of skills.
ChrisG wrote: pseud0 wrote:
Just for clarification, this is the first formalized program of its type but cyber warfare units have been around for quite awhile. The Air Force is the lead branch for net centric operations, and has had units of various strength in the field for several years. The main unit worked upstairs from me before I left active duty
every service and most DoD agencies have a "team" to do that sort of thing, air force isnt the only one
Perhaps that response wasn't to my post, but to earlier ones.. but I did take it as a response to my post. It doesn't seem to have much to do with what i posted though, and seemed to be a restating of what pseud0 had already stated and we all agreed with. IE, there are teams in most gov agencies and mil agencies.
g00d_4sh wrote:Is it the first to dedicate over 2 billion to it, and have a projected staff of somewhere in the 5k to 10k employees in it though? As well as the first full military branch to dedicate an entire command structure to it? It of course isn't revolutionary for security agencies and other organizations to have teams dedicated to cyber security and whatnot, but it does seem like a more open and forward step toward things on a larger scale. They have nearly the budget of the entire NPS, for a rumored 1/5 to 2/5ths the employees, not to mention other land/peripheral expenses.
Once again, I stated the obvious that most people knew, and that pseud0 had already stated. IE "It of course isn't revolutionary for security agencies and other organizations to have teams dedicated to cyber security and whatnot, but it does seem like a more open and forward step toward things on a larger scale." Larger scale being thousands of employees, though less than a 5th of the NPS, and a big wad of money. (multiple billions).
The response of:
ChrisG wrote:i'll believe 5 to 10k real "cyberwarriors" in one place when i see it.
Was obviously a response to my post. Though I'm by nature somewhat pessimistic (I call it realistic), I think that post is a bit more tinged with condescension than actual relivence. I mean... really, where did I, or the article state that there would be 5k to 10k cyberwarriors in one place? No where, unless you infer from the article that all of the employees of the command are cyberwarriors, and that they're all stationed in one place. Neither of which being the case, nor suggestion.
I highly appreciate that you did give a bit more work into your last post, and I DO appreciate your experience and insights. I also would appreciate respectful responses given with a measure of the forethought and care I would ensure to give to anyone's post.
As always, I enjoy reading your well thought out, and insightful posts. And I truly hope live allows you the time and opportunity to continue posting and working with the EHN community to grow. The legal ramifications of cyberwar(terrorism?) are the main points of some really interesting articles, including one from a law professor. I thought it was a good read sometime back, I should look for that.
"Bad.. Good? I'm the guy with the gun"