Comments on: Lynn Wants Halt to Cyber Sniping

By: Mark S.

Mark S. — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 22:07:32 +0000

Alex, once again I must say if that if you knew the difference between the two OSs and how things work in the real world your outlook would be much different.
These “cyber attacks” ate successful because of flaws in the Windows Operating System. Get it? Windows is the open door they look for because it has so many ways to get in, force a way in, bust in and so on. That’s why it’s so vulnerable and the bad guys know that and have for years.
The only way to fix it is to ditch the whole thing and start from scratch. But Microsoft won’t do that and keeps building on something it’s not willing to outright fix.
Now I agree with you on the phising aspect of the problem, however in a work environment such as ours we teach our users (engineers, scientists and whatnot) what to do and not to do far above and beyond the casual Mac user and we monitor them and the network.
We just shrug off the attacks and report forward the logs.
The casual user is vulnerable to phishing or “social engineering” no matter what platform they use.
Fact is that gullible people will do stupid things has always been a fact of life.

By: Alex

Alex — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:45:57 +0000

The problem with cyber security is more the user than the operating system. There is nothing special about Macs that make their users less vulnerable to phishing or social engineering, which is the source of most successful cyber-attacks that result in stolen information.

By: Mark S.

Mark S. — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:35:36 +0000

DenseD1ckhead, your attempt at the use of technical terms is laughable at best and the security of the Mac OS has nothing to do with “buffer overrun,” but with the special type of UNIX kernel that is at the core of the OS.
Sure “info-ops people” try to break into our GO’s Mac banks, but they never get anywhere.
As for the Windows computers…they are a real headache and that’s why they are being phased out.
Do your homework before you post!!!

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 19:06:53 +0000

There’s nothing special about Apple’s OS that makes it safer than Windows; a buffer overrun is a buffer overrun, and Macs use TCP/IP same as anyone else does. Macs only appear safer because they’ve got such a small market share; as soon as it’s worth bothering, people will attack them.

And if you think that the actual info-ops people don’t have procedures in place to attack Macs, then you’re out of your mind.

The only way to keep a system safe from intrusion is to put it in a welded steel box with its own internal power supply.

By: Mark S.

Mark S. — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 11:50:46 +0000

Once again I must point out that as long as we rely on a Windows based infrastructure we are at risk.

It’s the screen door on a submarine.

I work IT and I see more and more USG departments are slowly switching to the Mac platform because it is the most secure OS right out of the box and with a little tinkering it is damn near bomb proof.

By: BlackWolf3102

BlackWolf3102 — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:56:38 +0000

Think About This Before You Do Anything We Already Have The Equipment You All Are Talking About If We Didnt We Wouldnt Be Talking To Talking To OPs ALL OVER THE WORLD But We Have a Problem!!!! Our OPs Even Personal Has This Stuff In IRAQ AFGANISTAN. We Are Losing This Off Humvus/ Tanks And Thats Labtops ALOT OF THEM That the TALBAN has Got There Hands On And Knows All Of Our Information To get into the Labtops Battle Plans Every Person From Presidant down to PVT Where They Are There Family Is etc So Really Either Way Military Or Cilvian This Going To Happen Until They Can Police And Stop Both Sides From Stop loosing Equipment and personal Not Having The Right Security Internet Suite. And More PPL Help

By: roseknight

roseknight — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:40:48 +0000

Read “Body of Secrets” or Scan to the back of it. The book has interesting data.

By: roseknight

roseknight — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:37:37 +0000

Single point authentication which consist of BIO markers may help.

250 for the managerial staff is good for starters. The NSA could help with this issue.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 04:24:43 +0000

I guess my point above is why are we not training 2500 folks per year.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 04:22:25 +0000

As I read this, I’m thinking only 250 new people per year and that’s a tripling! What have these guys at the DOD been doing since 1984?

“To outmaneuver opponents in cyberspace, DOD is building a cadre of cyber experts, and is tripling the number of experts it trains each year to 250 people.”

Enough Said!

By: Todd J

Todd J — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 04:12:18 +0000

Passwords? Should they be using their CAC/PIV credentials for authentication?

By: Brian W

Brian W — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 03:41:58 +0000

There are already multiple military and government networks that are totally separate from the main Internet and each other. The most prevalent ones are for different classification levels.

The problem is that by doing this you are removing your users from the internet as a whole, which has some disadvantages.

The military folks that work in Iraq Afghanistan will tell you horror stories about needed to remember 15 (or more!) different sets of passwords/logons to access the info needed to do the mission, and many times having to log in/out of networks to get different pieces of data. And of course you can’t easily combine and transfer the data between these networks since they are all airgapped and USB keys and floppies are banned.

By: roseknight

roseknight — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 03:07:33 +0000

Security solutions are avialable. Tools and space to go after the “Bad Guys” is what we need!

By: roseknight

roseknight — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 03:05:33 +0000

Internet2 is a reality. It is for the education community. Yes, you maybe missing something. Penetration into a new internet would take time but the potential is still there. The solution would is ingrained in the perfection of known network security measures and the creation and implentation of new security measures.

By: Zach

Zach — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:25:00 +0000

Why not make a 2nd internet within the military (and other Government installations) that has no connection to the actual internet to solve the problem? The only way a hacker could enter the system then is to be on a military computer. Right?

Or am I missing something?