US Cyber Command Formed

[Farnan]

The nascent command charged with operating the nation’s military computer networks is now a reality, the Pentagon has confirmed.

U.S. Cyber Command, a subordinate unit of U.S. Strategic Command, was launched Friday afternoon at Fort Meade, Md., in a status officials called an initial operating capability. The command is expected to be fully operational by October, according to Air Force Lt. Col. Rene White.

Army Gen. Keith Alexander, recently confirmed to lead the command, now officially steps into those shoes after receiving his fourth star Friday in a low-key ceremony at Fort Meade just prior to the command’s activation, the Pentagon said. Alexander will continue to direct the super-secret National Security Agency, which is co-located with Cyber Command at Fort Meade.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates directed the creation of Cyber Command in June 2009 in response to the already significant and growing digital threat from what the command identifies as “foreign actors, terrorists, criminal groups and individual hackers” posed to its information networks, which officials say are probed thousands of times daily.

Cyber Command will “direct the operations and defense of specified Department of Defense information networks and prepare to, when directed, conduct full-spectrum military cyberspace operations in order to enable actions in all domains, ensure U.S./allied freedom of action in cyberspace and deny the same to our adversaries,” according to a fact sheet released Friday by the Pentagon.

Concerns were raised during Alexander’s Apr. 15 Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing over whether Cyber Command’s operations will impinge upon efforts to protect civilian networks, which are the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security. Alexander sought to tamp down those concerns.

“This command is not about efforts to militarize cyberspace,” Alexander said. “Rather, it is about safeguarding the integrity of our military’s critical information systems.”

Senators also questioned the close association Cyber Command and the NSA will enjoy, the degree of transparency the powerful tandem will display and the potential for infringement upon the civil liberties of everyday Americans. Alexander said there will be “significant synergy” between the two but that both will have distinct missions. He agreed that “transparency is important” and said, “We have to show what we’re doing to ensure that we comport, comply with the laws.

“NSA’s own mission and authorities will not change as a result of the creation of this command,” Alexander said. “And while cyberspace is a dynamic, rapidly evolving environment, what will never change will be an unwavering dedication by both Cyber Command and the National Security Agency to the protection of civil liberties and privacy of American citizens.”

“This is not an expansion of DoD’s mission,” the Pentagon added in a press release. “It is in keeping with the department’s mission to protect and defend U.S. national security and protect the lives of men and women in uniform.”

The Defense Department operates about 15,000 networks and currently has about 90,000 personnel dedicated to working on those networks, according to officials.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/0...ommand_052110/

[Jenuensis]

“This command is not about efforts to militarize cyberspace,” Alexander said. “Rather, it is about safeguarding the integrity of our military’s critical information systems.”


I don't see anything wrong with this. Am I missing the hysteria?

[Kanaric]

“This command is not about efforts to militarize cyberspace,” Alexander said. “Rather, it is about safeguarding the integrity of our military’s critical information systems.”


I don't see anything wrong with this. Am I missing the hysteria?

The problem is that this cybercommand is the continuance of the centralization of the Air Force and Army computer networks. A centralized infrastructure is something that hackers and terrorists will enjoy.


At the individual bases we have no power. Every IT person other than those fixing hardware or messing with objects in active directory is pretty much just a middle man for the INOSC. It used to be that every base was independent, now we are totally reliant

Sounds like just an official stamp for whats already been going on.

Hes right if hes talking about this news. The Cyber Command and INOSC and all this centralization has been going on for some time.

[Jom]

The US should employ Gary McKinnon to help towards the project.

[Valiant Champion]

What if the US cyberattacked countries, caused substantial damage and it was found out that the US launched the attack?

Would there simply be counter-cyberattacks or would these attacks be considered an act of war to be retaliated in kind with conventional warfare?

[PoleCat]

What if the US cyberattacked countries, caused substantial damage and it was found out that the US launched the attack?

Would there simply be counter-cyberattacks or would these attacks be considered an act of war to be retaliated in kind with conventional warfare?

Since there often has to be a political will backed by public sentiment in order to go to war I'd think that these kind of attacks would not cause an outbreak of conventional war. The nature of the Internet is just too hidden and nebulous for it to be seen and properly grasped by the masses as an attack.

[Farnan]

What if the US cyberattacked countries, caused substantial damage and it was found out that the US launched the attack?

Would there simply be counter-cyberattacks or would these attacks be considered an act of war to be retaliated in kind with conventional warfare?

Nobody knows...

There are only two proven state-cyber attacks I know of (there may be more I'm not an expert). One is Russian against Estonia which was very effective, but no matter what Estonia will not declare war on Russia. The other is the Russians used Cyber Warfare alongside conventional warfare against Georgia. In this case there already was war. Funnily, Georgia planned for this and had its servers backed up in the US state of Georgia, and Russia refused to attack those servers which may show that Cyber Warfare against states will still not be an everyday accordance.

Russians are masters of Cyber Warfare by the way. And this new command, putting a 4-star in charge, shows the growing importance of Cyber Warfare. Imagine that if the US would use Cyber Warfare in conjunction with conventional warfare to attack the enemies communications and physical infrastructure along with their economic ability.

[hellheaven1987]

Imagine that if the US would use Cyber Warfare in conjunction with conventional warfare to attack the enemies communications and physical infrastructure along with their economic ability.

Probably would not too effective against insurgents. Anyway, the command probably is formed to counter China's cyber attack and launch counter-attack if necessaried.

[Farnan]

Probably would not too effective against insurgents. Anyway, the command probably is formed to counter China's cyber attack and launch counter-attack if necessaried.

I mean in a conventional confict.

[hellheaven1987]

I mean in a conventional confict.

And who US is going to fight in a conventional war??

[Dr Zoidberg]

Russians are masters of Cyber Warfare by the way.

The Chinese are also getting better and better at it too. I think this a smart move by the US, it's been needed for a while.

[Babur]

Nobody knows...

There are only two proven state-cyber attacks I know of (there may be more I'm not an expert). One is Russian against Estonia which was very effective, but no matter what Estonia will not declare war on Russia. The other is the Russians used Cyber Warfare alongside conventional warfare against Georgia. In this case there already was war. Funnily, Georgia planned for this and had its servers backed up in the US state of Georgia, and Russia refused to attack those servers which may show that Cyber Warfare against states will still not be an everyday accordance.

Russians are masters of Cyber Warfare by the way. And this new command, putting a 4-star in charge, shows the growing importance of Cyber Warfare. Imagine that if the US would use Cyber Warfare in conjunction with conventional warfare to attack the enemies communications and physical infrastructure along with their economic ability.

You guys might need Sam Fisher if things go bad

I recall reading that in 2007 and 2008 that Russian hackers carried out cyber attacks

[CarbEast]

There are only two proven state-cyber attacks I know of (there may be more I'm not an expert). One is Russian against Estonia which was very effective, but no matter what Estonia will not declare war on Russia. The other is the Russians used Cyber Warfare alongside conventional warfare against Georgia. In this case there already was war. Funnily, Georgia planned for this and had its servers backed up in the US state of Georgia, and Russia refused to attack those servers which may show that Cyber Warfare against states will still not be an everyday accordance.

Proven by who? Did the IP packets came with red stars on them?

[Phier]

Sounds like just an official stamp for whats already been going on.

[Farnan]

Sounds like just an official stamp for whats already been going on.

No, its an effort to unify elements that were currently in different places in the military, and put a 4-star in charge. Places more importance on the concept.

[s.rwitt]

Seriously hellheaven? Do I need to list the two most likely candidates? It's only been 7 years since the US's last conventional war.

[hellheaven1987]

Seriously hellheaven? Do I need to list the two most likely candidates? It's only been 7 years since the US's last conventional war.

You mean you want to do two more wars in Iraq War style and face a complete collapse of US international reputation??

[Exarch]

i'd assumed that the Pentagon had already acknowledged cyber warfare;
wot's all this about then?

[s.rwitt]

Is that seriously what you thought I was saying or are you trying to be funny?

[Kamos]

A long overdue movement, cyber warfare will be absolutely essential in the future if it isn't already.