NSA Director Says the US Must Secure the Internet 250
Trailrunner7 writes "The United States has a responsibility to take a leadership role in securing the Internet against both internal and external attackers, a duty that the federal government takes very seriously, the country's top military cybersecurity official said Tuesday. However, Gen. Keith Alexander, director of the National Security Agency and commander of the US Cyber Command, provided virtually nothing in the way of details of how the government intends to accomplish this rather daunting task. 'We made the Internet and it seems to me that we ought to be the first folks to get out there and protect it,' Alexander said. 'The challenge before us is large and daunting. But we have an obligation to meet it head-on.' It's unlikely that any of Alexander's comments Tuesday will do much to quiet the criticisms of the Obama administration's security efforts thus far. Speaking mostly in generalities, Alexander emphasized the administration's commitment to the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative, a plan developed by the Bush administration and recently partially de-classified by Obama administration officials."
Are they joking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Until you control all the INPUTS, you can't control the OUTPUTS
I think these folks are actually trying to use scare-tactics in order to increase their own budgets short-term,
knowing that there is no feasible method of performing such a task.
Already secure (Score:2)
The internet is already secure for me, when using SSH to a trusted host.
Job done.
Re:Already secure (Score:5, Insightful)
And how do you know that the host you SSH to is secure? It has at least one exposed attack vector if you can SSH to it, and probably more. And it's not enough that it's secure right now -- if it was broken into in the past (visibly or without traces), and someone made off with the host key, you can't protect against a man-in-the-middle attack.
Then there's the possibility of breaking in to the router in front of that host, which might give you access to other and less secure hosts in the same zone. Do you control that too?
And what about your system? Has it been 100% safe from day one until now?
No chain is stronger than the weakest link, including the endpoints.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The internet is already secure enough for me, when using SSH to a trusted host.
Fixed parent's post for him.
I like the approach to personal security suggested in this [acm.org] article that was posted on Slashdot a while back. The basic gist is that the amount of effort we put into preventing an attack should be less than the probability of a successful attack occurring times the expected loss from a successful attack.
Now, I didn't RTFA, but I assume the types of attacks that the NSA director is referring to are more severe than loss of credit card theft and loss of personal data. Things
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Should it? The whole justification for insurance is that we are willing to pay MORE than ( the probability of a disaster times the expected loss from a disaster ) whenever we are unable or unwilling to abs
Re: (Score:2)
The probability of a successful attack tends to 1 given sufficient time.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
One of the endpoints being compromised is the issue. Either the server, or the ssh client, or the person operating the ssh client has been compromised into believing that the end point doesn't extend into his own gullible brain.
SSH is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks if someone obtains a copy of the private host key, or if the client side accepts a changed host key despite warnings that it has changed. In fact, it being vulnerable is the sole reason for the warning!
Scenario 1:
Between client A and s
Not quite (Score:5, Insightful)
You could be placed under investigation because of Who you ssh with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The internet is already secure for me, when using [Insert Technology Here]
I think that is missing the point somewhat - It is not secure against you speaking your mind on their corruption and organizing against it.
Re:Already secure (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing the point entirely. When US gov. officials use the term "secure" they mean precisely "control and oppress those in question" or often "retain power at all costs". You must learn to read these statements properly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For the US government (and likely any individual national government), the Internet has only one valid purpose: commerce. It must be a safe place to do business, first and foremost. Any other perks, such as free expression, political activism, and unbridled creativity are expendable if it makes pacifying the electorate and corporate interests easier.
When "national security" is discussed in context of the Internet, let's make no mistake, it just means "keep people from saying things we don't want them to say
its ok to dislike the us govt (Score:2)
but disliking the us govt for what all govts do just makes you look silly
Re: (Score:2)
exactly right.
This is about absolute control and power.... Not security
Re: (Score:2)
It's naive to only call out "US gov. officials". Every gov't wants this power, and quite a few (maybe more than you'd like to admit) are working hard to get it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
CJCS to JCS: Gentlement, secure that building (points to building) and report back to me tomorrow.
JCS: Yes sir!
-24 hours later-
Admiral: Sir, we've repainted the entire building and made sure all the doors are closed and locked.
Army General: Sir, we've dug defensive fighting positions and established clear fields of fire 360 degrees around the building.
Marine General: Sir, my men will secure the building in (checks watch) 3..2..1.. (Explosion heard in distance)
Air Force General: D*****t! We just signed a 99
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Secure" means different things to different people.
There's an old saying that if you ask the army to secure a building then they place armed guards at intervals around the perimeter and at strategic points within the building. If you ask the navy to secure a building then they make sure the doors and windows are locked before they leave. And if you ask the air force to secure a building then they take out a ten-year lease with an option to extend to twenty-five.
Which meaning is this one?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Practical attacks or merely theoretical "well, it's broken under mathematical rules" attacks?
Over time, these converge.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Our planet is already secure — you cannot escape it.
Re: (Score:2)
Our planet is already secure — you cannot escape it.
Then you aren't going nearly fast enough.
Re:Are they joking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. What they are demanding is the banishment of anonymity at the very least.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Where are they saying that?
Re:Are they joking? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How does any government ever "secure" something? By adding multiple layers of bureaucracy and requiring multiple forms of identification to use the service.
That only slows down and annoys law abiding citizens while criminals continue to get through and around such regulations.
Sources -
- prohibition
- gun control
- war on drugs
- TSA
- border fence
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course.
By "securing the Internet" they really mean, "stop filesharing and wikileaks".
This is why neutrality regarding the infrastructure of the Internet has to be codified now. In a year, maybe two, it'll be too late. Once the telcos put up their toll booths and completely wipe out independent ISPs, it's all over.
I suppose though that the minute the first advertisement appeared on the web years ago the future was written in stone. You can't allow just anybody to connect to t
Re: (Score:2)
How to be secure from the internet:
Disconnect the ethernet cable and the Wifi.
$1 million for my groundbreaking solution please.
Re: (Score:2)
Cut the string from her tin can to his.
Re:Are they joking? (Score:5, Interesting)
Meh, joking aside, there's plenty of technical measures that they could be doing (not that we'd necessarily want these people to do this kind of thing for us)...
* Plopping down firewalls at internet trunks, then using them to filter out spam and portscans. Propagate rules to shut down bot traffic at the edge routers.
* Sniffing / logging all traffic with snort / ntop (but more likely something big commercial and expensive) for, uh, forensic analysis
* Requiring some sort of RealID authenticated onramps, so net access can be traced back to a credit card or better yet an "internet license" associated with someone's passport or other unique government ID
* Encrypted key escrow so they can peek inside encrypted data and streams.
Scary stuff with lots of room for abuse, but really not any different than what a mildly competent corporate IT department already does.
Maybe on the internet2 for mobile phones (the next generation).... the question is whether the new system will be "pre-secured" by the corporate walled gardens, or if the government will finally finish "securing" and thus killing off the first gen internet just as the new one comes online ;-P
Re:Are they joking? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well there's also relatively small steps like providing some better/simpler schemes for encryption/signing. PGP is pretty good, but poorly supported in most email clients. SSL is good, but CAs are lazy and expensive. SFTP provides encryption, but you generally need to blindly trust the host on the first connect.
One of the suggestions I've read around here is to support public keys in DNS records. If the DNS records are signed, then you can verify the public key did, in fact, come from the domain owner. Not a perfect solution, but it seems like it could be a first step to getting rid of the current CA system, which sucks IMO.
Re: (Score:2)
PGP is pretty good, ...
Well, yeah... isn't that the point? /sarcasm (note to the uninitiated: PGP == Pretty Good Privacy).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That feature has been in DNS and SSH for several years [ietf.org] now. The optional SSHFP record contains a fingerprint of the public key, and if the ssh client has VerifyHostKeyDNS set to "yes", you don't have to manually verify the host key.
The question then is whether the DNS can be trusted.
Anyhow, to generate a couple of D
Re: (Score:2)
Good to know, but it'd still be good if there were a consistent, uniform, and comprehensive approach to these things.
Re: (Score:2)
Scary stuff with lots of room for abuse, but really not any different than what a mildly competent corporate IT department already does.
The difference is that your employer owns his network and his employees' computers, and can do whatever he wants with them; they're his property. Not so the US and the internet and YOUR computer. The government has no right to restrict my computer use in any way, except to investigate and prosecute any criminal activity. And the investigation has to be legal and not trample
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think these folks are actually trying to use scare-tactics in order to increase their own budgets short-term
Dear citizens of the United States,
In case you have not noticed, your government is spending and borrowing so much that the economy is seen by outsiders as being virtually on it's last legs, you cannot carry on printing money thinking it's going to fix the problem. You may fantasise that you can spend money on this and that, but you no longer can.
Trying to "fix" the internet is the least of the US problems. Your budget deficit needs IMMEDIATE attention.
Yours Sincerely,
Someone who loves in another country wh
Re: (Score:2)
They should prevent "typing 'Google' into Google" denial of service attack for starters.
Re: (Score:2)
I want my bear arms, damnit!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Shave them weekly for about 6 months then stop for 6 months and you shall receive that which you desire.
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? (Score:2)
Because we can!
Or at least that was 'good enough' of a reason for the Thunderbirds
Allwe need now are some 'net savvy puppets with supersonic jets
Can we have our money back? (Score:5, Insightful)
We did make the Internet, and between government and business and private citizens we spent about $1 Trillion bringing it up to the state where Carly Fiorina and the other outsourcing robber-barons could use it to ship the whole information economy to India and China, cratering the return we expected from our investment, so they could pocket a few $billion in quick profit.
We'd like our money back. Someone tell Carly she owes us.
Re: (Score:2)
Then send over some programmers with pliers and a blowtorch and get medieval on her ass
Re: (Score:2)
Someone tell Carly she owes us.
Don't worry! She'll pay it back in service as California's next Senator!!! I can't wait until she starts outsourcing citizen positions to India - we could cut Social Security and Medicare payments by 70%! Go, Carly!!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to see you try again only to see computers and networks merge into the Internet somewhere else, the US information economy would have fallen before it had even properly risen. Like that quote people pull out about the MPAA and RIAA, you don't have the right to halt progress just to preserve your profits and that goes for countries too. The rest of the world would have moved on and the US would be the one left behind.
Re: (Score:2)
The US was leading on everything. The rest of the world would have played catch-up. But rather than continue to compete, Carly & Co. shut down American jobs and moved the Internet economy across the ocean. It made her money and destroyed America's economy, and the shock to the financial sector almost took the world's economy with it. If there hadn't been a coincidental situation brewing with the real-estate/credit fraud market there would have been no bubble/bust in the mid-00s to camouflage it.
See,
Re: (Score:2)
We did make the Internet (Score:3, Informative)
CERN disagrees.
CERN does not disagree. CERN was the birthplace of the World Wide Web" [wikipedia.org] and the internet is much more than just the web. Here's A Short History of Internet Protocols at CERN [web.cern.ch] from the horse's mouth.
Falcon
Easy Fix (Score:3, Funny)
Block all traffic to .ru and .cn.
The age old problem (Score:2)
So long as the smarter people remain outside the law, it will never be secure. /generalization
I don't want a "protected" internet. (Score:5, Insightful)
The way to "protect" it is to not use it for stuff that, um, needs protecting.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not broke and can't be "fixed".
All any attempts will do is F it up.
I'd say to help they could put some effort into enforcing the existing abuses spam and cyber fraud, but that would sadly be ineffective. Asshats won't enforce anything but the most blatant TOS violations.
Education is the answer, just like street savvy, folks need internet savvy.
Some are so gullible they should not be allowed on the Net, but it's not for me to say who.
Re: (Score:2)
-Or they could just design a new one with secure messaging, end-to-end authentication, non-repudiation, etc, etc, etc and keep it to themselves.
And they could give us FREE PONIES at the same time.
I think they were right, as most Internet users would LOL@ someone being duped out of large sums of money at fake EBay auctions using obvious (in the technical sense, not to the user) email forgeries.
How would tying those emails to an 'Internet Drivers' License' claiming that I'm 'Samuel El Jackson, Nigeria 90210' help prevent such scams?
Protection (Score:5, Interesting)
Plug a barrel with 10,000 holes? (Score:2, Insightful)
Should the government really be trying to manage security across the ENTIRE internet? Would you rather plug 10,000 holes in an old barrel or just build a new barrel? Maybe I just don't understand the issue enough, but wouldn't a separate Government/Military/infrastructure internet be more viable and easier to implement on existing systems thus costing less? And if you really needed access to the public internet, you could control the points of entry and monitor them much easier and more effectively.
Re:Plug a barrel with 10,000 holes? (Score:4, Insightful)
Step 1) Set up the infrastructure you suggest; Step 2) allow academic researchers in; Step 3) allow college students in; Step 4) let other countries link up; Step 5) start allowing commercial enterprise in; Step 6) listen to the commercial enterprise whine how they should have more control over the internet; Step 7) listen to other countries whine since the US was nice enough to let them link up to the network, those countries are now entitled to equal control over the network; Step 8) listen to the open source crowd whine how the government is exercising too much control and security should be handled by them in a libertarian free-for-all. We've been through this before, the network won't stay secure.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple answer? Say 'No' a few times. Design it with one mission, secure critical systems for us. Screw the researchers, college students, thats what the public internet playground is for.
The US military already has numerous networks like the one you describe. If the NSA director was talking about those, he'd say so. He's talking about the public Internet playground, and the need to "secure" it (whatever that means).
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's just me and my Hollywood-colored upbringing, but whenever I hear a black-suit-type say something is secured, I expect to see bodies with rather large holes cooling nearby...Hmm, where's that list of spam and botnet admins?
The Internet is insecure? (Score:3, Interesting)
We could talk about securing applications that run on top of the Internet, but that would be a different conversation and I am not sure that is where we want the government to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bob Laublaw... Show us where a bad routing entry can "take out the whole internet"? Yer fulla shit.
Somebody's doing something stupid on the backbones if that's the case.
Secure DNS is just the first nail in the coffin of the internet as we've known it the last 20 years.
But, continue speaking nonsense.
Not possible... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Um... I have an idea... (Score:2)
Let me guess (Score:2)
Simple Solution! (Score:2)
Just add an "s" to your "http"!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey you, shttp!
An analogy.... (Score:2)
A house can be considered secure when doors and windows are closed and locked. Is the hose secure from criminal invasion? No
The house is secured from unauthorized access. Can the house be secured? No
So, How do you stop criminal entry? Stop the criminal. In the process of stopping the criminal can the home be used? No
Using the home will endanger or at least penalize the private home owners, and may inadvertently criminalize the home owner,
because there is a pot-plant growing (not for use/distribution) in the
Re: (Score:2)
Should have gone with the car analogy. Since they were invented here (like the internet) they fit a little better. ;)
Perhaps offer some standards? (Score:3, Interesting)
There are ways the US government can do some in advancing Internet security as a whole. Some that come to my mind (usual long list):
1: Subsidizing an OATH compatible OTP system. Perhaps get Aladdin/SafeNet or RSA to make tokens which support numbers that change every 30 seconds, and apps for devices. Now, a thief has to do more than just slurp a password to compromise a bank account. They would have to actively mess with the Web browser. This leads to #2.
2: A ZTIC-like system. This way, transactions are confirmed actively, so malware present on the system can't actively transfer money even if a bank account's password is compromised. This can be a hardware device, or a phone app.
3: Crypto contest for a RSA successor. RSA has stood strong, but another public key algorithm that is quantum computer resistant is needed. Of course, this isn't an easy task, compared to making symmetric key algos.
4: A backbone between businesses similar to NIPRnet, but for civilian transactions.
5: A civilian CAC for client certificates, with good mechanisms in place to deal with cards that are lost, stolen, locked out due to bad PIN retries, or accidentally microwaved.
6: SELinux's successor. Preferably a hybrid between it and AppArmor. The more technology in keeping applications to just what they need to run, the better.
7: This isn't directly Internet affecting, but perhaps find some R&D into backup technologies? It used to be a while back that companies were through about backups, and if you even thought about being a sysadmin, you knew how to do dumps, tars, full/incremental/differential backups, tape rotations (grandfather/father/son), offsite tapes, and so on. These days, people don't even bother with backups, and if they do, they think the cloud can do it, forgetting the time it takes to suck all that info back through a WAN connection on restore. Yes, backups are boring as all get-out, but in case other security measures fall apart, backups are what one uses to piece things back together.
RTFS, FFS (Score:4, Insightful)
I know you can't ask Slashdot to read the article, but can't we even read the summary anymore? From the headline "US Must secure the Internet" (A change from the actual headline "US has a duty to secure the internet" to the actual NSA Director "has a responsibility to take a leadership role in securing the internet") maybe you can say they're talking about making online ID mandatory so all activities can be traced to an individuals internet license ID. Or something. But they're not. They're talking about providing expertise and advice to help others secure both public networks (like the Internet) as well as private networks (such as corporate and government networks.) This is similar to how the FDA advises the public on the proper temperature to cook your hamburger to to avoid e.coli, but doesn't send in the stormtroopers if their spy sats detect you BBQing undercooked meat. You can say that, given the government track record for incursions into their own networks, they have no business telling others how to secure their networks. And you'd probably be right, but you wouldn't be saying anything that TFA didn't say.
But, the majority of TFA is talking about how the government plans to improve the security of their own networks, and the steps that they have already taken. Very little is spent talking about their planned "leadership" roll in helping secure public and private networks across the country. It sounds an awful lot like leadership by example, however. There's no mention of new laws making security features mandatory, for example. More like just providing advice on how to secure a network, with examples of how they have improved their own security. It's being criticized as being overly broad and generalized. Which, again, is probably valid, since it's exactly the field of the people leveling the critiques. But nothing sounds malicious at all. Nothing sounds like, as people have been saying, they plan to eliminate anonymity by making all internet connections require a traceable license. That's pretty absurd, and if it's been brought up by the government, it wasn't by TFA or anybody in it. What he's saying is, the internet is important, and the government has a duty to protect it from attacks. Such as, a DDoS or other sort of attack taking down key points and knocking a substantial amount of the country offline. That would be a serious blow to the economy, so yes, the government does have a duty to do what it can to prevent that kind of attack.
Last but not least, is the quote that ends TFA.
done (Score:4, Informative)
NSA Director Says the US Must Secure the Internet
As of 10am EST this morning I have completely secured the Internet. The NSA director and my immediate management have been notified. I closed the ticket.
Can't we just (Score:2)
Define "Securing" (Score:2)
The "Internet" provides a pipe into my network. My network is secure. I am not sure how anyone would go and secure the inter-networking connection between my network and others. Well, yes, I can see the value of hardening the infrastructure (protecting fiber-optic and cable links). And, taking this literally, that is the meaning.
But, for some reason, I am sure that is not what is meant. What I suspect is that anyone who connects to the main backbones, or a subsidiary will need to have some confirmation that
Clearly he's never heard of neighborhood watch... (Score:2)
... or doesn't see the sub-contractor profit in it.
Who's the enemy this time? (Score:2)
a responsibility to take a leadership role in securing the Internet against both internal and external attackers,
When the man says "external attackers" does he mean people who are not current users and should be forcibly kept out of the internet, or does he mean *reaaaally external* attackers, such as the Borg?
Here It Comes... (Score:3, Informative)
They've been working themselves up to this for a while now, and it appears that the lead-in propaganda campaign has heated up. I can't believe that I haven't seen another post discussing this yet. It fits perfectly with TFA/TFS. Two words.
Trusted Computing. [trustedcom...ggroup.org]
Here [cam.ac.uk] is a paper by Ross Anderson on some of what implementing Trusted Computing will mean.
This had better be nipped before implementation or there won't be another chance. The internet is a tool with more than one use, just as with nearly any tool. While the internet has tremendous power to empower, inform, and enrich, it also has tremendous power to monitor, control, and suppress if Trusted Computing is allowed to be implemented.
Strat
The national security total makeover (Score:2)
They should have thought of that in the seventies.
Or how about security eye for the promiscuous guy.
Re:The non-technical have lots of crazy ideas (Score:5, Insightful)
He has a masters degree in systems technology and another in physics, according to his biography, in addition to an MBA and a BS undergrad, plus lots of experience in intelligence and counter-intelligence, including in active combat scenarios, according to his biography. I suspect he's probably more "technical" than a large swath of people here, not to mention the general public. Just because he says folks doesn't mean his 'non-technical', so stfu.
Re:The non-technical have lots of crazy ideas (Score:5, Insightful)
if you read the summary about "Securing the internet" you'd know that the comment by this individual, technical or not, would give you the impression that he's a fucking moron.
I'm sure he's good at what he does, but "securing the internet" is not and will never be one of those things.
Even DNSSEC and IPv6 do nothing for "Security", because they haven't gotten back the original security issue: computers and/or users. Adding encryption, adding anything to allow anonymity and all you do is make it easier to poke holes in security. Get rid of anonymity and all you do is make it easier for people to use fraudulent identities since it assumes that nobody can be anonymous, which is also impossible. You're at the PC, and I'm behind you telling you what to do? Guess what, I'm anonymous.
Considering that security goes beyond the internet, shows how impossible the idea is. This is not even remotely reasonable.
Re:The non-technical have lots of crazy ideas (Score:5, Insightful)
DNSSec is intended to prevent query cache poisoning. It's not a catch-all silver bullet and its not meant to be. Similarly, requiring IPSec in IPv6 solves certain problems, while leaving others untouched.
There will likely never be 100% security, for if there were, then you would have a 100% unusable system. But that doesn't mean that the current situation can't be made better. I just get the impression that a lot of people around here equate freedom with a reasonable expectation of getting away with a crime and have greasemonkey scripts to auto-respond with the Franklin security/liberty quote.
Re: (Score:2)
nobody said the current situation can't be made better. That has absolutely nothing to do with the statements at hand.
Assuming you can make anything secure, however, is a completely false statement, and is specifically what was said. "We're going to secure the internet" is likewise a false statement.
Re:The non-technical have lots of crazy ideas (Score:4, Insightful)
No, we can't secure the whole internet. What we can do, however, is make highly critical segments more secure. Part of that is physical security, part of it is better monitoring infrastructure, such as fiber tap splitters off to an IDS system at a backbone peering point. vendors such as Net Optics [netoptics.com] make just such a device, among others.
It would probably make more sense to run new lines, or light up some dark fiber, and move all the government stuff onto that, then have a few border crossings, like peerage points, where "real" internet access can be controlled and monitored to prevent breach of systems which aren't already on separate networks. They might do that already, I can't really say for sure.
Although, it still doesn't keep some random employee from doing something stupid on the inside, you can at least mitigate the impact. Then maybe, just leave much of the rest of the infrastructure as-is and have fend for ourselves, or whatever.
But yeah, we can just be picky and pedantic instead of just agreeing that there's a point of "good enough" that's more secure than what we have but less secure than just not having the system in the first place, or locking it away in a concrete bunker with no power.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, it all goes back to the same reality.
If physical security is compromised (and it can, has been, and always will be), then the rest of the security is entirely and completely ineffective.
Since even a military base has weaknesses for physical security, there really isn't a solution.
This isn't an advertisement for anarchy, it's just reality.
Want to know what the best thing is that can be done for security? Best practices. Create them, know them, have everyone follow them. Why? Because it's the (best) you
Re: (Score:2)
also, the franklin statement is very very accurate, and very much a concern when it comes to the US government, which is well known to throw around abuse of power and let judges settle the constitutionality of their horrible decisions in the first place.
The government clamoring for more security tells people that a: they want to monitor everything, b: they want to control everything, and c: who cares about the actual citizens of the US?
Forget the republican angle on it, this has been a corruption issue more
Re: (Score:2)
Adding encryption, adding anything to allow anonymity and all you do is make it easier to poke holes in security.
You can always poke holes in any security scheme, but that doesn't mean it's not worth trying. Locks can be picked. Passwords can be guessed. Social engineering is always going to be a problem. Still, we do these things.
Security is not about making unauthorized access impossible. It's about making unauthorized access difficult and risky so that fewer people try, and fewer still succeed.
Re: (Score:2)
who said there wasn't any room to improve? try reading the comments again. I didn't say it can't get better, but to declare it secure is another statement altogether.
More secure, that's a legitimate statement. But "securing the internet"? please.
Re:The non-technical have lots of crazy ideas (Score:5, Insightful)
At some point in history, there were doctors who were convinced that the four humours [wikipedia.org] were the chief actors in the body, and developed some pretty strange and barbaric rituals to regulate their levels. The finest doctors at that time went to the finest schools and received the best education in the world, as far as they were concerned. The trouble was that everything they believed was absolutely untrue. The foundation of every bit of their knowledge was built upon a lie.
Receiving a good education does not ensure that you are right or wrong, but it means you are very highly trained in the existing hubris of your culture. So I'm sure this guy worked very hard, and filled out all the right forms and kissed ass at the appropriate times and wrote brilliant regurgitations of his professor's theories to clamor his way to the top of the bourgeois dog pile of the desperately successful. But that doesn't mean his ideas are worth a damn.
And it also doesn't mean that they're not worth a damn. But the guy works for the government, and specifically, the part of the government that exists to protect American (corporate) interests above all else. His job is to make the internet safe for commerce, not to protect the free flow of information. He's got his hammer, and he intends to find some nails.
Re: (Score:2)
He has a masters degree in systems technology and another in physics, according to his biography, in addition to an MBA and a BS undergrad, plus lots of experience in intelligence and counter-intelligence, including in active combat scenarios, according to his biography. I suspect he's probably more "technical" than a large swath of people here, not to mention the general public. Just because he says folks doesn't mean his 'non-technical', so stfu.
No "technical" person would ever say such a stupid thing, like "US must secure the Internet".
I know quite few people with lots of degrees and shit, but they're still dumb as a brick.
Re: (Score:2)
A typo is not the same thing as a flawed argument, unless you're losing.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, a lot of us don't have boarders, even if most of us have internet access. Some of us who do have boarders will allow them to use our internet access, but I don't know if that matters. I don't want to have to watch them use it, just to secure them, and I don't want the Feds to get involved in the relationship between me and any boarders that stay in my house. But we do have to watch 'em, especially the boarders fr
Re: (Score:2)
Why, our enemies, of course. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
I know folks in the defense industry - all the critical stuff has not physical path to the internet. To access that information means switching machines.
Same goes for other industries. I mean, network admins aren't stupid - it's pretty obvious that if it's really critical you don't connect it to the internet. Even the PHBs get that.
Actually, the PHBs DON'T get it. They outsource the administration of their networks , including fileservers containing their critical IT (both technical and business-secret), t