Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government Security Communications Network Networking Privacy The Internet Technology

Trump Signs Executive Order On Cybersecurity (techcrunch.com) 173

President Trump on Thursday signed a long-delayed executive order on cybersecurity that "makes clear that agency heads will be held accountable for protecting their networks, and calls on government and industry to reduce the threat from automated attacks on the internet," reports The Washington Post. From the report: Picking up on themes advanced by the Obama administration, Trump's order also requires agency heads to use Commerce Department guidelines to manage risk to their systems. It commissions reports to assess the country's ability to withstand an attack on the electric grid and to spell out the strategic options for deterring adversaries in cyberspace. [Thomas Bossert, Trump's homeland security adviser] said the order was not, however, prompted by Russia's targeting of electoral systems last year. In fact, the order is silent on addressing the security of electoral systems or cyber-enabled operations to influence elections, which became a significant area of concern during last year's presidential campaign. The Department of Homeland Security in January declared election systems "critical infrastructure." The executive order also does not address offensive cyber operations, which are generally classified. This is an area in which the Trump administration is expected to be more forward-leaning than its predecessor. Nor does it spell out what type of cyberattack would constitute an "act of war" or what response the attack would invite. "We're not going to draw a red line," Bossert said, adding that the White House does not "want to telegraph our punches." The order places the defense secretary and the head of the intelligence community in charge of protecting "national security" systems that operate classified and military networks. But the secretary of homeland security will continue to be at the center of the national plan for protecting critical infrastructure, such as the electric grid and financial sector.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Trump Signs Executive Order On Cybersecurity

Comments Filter:
  • Cyber (Score:5, Funny)

    by DonaId Trump ( 4811527 ) on Thursday May 11, 2017 @10:39PM (#54403745)

    We're going to have tremendous cyber, folks. You and me, we'll have the best cyber. We're going to have so much cyber, you're going to say "Please, Mr. President, I'm so tired of cybering!" It's going to be some very great cyber, believe me.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Didn't you invent "Cybering" just this past week? I'm sure you did, you said it, so it must be that Cybering was invented by you. No wonder it will be best.

      So best, people will ask for more and more of the Cybering. Through the series of Tubes in a Wide Stance, because it is morning in America in this decade.

      • by ebvwfbw ( 864834 )

        Didn't you invent "Cybering" just this past week? I'm sure you did, you said it, so it must be that Cybering was invented by you. No wonder it will be best.

        So best, people will ask for more and more of the Cybering. Through the series of Tubes in a Wide Stance, because it is morning in America in this decade.

        No, that was Al Gore. Right after he invented the Internet.

        Come on people, it was missing and I know a lot of people were just waiting for this joke.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11, 2017 @10:53PM (#54403787)

    I feel safer already!

    • > makes clear that agency heads will be held accountable for protecting their networks

      I can hear it now:

      head of government agency: I can't imagine how this could have happened! I used Microsoft, that is, the best that there is. There is nothing more I could have done to prevent this. I even accepted the help of the helpful Windows Tech Support people who called me and helped secure all the systems on my network.
  • Distracted yet? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11, 2017 @11:07PM (#54403819)

    Handy timing, obvious to distract from Comey's sacking, the subpoena, etc.

    But can I point out just one of the more obscure stuff recent you may have missed?

    Kushner corp trying to raise $150 million from Chinese investors for a 15% stake in some project that magically costs $1 billion, 1 Journal Square:
    http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/06/news/jared-kushner-nicole-family-event/index.html

    Except it doesn't cost $1 billion, the land cost $27 million, and $1 billion would put it in the top 10 most expensive skyscrapers, for a basic 79 story tower.

    Why do billionaires not have enough equity or cash to fund this $150 million? Why expensive investors from china?... Because their projects are all in negative equity and they need to keep finding more investors to keep the company going.

    This is how Kusher and Trump corp both work: They do a project, perhaps it costs $300 million. They borrow from the banks, who take the documents as collatoral, and lend a portion of the money , e.g. $200m. Outside investors are told the project costs e.g. $600 million, and $150 million/25% is up for sale to them. In reality their $150 million is buying $25 million of equity, but they don't know the full picture because the details are kept secret.

    Money is scraped off the deal, in licensing fees, management fees etc. This is the profit for Kushers and Trumps, it's what keep their company going, and lets them pay the interest on their portion of bank loans.

    Their property empire requires a constant stream of new investors buying into a false valuation of a project. Threats of lawsuits keep dissent down, and the books are kept secret so nobody can see. This is why the press was barred from the Kushner China investor meeting, because you don't want anyone connecting the dots.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

      So it's a Ponzi scheme, only one that can be floated for years or decades rather than falling apart in months. It's not legal, but due to the secrecy, nobody has yet figured out it's not legal. And now that the people running the scheme are in charge, it will become legal.

      Steal enough, and you can buy legitimacy.

      • Re:Distracted yet? (Score:4, Informative)

        by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Friday May 12, 2017 @12:50AM (#54404053)

        Its not a Ponzi scheme and it is legal.

      • by sudon't ( 580652 )

        Oh, it's legal, alright. The Trumps just know when to get out of a Ponzi scheme, and leave others holding the bag. His investors always lose, but he always gets out with money. That's his genius. When the Donald tries his hand at an actual business, he fails. But he was brought up in the real estate game, so that's the one thing he knows, aside from selling his name. Now he passing it onto the next generation.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Distracted? By your conspiracy theories or slashdot's daily bullshit?

      But seriously,

      "Their property empire requires a constant stream of new investors buying into a false valuation of a project. Threats of lawsuits keep dissent down, and the books are kept secret so nobody can see."

      THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT TECH BUSINESSES DO.

    • Handy timing, obvious to distract from Comey's sacking, the subpoena, etc.

      You can expect to see a lot more people getting fired. It's Trump's modus operandi. He's basically threatening to fire people in this executive order.

      • You can expect to see a lot more people getting fired. It's Trump's modus operandi. He's basically threatening to fire people in this executive order.

        Aren't incompetent government workers protected by their union? Is it only the agency heads who are fire-able?

      • President Trump wants people to be accountable. Isn't that exactly what we have been demanding for.. oh I don't know... longer than I have been alive? Comey had numerous problems, and up until he was fired both sides of the aisle voiced opinions of "incompetent", "abused his power", and "usurped Constitutional authority". Republicans were upset for numerous reasons, but primarily for making himself the Judge and Jury for the Hillary email crimes. Democrats because they feel he impacted the election of t

        • I am sure that Trump was laughing when he thought about some people flip-flopping yet again as he did something they've been demanding for months.
        • by HiThere ( 15173 )

          But what are these Commerce Department standards, and are they any good? This may just be a way to make ALL government departments predictably permeable.

        • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

          by Dare nMc ( 468959 )

          Incompetence and maliciousness often look the same, and the presence of one doesn't rule out the other.

          Of course the democrats were political pandering with both comments, same for the republicans. That doesn't reduce the optics of this. Their is a standard for political positions like this where you make a clean transition by asking for the person to step down, and they always resign in these type of positions. Outright firing would be seen as a attempt to cause disgrace to the person, a person Trump h

          • Of course the democrats were political pandering with both comments, same for the republicans. That doesn't reduce the optics of this. Their is a standard for political positions like this where you make a clean transition by asking for the person to step down, and they always resign in these type of positions.

            You have obviously never worked in high level security of any type. One does not ask people with a certain level of access and clearance to resign or give them notice. You cut and cauterize immediately. If you don't understand the "why" you are not even trying.

            Comey can still testify before Congress, and most likely will. Flynn was removed from post and is being asked to testify, so why would Comey be a special case? Repeating leftist platitudes instead of thinking for yourself is a bad tactic. Histor

            • >And who can't keep the story straight? The Trump Administration or the Leftist media who has been caught lying repeatedly? "Comey asked for money to investigate and was fired" which was a lie. "The Deputy AG said he would resign" was a lie, as is nearly everything else they claim in their FAKE news.

              To my knowledge, none of them have been denied by anyone with direct knowledge. Deputy only said he wasn't going to, never said he didn't tell anyone he didn't plan to. The only other denials are all "not t

              • by s.petry ( 762400 )
                In other words, you have nothing. Worse, the only way to disagree with your opinion is to prove a negative. Good job with the irrational illogical arguments.
                • You would have to have something factual to dispute. There has only been one other director of the FBI fired, and he was asked to step down first, and refused. If it was about access to confidential information, anyone who knows anything about secrecy, knows the most important thing is to stop their access by making sure those who give them access are alerted to stop them, that was never done by Trump, Comey's office didn't know either. That along with your side rant about supposed lies, without any pro

    • by DrXym ( 126579 )
      There is also a strong suspicion that Trump's real estate properties are a front for money laundering and he was bailed out in 2008 by the Russian mob. It wouldn't be the first time Trump's business empire has been caught associating with the mob or laundering money.

      Running for president has drawn a lot of scrutiny and heat onto himself. I wouldn't be surprised if it proves to be his (and his family's) downfall too.

    • Handy timing, obvious to distract from Comey's sacking, the subpoena, etc.

      I think you're reading too much into it. Signing an executive order on something that is of little interest to most is not a distraction.

    • Are you stupid? And who the eff found this "Insightful." What is possibly wrong with this?

      You raise money because up front costs are a worry and you share the burden. Land costs are trivial compared to construction costs.

      For instance:

      Building costs in the NYC area is $200/square foot for very basic construction. Kitchens and bathrooms and radiant heating, and wood floors add tremendously to the cost. And that's not including elevators and balconies and roof gardens.

      Construction costs easily reac
  • If the US creates powerful new tools to detect and protect against all things cyber will the US and other nations get some new protection from the Automated Implant Branch (AIB) and Network Devices Branch (NDB) efforts?
    With the US government demanding better security products, the NSA and CIA contractors will have to work harder.
    Only a few of the better anti virus brands found the equation group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and Fluxwire Trojan and Archangel efforts.
    "Found in the wild: Vault7 hackin
  • Was nobody held accountable before when a network got hacked? Does it mean we're saying goodbye to Ajit Pai for the recent FCC DDoS? Can one get Betsy DeVos sacked by hacking the Board of Education website? I have so many questions.
    • by TheOuterLinux ( 4778741 ) on Friday May 12, 2017 @01:09AM (#54404085) Homepage
      What this means is Trump and supporters will ultimately have the power to decide who will be held accountable and who will not, influencing industry because these "cyber attacks" are only going to get worse and more selective if you know what I'm saying. He is at heart a business man after all.
      • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

        You mean Myers v. United States? Welcome to 1926.

      • What does it change though? He's already showed that he will fire whoever he wants for whatever made-up reason strikes his fancy. It sounds like he's saying that agency heads will automatically be fired when the department screws up, but why would he do that when he insists on appointing screw-ups?
        • What I am saying is that DDoS attacks are incredibly common, more so than people realize. A Trump competitor could have such an attack but be held more accountable than others simply because of who is in office and be perfectly legal however immoral. Think 1980s "war on drugs wars" but now it's "cyber."
    • Well, I guess you better get hacking and see what happens
  • So what y'all are saying is that this is Trumps very own Reichskristallnacht?

  • Nice try (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LeftCoastThinker ( 4697521 ) on Friday May 12, 2017 @01:56AM (#54404151)

    "Picking up on themes advanced by the Obama administration"

    Yeah no, but nice try. The Obama administration has the worst cyber security record of any administration, especially when you consider both public and private hacks where the government should have stepped in (i.e. hacks by other countries against US companies or government contractors). Remember the Chinese OPM hack? Yah, that was under Obamas watch. 21 million plus personal records exposed. Remember when the Chinese hacked and stole plans for stealth drones and other military aircraft? That was Obama too. Remember the DNC hacks? Yah, that was on Obamas watch as well (sorry, Trump wasn't even elected yet). There is a list as long as my arm proving that the Obama administration was absolute shit at cyber security and he basically just shrugged and did nothing besides blabber.

    It remains to be seen if Trump can get the federal government IT and contractors to get their shit together on this issue, but dont piss down my back and say it is raining. If he starts firing department heads or charging federal employees with criminal negligence where appropriate, we might see the epidemic of hacking fall off somewhat as industry standard measures get adopted and enforced across the federal government.

    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      The real question is why the US has to keep its data in plain text and internet facing.
      So all the contractors can bid on government work and has to stay in plain text? So one big no bid company cant encrypt all the US gov data and stop other contractors working on the same big data sets?
      So its kept in plain text to ensure tax payers can fund a wide variety of contractors to work with and on the same data?
      Or all the equipment is just so old it can only work with and on plain text data sets that are on th
    • Re:Nice try (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ausekilis ( 1513635 ) on Friday May 12, 2017 @08:18AM (#54405215)

      Yes, the government has a shit record for cybersecurity, but putting the blame squarely on Obama isn't really fair. Hindsight is always 20/20 and computer security has always been much more reactive than proactive. I'd argue the blame is Congress, the environment, and the government structure.

      1) Congress controls the purse and laws. They're the ones that make sure all agencies have the funding to do what they need to do. These asshats in the big white daycare on capital hill haven't managed to agree on a budget before October in over a decade. That means most agencies get a fraction of the money they plan for.

      2) The internet has changed in the past 10 years (as of 2012). We've gone from the beginnings of broadband to gigabit connections. From a millions users to billions.

      3) The Fed as a whole is woefully slow to move on to new technology. They typically move to a new OS after it has been out for at least 3 years, which means they may get around to Windows 10 sometime in 2018 or 2019. Even those "best of the best" agencies are subject to this. I helped a migration to Windows 7 2.5 years ago, after it had been in the wild for 5 years.

      Could these things have been changed by Obama? Not hardly. It would have been tricky even if Congress was willing to work with him. With a Congress too busy fighting with itself to make any progress about anything? Damned near impossible.

      • Good point...but eventually something really nasty is going to come and when it starts really threatening national security (or with this presidency, Trump;s businesses) then you might see some action.

        But you are completely right, Congress has been obsessed with stopping Obama at every turn, throwing up roadblocks in every way.

        This is not a way to run a country. Even with government under one party, they still can't figure out how to pass a federal funding bill.

        • I agree, Trump should just take all authority from congress and the supreme court. It would be far more efficient. /sarc off

          There is a reason that we have the government run inefficiently, but the hacks that I pointed to above were for the most part foreseeable and preventable, had competent people been in place. However, when you appoint people based on their loyalty and service to your lordship Obama instead of competency, you get the shitstorm of failure as we saw. And after the fact, if you give less

    • by ebvwfbw ( 864834 )

      I work for the Federal Government and I can tell you that GW Bush started it. As always when something like that starts, it was comical. Much to his credit during the Obama administration they really went after it. We saw agencies using secure benchmarks, doing audits, actually patching systems and working to eliminate old systems. There are a lot of old systems out there. From CCTV to even entrance controls. Some of them were even running Windows 95 up until a few years ago. Probably still some out there.

  • by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Friday May 12, 2017 @08:41AM (#54405293)
    Just after firing Comey, Trump met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Now this was not bad just for the optics. No American press was allowed but Russian press was allowed. No that's not worst part. The Russian press was allowed to bring in their equipment to take photos in the Oval Office. That's the worst part: Trump allowed foreign officials to bring in electronic equipment into a sensitive area of the White House. Many security experts are dismayed [washingtonpost.com] that was allowed to happen. Former security officers have noted that it was standing policy that no one was allowed to bring in their phone/cameras into the Oval Office.
    • Far be it from me to defend President Garfield the Cat, but if the press can't bring in cameras, then how have I seen pictures in the oval office? Is it a staff photographer? Do the press borrow cameras for shoots? I would legitimately like to know.
      • I don't know if the US press are allowed to bring in their own cameras, but the white house does have a staff photographer.

      • 1) There is an official White House photographer and videographer for these things.
        2) In the past it might have been okay before phones and photo cameras became recording devices that could capture audio. Also the rate of miniaturization means that spy equipment are now smaller and smaller.
  • Like every "executive order" issued by Trump, this one is racist and unconstitutional. If Clinton won and issued the same decree, that would've been most enlightened [ntknetwork.com], of course.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    expect no federal services online.

  • This is beyond laughable, even for Trump and his shitty fake-ass 'administration', since he has no goddamned clue what he's talking about. 'Cybersecurity' is largely an endless game of Whack-a-Mole; it's almost impossible to close all the holes, even if you air-gap everything someone will 'social engineer' their way into access anyway. This is just distraction from the fact that his campaign (and probably Trump personally) have been in bed with his buddies the Russians since Day One, and he's desperately sc
    • by ebvwfbw ( 864834 )

      Wow, we found another town's idiot. Your statement is just so ignorant. Question is, will your response be stupid. Ignorance can be fixed, stupidity is forever.

  • and then tweets about it from his Samsung Galaxy S3

You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.

Working...