http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-creating-teams-to-launch-cyberattacks-as-threat-grows/2013/03/12/35aa94da-8b3c-11e2-9838-d62f083ba93f_story.html
( Pentagon will need to hire cracker jack hackers and a lot faster than this - if the cyber threat is real and not memorex..... )
and......
A new report from the Department of Defense outlines the military's capability to deter cyber threats with some pretty heavy firepower, including nuclear weapons.
The paper written by the Defense Science Board described the best types of bombs to use on hackers to be "Global selective strike systems e.g. penetrating bomber, submarines with long range cruise missiles, Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS), survivable national and combatant command," while "Nuclear weapons would remain the ultimate response and anchor the deterrence ladder" for cyber threats.
"The report ... implies that the United States might have to rely on nuclear weapons to retaliate after a large-scale cyber attack," Foreign Policy writes.
Although it seems that Foreign Policy is reporting shocking revelations, they're actually engaged in subtle misinformation. They claim that this strike capability is only to be used in "retaliation" after a cyber attack as opposed to preemptive strikes to prevent cyber threats, which the military is already authorized to do.
For all the talk of the indefinite detention section of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a little known provision gave President Obama the authority to "conduct offensive operations in cyberspace".
Here's what Section 954 of the 2011 NDAA says:
This week we heard Rand Paul speak much about the "law of armed conflict" or "Martial Law" in his talking filibuster of John Brennan over drone strikes on American soil, which is a related concern since the NDAA also officially labeled the U.S. as part of the battlefield.
Paul reiterated that if Americans can be treated the same as an enemy under the law of armed conflict, there is no due process protection, as well as more flexible rules of engagement than those that restrict the police. Just ask the Guantanamo prisoners or Bradley Manning how due process works under the laws of war. Or ask the family of the 16-year-old American murdered by a targeted drone strike about the rules of engagement.
Therefore due process will not be needed to take offensive action against cyber threats under the laws of war. In other words, hackers everywhere may be facing a lethal force if they're suspected of engaging in cyber attacks against the U.S. or its allies and interests.
The report, however, urges US military leaders to develop "cyber escalation scenarios and red lines" that could prompt the use of force. Or simply put, when can they pull the trigger on a cyber threat. Of course, just as the legal justification for drone strikes has remained classified, surely, this will as well.
Here is a nifty illustration they provided to help us visualize how the threat levels are designed for hackers:
It's also important to note that the military has been authorized to conduct a cyberwar with "kinetic capabilities", meaning it can operate wherever the threat is in the world. A borderless war like the war on terror. This eliminates any need for the President to seek an individual declaration of cyber war against China in Congress even though nuclear weapons could potentially be involved.
Does anyone in Congress understand just how dangerous it is to authorize the use of preemptive deadly force against cyber threats without due process?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-12/chasecom-hacked
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/12/2013 16:30 -0400
http://rt.com/usa/hacked-us-government-websites-112/
A top official in the Chinese government said Saturday that nations should devise a unified set of rules on cyber attacks instead of fanning the flames of cyber warfare.
( Pentagon will need to hire cracker jack hackers and a lot faster than this - if the cyber threat is real and not memorex..... )
Pentagon creating teams to launch cyberattacks as threat grows
The Pentagon’s Cyber Command will create 40 offensive cyber-teams by the fall of 2015 to help defend the nation against major computer attacks and assist combat commands as they plan offensive capabilities, Gen. Keith Alexander testified to Congress on Tuesday.
The new teams are part of a broader government effort to shield the nation from destructive attacks over the Internet that could harm Wall Street or knock out electric power, for instance.
44
Comments
- Weigh In
- Corrections?
Some teams are already in place, he said, to focus on “the most serious threats,” which he did not identify.
But Alexander warned that budget cuts will undermine the effort to build up these forces even as foreign threats to the nation’s critical computer systems intensify. And he urged Congress to pass legislation to enable the private sector to share computer threat data with the government without fear of being sued.
As he moves into his eighth year as director of the National Security Agency and his third year as head of the fledgling Cyber Command, Alexander told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the strategic threat picture is worsening. “We’ve seen the attacks on Wall Street over the last six months grow significantly,” he said, noting there were more than 160 disruptive attacks on banks in that period.
Describing an attack on Saudi Arabia’s national oil company, he said: “Last summer, in August, we saw a destructive attack on Saudi Aramco, where the data on over 30,000 systems were destroyed. And if you look at industry, especially the anti-virus community and others, they believe it’s going to grow more in 2013. And there’s a lot that we need to do to prepare for this. “
The U.S. intelligence community has indicated that the assaults on the banks and Saudi Aramco were the work of Iran in retaliation for U.S. financial sanctions imposed to deter Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
Alexander’s remarks came as U.S. intelligence officials elsewhere on the Hill testified about the growing cyberthreat. At a national security threat hearing, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. called on China to stop its “cyber-stealing”of corporate secrets from U.S. networks.
Alexander said that 13 of the new cyber-teams would defend against destructive attacks. “I would like to be clear that this team . . . is an offensive team,” he said, in a rare admission that the military has developed the capacity to conduct offensive cyberattacks.
The other 27 teams would support commands such as Pacific Command and Central Command as they plan offensive cyber-capabilities. Separate teams would focus on protecting the Defense Department’s computer networks. He said the first third of the forces, which officials have said will total several thousand civilians and uniformed personnel, will be in place by September and the second third a year later.
But Alexander said uncertainty over the budget is having an impact on the ability to fill out the teams. About 25 percent of Cyber Command’s budget is being held up by congressional wrangling over the fiscal 2013 budget, he said. And across-the-board budget cuts that took effect March 1 are forcing civilian furloughs. “By singling out the civilian workforce, we’ve done a great disservice,” said Alexander, noting that one-third of the command workforce is made up of Air Force civilians.
He said that some cyber-recruits have taken a salary cut to work for the government, only to be faced with a furlough. “That’s the wrong message to send people we want to stay in the military acting in these career fields.”
The attacks hitting the banks are “distributed denial of service attacks” — or barrages of network traffic against Web site servers — that are best handled by the Internet service providers, he said. The issue is “when does a nuisance become a real problem” that forces the government to act, he said. The administration is debating that now, he said.
To detect major attacks on industry, the department needs to see them coming in real time, Alexander said. The Internet service providers are best positioned to provide that visibility, but they lack the authority to share attack data with the government, he said. In particular, he said, the companies need legal protection against lawsuits for sharing the data.
and......
By
Eric Blair
Activist Post |
| Freda Art |
A new report from the Department of Defense outlines the military's capability to deter cyber threats with some pretty heavy firepower, including nuclear weapons.
The paper written by the Defense Science Board described the best types of bombs to use on hackers to be "Global selective strike systems e.g. penetrating bomber, submarines with long range cruise missiles, Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS), survivable national and combatant command," while "Nuclear weapons would remain the ultimate response and anchor the deterrence ladder" for cyber threats.
"The report ... implies that the United States might have to rely on nuclear weapons to retaliate after a large-scale cyber attack," Foreign Policy writes.
Although it seems that Foreign Policy is reporting shocking revelations, they're actually engaged in subtle misinformation. They claim that this strike capability is only to be used in "retaliation" after a cyber attack as opposed to preemptive strikes to prevent cyber threats, which the military is already authorized to do.
For all the talk of the indefinite detention section of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a little known provision gave President Obama the authority to "conduct offensive operations in cyberspace".
Here's what Section 954 of the 2011 NDAA says:
SEC. 954. MILITARY ACTIVITIES IN CYBERSPACE.
Congress affirms that the Department of Defense has the capability, and upon direction by the President may conduct offensive operations in cyberspace to defend our Nation, Allies and interests, subject to—
Prior to this NDAA provision, in July 2011, the Pentagon announced cyberspace to be their "operational domain" and claimed that the U.S. can "under the laws of armed conflict, respond to serious cyber attacks with a proportional and justified military response at the time and place of our choosing," said Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn during the release of The Department of Defense Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace.(1) the policy principles and legal regimes that the Department follows for kinetic capabilities, including the law of armed conflict; and(2) the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.).
This week we heard Rand Paul speak much about the "law of armed conflict" or "Martial Law" in his talking filibuster of John Brennan over drone strikes on American soil, which is a related concern since the NDAA also officially labeled the U.S. as part of the battlefield.
Paul reiterated that if Americans can be treated the same as an enemy under the law of armed conflict, there is no due process protection, as well as more flexible rules of engagement than those that restrict the police. Just ask the Guantanamo prisoners or Bradley Manning how due process works under the laws of war. Or ask the family of the 16-year-old American murdered by a targeted drone strike about the rules of engagement.
Therefore due process will not be needed to take offensive action against cyber threats under the laws of war. In other words, hackers everywhere may be facing a lethal force if they're suspected of engaging in cyber attacks against the U.S. or its allies and interests.
The report, however, urges US military leaders to develop "cyber escalation scenarios and red lines" that could prompt the use of force. Or simply put, when can they pull the trigger on a cyber threat. Of course, just as the legal justification for drone strikes has remained classified, surely, this will as well.
Here is a nifty illustration they provided to help us visualize how the threat levels are designed for hackers:
It's also important to note that the military has been authorized to conduct a cyberwar with "kinetic capabilities", meaning it can operate wherever the threat is in the world. A borderless war like the war on terror. This eliminates any need for the President to seek an individual declaration of cyber war against China in Congress even though nuclear weapons could potentially be involved.
Does anyone in Congress understand just how dangerous it is to authorize the use of preemptive deadly force against cyber threats without due process?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-12/chasecom-hacked
Chase.com Hacked?
Attempts to access chase.com: the depository arm of JPMorgan, and the bank whose gold vault, the biggest in the world, is located right next to that of the NY Fed, lead to website sightings such as this. Was JPM also just hacked, following the personal hackingof such high profile individuals as Michelle Obama, Joe Biden and Jay Z?
Hopefully the below is safer than the above...
http://rt.com/usa/hacked-us-government-websites-112/
Electronic al-Qaeda Army claims to have hacked US government websites
Published time: March 11, 2013 18:42
Cyberwarriors in Tunisia and China have reportedly joined forces with al-Qaeda hackers in order to attack United States government websites.
Hackers pledging allegiance to the Tunisian Cyber Army claim to have compromised the security of US State Department and Department of Defense websites as part of an anti-America campaign called Operation Black Summer, or #OpBlackSummer.
The actors taking credit for the breach say they managed to infiltrate government databases to pilfer information along with the help of the al-Qaeda Electronic Army (AQECA) and additionally are working in cooperation with Chinese cybercriminals as part of the operation.
“There are some Chinese hackers who collaborate with us,” a member of the Tunisian Cyber Army tellsHackRead.com.
According to the website illsecure.com, the hackers successfully extracted information hosted on at least two US government databases by exploiting SQL injection vulnerabilities on the State Department’s Diplomacy In Action website, as well as the website for the agency’s official State Department magazine.
A SQL injection is one of the most commonly employed techniques used by hackers and involves inputting malicious code into entry fields on website forms in order to wreak havoc.
“SQL databases display a range of data after they've been fed specific statements or queries. So all an attacker needs to do to gain access is pass their malicious query into an unprotected form,” software developer Griffin Boyce tells RT. “Most content management systems have safeguards in place to prevent these kinds of attacks, but custom-coded systems like those created for governments or large businesses tend to be the most vulnerable,” Boyce says. “Which is rather ironic, if you think about it.”
The claims of newly waged assaults on US government websites come on the heels of ramped-up warnings about cyberattacks stemming from foreign agents. US President Barack Obama spent a portion of last month’s State of the Union address condemning foreign cybercriminals and authorized anexecutive order in an attempt to start curbing the attacks. During a congressional committee hearing last week about the executive order, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) said cyberattacks are "the number one national security threat that the country faces."
And although the president has tasked the Department of Homeland Security with designing a framework to protect America’s critical infrastructure from a such an attacks, the wheels have only recently been set into motion to only a fraction of the degree the Obama administration demands. Depending on the severity of the latest hacks, establishing a framework to protect the country might come too little too late.
Speaking with illsecure.com, the Tunisian Cyber Army agents say they have obtained sensitive information from the State Department, as well as the IP addresses of government computers and servers. The Hackers Post adds that their reign of terror didn’t stop there with the Department of State, though. The website says that hackers with both the Tunisian Cyber Army and the AQEA have also breached an official Pentagon subdomain using a similar assault. In that instance, a cross site scripting exploit was launched in order to hack the website for the Army National Guard.
The Hackers Post say the people involved provided a screenshot which shows the execution of vulnerability, and additionally call the exploit an embarrassment for the Department of Defense.
“It’s quite embarrassing that Pentagon website is vulnerable to the most common flaw, which exists in one of its sub domain. This left a question to the Pentagon web security team that such a common [cross site scripting] flaw exists in their server,” writes the website’s Nauman Ashraf.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/11/reserve-bank-of-australia-hacked
Reserve Bank of Australia hacked
Virus infiltrated computers and sought information on G20 negotiations, central bank reveals under freedom of information
Email
The Reserve Bank of Australia was attacked using an email containing a link to a virus. Photograph: Will Burgess/Reuters
Australia's central bank has been targeted by hackers seeking sensitive information that included Group of 20 negotiations.
The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) would not comment on a media report that the computer virus used in the attack was Chinese in origin.
Hacking attacks on governments and corporations have become routine, with suspicion falling on China as the source of much of the activity. Beijing has repeatedly denied accusations it is behind the attacks, saying it too is a victim of hacking, particularly from the United States.
The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) would not comment on a media report that the computer virus used in the attack was Chinese in origin.
Hacking attacks on governments and corporations have become routine, with suspicion falling on China as the source of much of the activity. Beijing has repeatedly denied accusations it is behind the attacks, saying it too is a victim of hacking, particularly from the United States.
Documents released under freedom of information showed the RBA was the subject of a malicious email attack on 16-17 November 2011 using a virus that was undetectable by the bank's security software.
An email titled Strategic Planning FY2012 was sent to several RBA staff up to department heads and was opened by six of them, potentially compromising their workstations. The email purported to come from a senior staff member at the bank and originated from a "possibly legitimate" external account.
The emails contained a compressed Zip file with an executable malwareapplication, though the bank would not identify the virus used.
All of the six workstations affected did not have local administrator rights, so the virus could not spread. The computers involved were deemed compromised and removed from the network on 17 November 2011.
"The email had managed to bypass the existing security controls in place for malicious emails by being well written, targeted to specific bank staff and utilised an embedded hyperlink to the virus payload which differs from the usual attack whereby the virus is attached directly to the email," according the RBA's report of the incident.
"The email had managed to bypass the existing security controls in place for malicious emails by being well written, targeted to specific bank staff and utilised an embedded hyperlink to the virus payload which differs from the usual attack whereby the virus is attached directly to the email," according the RBA's report of the incident.
"Bank assets could have been potentially compromised, leading to service disruption, information loss and reputation."
The RBA took the issue up with the providers of its antivirus software to update its defences, including scanning for hyperlinks in emails and automatically blocking them.
The RBA took the issue up with the providers of its antivirus software to update its defences, including scanning for hyperlinks in emails and automatically blocking them.
As well as attempted hacking the RBA documents list a range of potentially embarrassing incidents from lost laptops and BlackBerries to sensitive documents emailed out by mistake. In one incident a folder containing confidential information was left on the rear of an office car by a distracted staff member.
A passing motorist noticed the papers scattered across the road. After a hour of searching most of the papers were recovered, though some apparently went down a stormwater drain, "resulting in moderate reputational risk to the bank".
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/03/10/china-calls-for-end-to-cyber-war/
A top official in the Chinese government said Saturday that nations should devise a unified set of rules on cyber attacks instead of fanning the flames of cyber warfare.
China has been blamed for attacks on U.S. media outlets like The New YorkTimes and Wall Street Journal as well as a host of other attacks on government computers. While it is not easy to decipher from where such cyber attacks come from, as those hacking into the victim’s computers are able to do from networks hacked in other countries, China said that it is not engaging in cyber espionage.
At least not officially.
Cyber espionage took center stage in 2010 when the famous Stuxnet worm was discovered by internet security firms to be attacking Iran‘s nuclear power plants. It was believed that a joint U.S.-Israeli effort was behind Stuxnet.
Eugene Kaspersky, CEO of Kaspersky Lab, says cyber warfare and cyber spying between governments is a trend with no end in sight. He has made a name for himself in the past few years promoting intra-governmental collaboration on matters related to internet security.
Meanwhile, China’s Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi reiterated this weekend that his country’s military is not behind cyber attacks on Western websites. He called for “rules and cooperation”, instead of a cyberspace “war” or politics-driven smear campaigns, China Daily reported Sunday.
Yang is the highest-level Chinese official so far to respond to the criticism surrounding Chinese hackers attacking U.S. computer systems, which was confirmed by Alexandria, Va. based internet security firm Mandiant last month a Washington Post piece saying they traced a host of cyber attacks to an IP address in Shanghai.
Yang is the highest-level Chinese official so far to respond to the criticism surrounding Chinese hackers attacking U.S. computer systems, which was confirmed by Alexandria, Va. based internet security firm Mandiant last month a Washington Post piece saying they traced a host of cyber attacks to an IP address in Shanghai.
“Those reports may have caught the eye of many people, but they are built on shaky ground,” Yang told reporters. He said governments should do their best to avoid turning the internet into a “another battlefield, or capitalize on virtual reality to interfere in another country’s internal affairs.”
The effort to formulate a worldwide policy for a more regulated Internet failed in Dubai last year after many Western countries said a compromise plan gave too much power to the United Nations.
http://www.cyberwarnews.info/2013/03/03/tunisian-cyber-army-spree-of-attacks-on-financial-sites/
http://www.cyberwarnews.info/2013/03/03/tunisian-cyber-army-spree-of-attacks-on-financial-sites/
Tunisian Cyber Army Spree of Attacks on Financial Sites
By Lee J on Sunday 3rd of March 2013 at 1:09:20 am
Last month a hacker using the handle @TN_cyberarmy who goes by the team or group name of Tunisian Cyber Army had been on a small spree of attacks on financial based websites.
The attacks range from a bank in America to two master card websites being exposed as having XSSexploits in them which are still live weeks later.
First there was 6 small data breaches on some bank based websites which had been posted and announced together.
