The first wave of testing of the U.S. Defense Department’s joint regional security stacks now underway at military bases in Texas and Europe shows the hardware and software tasked with improved protection of the department’s network, expected to deliver unprecedented cyber situational awareness, is on track to deliver as anticipated, according to the department's acting chief information officer.
Behavioral analytic tools might just open new horizons for better cybersecurity that would let experts better prioritize alerts and collect actionable intelligence, giving them an advantage for more rapid responses to breaches. Or might they open new doors for hackers?
The U.S. intelligence community is moving toward a hypernetwork of sensors and data collectors that ultimately will constitute an Internet of Things for the community and its customers. If it is successful, the intelligence community would have more data, processed into more knowledge, available more quickly and with greater fidelity for operators and decision makers.
While a more secure cyberspace will emerge through an evolutionary process, the U.S. government must take immediate action to influence the rate of change.
The U.S. Defense Department broke records last year with small business contracts, but with the pending release of Better Buying Power 3.0, which stresses the importance of innovation, smaller companies may see even greater opportunities.
The U.S. Army is using one of its laboratories to incorporate innovative small business solutions directly into the force in a matter of months instead of years.
For the U.S. Defense Department, the Internet of Things means that everything—battlefield uniforms, office thermostats and major weapon systems, for example—are networked, providing tremendous amounts of data for situational awareness while also preventing challenges for cybersecurity and data storage and analysis.
The Internet of Things, the latest iteration of the overarching dream of an omnipresent network architecture, offers an uncertain future in both opportunities and challenges. That uncertainty is growing as the network concept itself expands in scope and reach.
Unfortunately, cyberspace is an increasingly attractive venue for aggression these days. The digital domain facilitates operational maneuver in a manner that obfuscates an actor’s identity, affiliation and tactics. But unlike sea, air and land, much of cyberspace’s doctrine remains undefined, to include even the most fundamental of terms. We do not even have an agreed-upon definition of what constitutes an attack in cyberspace—and it is high time we did.