U.S. Army officials are laboring to define what the force will look like in 2025. But technologically speaking, it is hard to define anything beyond the next two or three years, according to Lt. Gen. Edward Cardon, USA, commanding general, Army Cyber Command.
Sometimes, cyber warriors will have to pick and choose what to protect, because, “It’s increasingly clear we can’t protect everything,” said Lt. Gen. Edward Cardon, USA, commanding general, U.S. Army Cyber Command, while addressing the AFCEA TechNet Augusta audience.
All too often, the topic of cyber presents a negative view of vulnerabilities and attacks, but cyber has a positive role to play in national defense, said Lt. Gen. Edward Cardon, USA, commanding general, U.S. Army Cyber Command, speaking as a keynote at AFCEA TechNet Augusta.
Major changes in defense acquisition no longer are desirable—they are essential if the United States is to maintain an effective military in a time of increasing threats and decreasing resources. Already the United States is trailing several allies technologically, and potential adversaries are hard at work developing technologies that threaten U.S. force superiority.
Read a full recap of each workshop held during day one of the AFCEA Defense Acquisition Modernization Symposium August 5-6 in Washington, D.C.
More specific requirements and better incentives could produce better products at reduced costs, said a leading U.S. Defense Department official. Frank Kendall III, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, explained that adjusting the contracting process could produce at least some desired results in acquisition.
The inaugural Defense Acquisition Modernization Symposium, hosted by AFCEA International, highlights “Better Buying Power” as it applies to government, industry and academia. Government and industry leaders will provide attendees with myriad solutions, updates and exchanges.
The price of failure to provide adequate cybersecurity ultimately may be too high for any nation to tolerate. Yet, the cost of effective cybersecurity may be too much for a nation to afford.
Cyber, defense technology, coalition interoperability, NATO contracting opportunities and Ukraine were among the topics discussed at the NATO Industry Conference and TechNet International 2014, held in Bucharest, Romania. For the third time, the NATO Communications and Information Agency and AFCEA Europe organized a joint conference and exposition. The two organizations generated a program with an agenda of truly intertwined sessions relevant to all.
The shrinking military cannot achieve mission success without the advances promised by the Joint Information Environment, U.S. Defense Department leaders say. Yet the effort itself depends on innovative advances that may lead to changes in doctrine and operations if—and when—they are incorporated into the force.
The growing call for an independent U.S. cyber service along the lines of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps is not likely to gain followers among policy makers, say a number of service cyber officers.
No single solution, no single course of action, no single training regimen exists for combating cybermarauders on the Internet. Cyber officials are striving to establish guidelines for cybersecurity, yet they acknowledge that every organization in every nation has varying needs and must pursue different tracks to achieve what they determine is effective cybersecurity.
The acting chief information officer (CIO) for the U.S. Defense Department is promoting a diversity movement for information technology. He wants to see a younger work force that includes people who have come of age in the digital era.
U.S. Defense Department data will be invading the commercial world as the department moves its unclassified information out of its own hands. Terry Halvorsen, acting Defense Department chief information officer, described the upcoming move at the AFCEA Cyber Symposium.
U.S. Defense Department networks will need to operate with the minimum security available as connectivity and the threat picture evolve, said a top defense official. Terry Halvorsen, acting Defense Department chief information officer, minced no words as he described how tight budgets are limiting options across the board.
Estonia has established a dedicated cyberdefense infrastructure and implemented new policies that are serving as models for other allied nations gearing up for potential cyber attacks. The Estonian measures come in the wake of the Baltic nation undergoing a severe cyber attack in 2007.
Encountering many variables as it strives to achieve effective cybersecurity, NATO is focusing on two long-standing constants to move forward: training and partnerships with industry. The Atlantic alliance is seeking industry help in pursuing solutions, and it is adopting many traditional methods and institutions to train personnel in vital cyberskills.
Defenders of cyberspace need to concentrate on the critical services provided by the critical infrastructure, not the infrastructure itself, according to a leading cyber expert. Melissa Hathaway, president of Hathaway Global Strategies and former acting senior director for cyberspace with the National Security Council, said that the future of the West is held hostage to the fact that its security and resilience are threatened.
Even with the rising tide of nation-sponsored cyber attacks, NATO does not yet have a policy—let alone a definition—of what constitutes a cyber attack that would mandate a response under Article 5 of the alliance’s Washington Treaty, according to NATO officials. Article 5 defines an attack on a NATO member as “an attack on all,” requiring a response by all members against an aggressor.
Government and the private sector must determine ways of cooperating in the fight to defeat cyberthreats, or else both will face potentially catastrophic consequences.