Search:  

 Blog     e-Newsletter       Resource Library      Directories      Webinars
AFCEA logo
 

July 2013

Sharing the 
Secrets of 
Cybersecurity

July 1, 2013
By Rita Boland

Protection is as much about 
who you know as what you know.

The tasks critical to success in the realm of information assurance have become so robust that a breadth of expertise is now necessary to stop cybercriminals. To that end, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, opened a new research facility called the Cyber Engineering Research Laboratory to promote the collaboration required to safeguard networks. An accessible external location, coupled with a synergistic internal mindset, enables advancements and maturity of concepts essential to success in the cyber realm.

Unlike most of the larger laboratory that sits in a secure, restricted area, the smaller subordinate one is located in the open Sandia Science and Technology Park to facilitate access for private sector, university and other nonlaboratory personnel. Inside the facility, researchers from the disparate fields of cognitive science, network defense and analytics are working together to find solutions to cyberchallenges. “That’s a very powerful effect from a cross fertilization standpoint,” says Ben Cook, an acting senior manager in Sandia’s Information and Cognitive Sciences Group. Permanent staff at the Cyber Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) include established employees from other parts of the laboratory as well as incoming researchers.

Shifting Tides of Cyber

July 1, 2013
By George I. Seffers

Industry officials foresee 
changes in network security.

Cyber industry experts predict a number of coming developments in the cyber realm, driven in part by government strategy and funding uncertainties. The future may include a greater reliance on law enforcement to solve state-sponsored hacks, increased automation and more outsourcing.

Earlier this year, the White House released the Administration’s Strategy on Mitigating the Theft of U.S. Trade Secrets. It calls for an increase in diplomatic engagement; makes investigation and prosecution of trade secret thievery a top priority; and promises a review of legislation regarding trade secret theft to determine what changes may be necessary. The strategy contains “lots of hints” the administration will rely on law enforcement in addition to national security channels in some cases involving nation-state-sponsored hacks, says Kimberly Peretti, a former senior litigator for the Justice Department Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section.

“The big gorilla in the room is what we do with state-sponsored attacks. One of the priorities of the strategy itself is having the Justice Department continue to make investigations and prosecutions of trade secrets a priority. So, if we see a lot of these trade secret thefts happening by Chinese hackers or state-sponsored attackers, that could be incorporated into the strategy—to start looking at pursuing avenues criminally as well as on the national security side,” says Peretti, who is now a partner in the White Collar Group and co-chair of the Security Incident Management and Response Team, Alston and Bird Limited Liability Partnership, a law firm headquartered in Atlanta.

The Perils of the Pivot

July 1, 2013
By Lt. Ben Kohlmann, USN

As the Global War on Terrorism winds down in the minds of American military strategists, the rush to put this chapter of our history behind us without further reflection is palpable. Yet, by turning our focus to more easily understood conflicts, we risk missing the very real lessons of the past 10 years that likely will remain relevant in the coming decades.;

Having awoken from the nightmare of uncertainty and confusion that defined the unconventional wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, our nation’s strategic planners have retreated reflexively to the intellectually comfortable contemplation of where our forces excel. “Give us defined, similar-looking adversaries, and we will crush anyone who dares challenge us,” they offer. “Let’s assume the future retains the same framework as before, iterate from our existing dominant structure, and we will remain pre-eminent.”

This mindset very well may reflect a counter to “the most dangerous course of action,” but it completely ignores “the most likely course of action” in world affairs. The two are related only very infrequently, and a focus on one to the complete exclusion of the other can have catastrophic consequences. It also is a perfect demonstration of how disruptive innovation can upend incumbents, a concept first introduced by Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen in the late 1990s.

In his book “The Innovator’s Dilemma,” Christensen theorizes how large, successful firms can fail by “doing everything right.” He goes on to describe further how past successes and incredible capabilities can “actually become obstacles in the face of changing markets and technologies.”

It’s Time to Get Government out of the Conference Business

July 1, 2013
By Kent R. Schneider

This time it is the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that has demonstrated bad judgment and lack of a full understanding of the rules governing large meetings. The revelation of extravagant IRS spending on meetings follows similar issues with the General Services Administration and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. This waste shines a light on bad judgment for sure—but it also reveals a larger problem. For the most part, government personnel who are planning and coordinating government-run events do not do this as their primary function. They do not run events often enough to fully understand the travel and conference policies or the ethics and gift regulations. This leads to frequent errors and, when combined with bad judgment, to significant waste.

Government should not be in this business. The potential for failure and waste of taxpayer money is too great. For decades, the defense community has had a set of defense-related associations (DRAs), nonprofit organizations whose sole function is to support the defense community and bring together government, industry and academia. These are organizations such as AFCEA, the National Defense Industrial Association, the military service associations and functional groups that support one or more of the military services and defense agencies. Similar associations serve the civil side of the federal government and state, local and tribal governments.

These organizations possess decades of proven performance; thoroughly understand the communities they serve; understand in-depth conference policies, ethics regulations and gift rules; and have high ethical standards embedded in their structures. In addition, because they are nonprofit organizations, any positive net derived from the presentation of an event is reinvested in the community through scholarships and grants, training, studies and other forms of service to government.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - July 2013