Panel urges better cybersecurity to President-elect Trump

A presidential commission on Friday made 16 urgent recommendations to improve the nation’s cybersecurity
The Presidential Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity urged immediate action within two to five years

sounds good so far, who doesn`t want more cyber security.

“What we’ve been doing over the last 15 to 20 years simply isn’t working, and the problem isn’t going to be fixed simply by adding more money,”

ok, again that sounds good, good news for tax payers throwing more money at the problem isn`t going to fix it,the democrats have been doing that for decades and it never works.

The commission recommended that Trump create an assistant to the president for cybersecurity,Trump’s administration should train 100,000 new cybersecurity workers by 2020 and appointing a new international ambassador on the subject.He said the group wanted the burden of cybersecurity “moved away from every computer user and handled at higher levels.

wait,wait,wait..what!!!???

I thought throwing more money at the problem wasn`t going to fix it, how much is it going to cost tax payers to pay for a new presidential assistant,100,000 new workers and a new international ambassador??

oh now I see what he meant, he meant that throwing more private sector money at the problem won`t fix it but throwing more tax payer money at the problem won`t fix it either but at least there will be a lot more high paying government jobs for him and his cyber security buddies,ok now I got it.

The commission included 12 of what the White House described as the brightest minds in business, academia, technology and security. It was led by Tom Donilon, Obama’s former national security adviser.

well that explains a lot, an Obama appointed commission that got confused and obviously think Hillary won.

and now for the best part:

It urged steps, such as getting rid of traditional passwords, to end the threat of identity theft by 2021

and what, pray tell, does this commission suggest that we replace traditional passwords with? They don`t say but I have no doubt that they have something waiting in the wings that is more intrusive to our right to privacy.

on the Brightside at least Trump isn`t going to blindly take the recommendations of this Obama appointed commission:

Trump has already promised his own study by a “Cyber Review Team” of people he said he will select from military, law enforcement and private sectors

The Obama folks have always been lax on cyber security,in addition to the Hillary fiasco there is this:

Under Obama, hackers stole personal data from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management on more than 21 million current, former and prospective government employees, including details of security-clearance background investigations for federal agents, intelligence employees and others.

all I have to say is, sorry guys on the commission your plans to invade our privacy and secure high paying government jobs for yourselves and your buddies probably isn`t going to happen,you see, Hillary didn`t win you no longer have free reign to pick the tax payer`s pockets at will.
Take it up with Trump he will tell you exactly what you can do with your recommendations to create an even more bloated government.
www.washingtonpost.com... 43c5e5_story.html?utm_term=.992c3a9e0090

a reply to: Tardacus

On the outside looking in it is hard to see what the cyber security needs would be. I hope Trump will have the right people to tell him all sides of this.
As we saw in the election, keeping unsecured servers in the basement in your house is stupid.

I think Obama has passed more laws in last weeks than ever before, 6 more weeks to go. Thats alot of undoing for Trump to do

I have a real problem with the private sector basically saying yeah our software has serious security problems but we don`t want to spend the money to fix it so how about you the government and the taxpayers foot the bill for that while we sell you more software and increase our profits.

how about this, when the government puts out bids for new hardware and software they include security requirements,if a company can`t or won`t meet those requirements then don`t buy from them.For a nice juicy government contract they WILL find a way to meet the requirements,if the government doesn`t expect much from them then they won`t deliver much.
necessity is the mother of invention, that`s what has brought us this far, if the government keeps lowering the bar the private sector will keep under achieving.

Yeah, a hundred thousand new government employees. I suppose it will reduce the unemployment rate, they can then claim zero unemployment by the time they are done. Somehow they will wind up with a million people working on it if they estimate a hundred thousand. That is normal for government.

But wait! An added bonus if you act right now, they can get people from India at a tenth of the price. Free shipping too. That is ten for the price of one.

I'm glad the issue is being brought up. When I was military, I worked S3, with buddies in S6, we took security pretty seriously.

Cybersecurity is ever evolving and we need good people, fresh young minds and old experienced minds to find solutions that will benefit us and keep hackers at bay, especially stated sponsored ones who try to steal technology.

S+F

Why don't they just take really important stuff off line. The banks did fine and employed more people when banking wasn't on line. Stores had cheaper prices when people didn't use credit cards and the stores didn't have to give three or four percent or so to the credit card companies on the credit card sales.

Why is it even possible that anyone not in the building can shut down a power plant or cause it to malfunction. I think this whole linked technology is stupid. Who is orchestrating this insanity and why does the government go along with it?

a reply to: rickymouse

nice thinking! I never thought of that angle,
the Obama commission recommends 100,000 new government trained cyber security folks,but of course nobody in the U.S. would be qualified for that tax payer funded training so we have to import 100,000 Mexicans,indians, Syrians and other assorted 3rd world folks to be trained to do those jobs.

Hope they didnt pay too much for that advice, I could have done it for free.

My advice would have been "Dont put government related stuff on non secure private servers", this advice would basically have solved every issue they feel they are now facing.

I guess its lucky for everyone they didnt ask for my input years ago as we would have Hillary as president.

originally posted by: Arnie123
I'm glad the issue is being brought up. When I was military, I worked S3, with buddies in S6, we took security pretty seriously.

Cybersecurity is ever evolving and we need good people, fresh young minds and old experienced minds to find solutions that will benefit us and keep hackers at bay, especially stated sponsored ones who try to steal technology.

S+F

what would the part about giving up traditional passwords mean?

When I was working under DHS how I got into buildings was passwords..

Maybe they mean passwords linked to a physical presence? Like I had to have both my ID badge/chipped card and a password.. So maybe a computer would need something like a credit card with chip waved in front AND a password to really match it's you logging into your bank account.

So what do you think they mean not using passwords?
thumb print scanners?


I was thinking about brushing up on my security skills, but since I left the game it's just become unreal. I can't keep up.. I've never seen this level of hacking... It's insane.. I don't even know if I can keep one computer safe haha.. Not one connected to the internet.

I always imagine if you made a perfectly coded firewall, how would other packets ever get in? But obviously my understanding is sub par these days.

originally posted by: Tardacus
"It urged steps, such as getting rid of traditional passwords, to end the threat of identity theft by 2021"

and what, pray tell, does this commission suggest that we replace traditional passwords with? They don`t say but I have no doubt that they have something waiting in the wings that is more intrusive to our right to privacy.

I think the govt would love to see fingerprint scans become the norm, nice easy way to fill out the blank spots in CODIS.

a reply to: Reverbs

Well, if they had a doorman at that door to let you in and check your ID, the person would get to know you and that would be secure too and replace that million dollar technology with a job creation for a couple of people at the door. By the time the pay of those two security people hit a half a million bucks, the software would need changing with another million dollar upgrade. You might need three guards, there would have to be one for when people were sick or maybe if they had three shifts they might need four. That would actually be a good job. That person could even have a gun in case someone decided to try to get in. There are probably glass doors on that building, someone could shoot the glass and go in and go crazy.

That technology is not cost effective, the writers of the programs and manufacturers of the stuff make a real lot of money.

a reply to: Reverbs

I don't know. Perhaps embracing how mobile does things.

In the Army, we had CAC issued cards, basically our Military ID. That was how we logged on. You couldn't do jack unless you had a cac reader.

Now that I think about it, I wonder if government position have something similar? Doesn't seem like it and maybe that is what is needed, an additional verification method that requires certain credentials and then logged onto a secure network infrastructure operated and maintain by cyber security specialist.
Clearly, passwords are becoming second nature to new authentication methods.

a reply to: Tardacus

Very astute of you.

Unfortunately,
age and treachery
always overpowers
youth and skill.

To be certain,
if we just "throw money"
at the youth and skill,
we only end up with a bunch
of hungover spoiled brats
on Montauk.

The financing needs to be available
to those dedicated individuals
who produce positive results.

S&F