Official: U.S. foes 'eating our lunch' online
35906
The man nominated to head public diplomacy at the State Department said Wednesday that al Qaeda is doing a better job than the Bush administration in winning friends over the Internet.
721538
WASHINGTON -- In the fall of 1998, as President Charles Taylor consolidated his grip on Liberia, the defense attache at the US Embassy invited representatives of the country's formerly warring factions to a series of dinners at his residence.
180862
Â· Officials attribute fall to US-led security crackdown Â· US accuses Iran of links with Shia militants
626993
Q A group of workers at my office likes to eat lunch together at a certain time each day. Lately, a manager has been joining us "just to chat."
537358
A spokesperson for the US Dept. of Homeland Security told the Associated Press this morning that the US-CERT preparedness team is monitoring a so-called "Jihadist Web site," following postings calling for online attacks on US financial sites sometime this month.
57499
(InfoWorld) - Officials from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security will hold a hearing on Capitol Hill on June 20 to discuss the findings of an investigation into the agency's own problems in battling electronic attacks and IT systems intrusions. In a hearing labeled "Hacking the Homeland: Investigating Cyber-security Vulnerabilities at the Department of Homeland Security," officials including DHS chief information officer Scott Charbo and Gregory Wilshusen, director of information security issues at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) are scheduled to detail their findings in response to requests from Congress to test the agency's IT security defenses. In a letter sent to Charbo on April 30, members of Congress led by Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, asked DHS to conduct a review of its information system security in the wake of news that the departments of commerce and state were successfully hacked during 2006. Details of those systems intrusions were first revealed at a hearing coordinated by the House Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cyber-security, Science, and Technology on April 19. "These incidents jeopardize the integrity of our government's information. We are concerned that similar incidents may be occurring within the networks of the Department of Homeland Security," read the letter, which was also signed by ranking members of the House Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight. Among the issues expected to be addressed by Charbo and other witnesses -- including Keith A. Rhodes, director for the Center for Technology and Engineering in the GAO -- at next week's hearing will be a review of cybersecurity incidents reported to the DHS Security Operations Center (SOC), such as instances of rootkits, classified leaks, compromised Web sites, bot infections, unauthorized use of networks by contractors, and virus attacks. According to a Congressional press release distributed ahead of the hearing, the GAO witnesses will also describe an investigation they conducted on a specific DHS network that is "riddled with significant information security control weaknesses that place sensitive and personally identifiable information at increased risk of unauthorized disclosure." The subcommittee also plans to air some of its concerns with the DHS OneNet project, which is aimed at consolidating all of the agency's information networks under one roof, and to question a perceived lack of IT security funding by Charbo. The Congressional committee has said it will call for further investigation of security issues existing within DHS at the hearing. Among the specific questions posed to DHS leaders by Thompson and other members of the House Committee on Homeland Security are what responsibility Charbo has over management of the agency's networks, and his relationship with the department's chief information security officers (CISOs) and chief information officers. Charbo was also asked to provide details of the agency's information security policies and incident response plans, along with data on how many and what types of security events it has reported to the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT), which was established in 2003 and operates as a partnership between DHS and the public and private sectors. Among the incidents that Congress has specifically asked for more information about are the most severe threats encountered by the agency between 2004 and 2007. The committee has also asked DHS officials to reveal whether or not they have taken an inventory of each access point on the agency's network, and how it has approached the practice of penetration testing for its internal and external systems. In addition to questioning the department's security testing policies, the committee has asked DHS to turn over details of any secure software coding initiatives it has launched in the name of eliminating vulnerabilities in its applications, as well as statistics on how much of its coding is being performed by outside contractors. The committee has also asked for information on whether or not DHS is requiring two-factor IT systems authentication for all privileged personnel and systems administrators. A good deal of discussion at the hearing is likely to be given over to the process that DHS has employed to meet the terms of the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), which was enacted by Congress in 2002 and is aimed at improving IT security in the federal space via a system of mandated annual audits. The hearing may be seen as a bellwether moment in the continued development of government IT security policies and enforcement, as the DHS has been charged with helping to oversee the performance of other agencies, including via its work with US-CERT. If the DHS is found to have failed to protect its own systems adequately, some observers believe that the agency will be put under significant pressure to completely retrench its IT operations in the name of improving security, a process that may then be pushed out to other federal agencies. Some experts believe that adopting such an approach will soon become a fact of life for all government agencies, as many legacy computer systems and policies are not suited to respond to today's fierce security climate. Dave Nelson, a retired deputy CIO for IT security at NASA, who also worked in the White House Office of Scientific Research, said that the government, much like enterprise businesses, has been put in the uncomfortable position of coping with security threats in a cat-and-mouse game, based on long-standing flaws in the technologies and processes it employs. "Until the Internet and the computers that are on it are fundamentally reengineered to be inherently secure, we will always be in coping mode," Nelson said. "The government and IT industry may not know how to make these types of technologies yet, but if they don't get cracking, things will only get worse; as the economic and political payoff of attacks continues to rise, that's our only choice." While Nelson said he has not been made privy to information on attacks on government IT infrastructure for several years, he estimates that there are still many breaches, and that the sophistication of the attacks is ramping up quickly. One of the specific areas that Nelson said needs to be investigated more closely is to what extent foreign governments or politically motivated groups such as terrorists may be involved in cyberthreats. "We don't have any public information that would conclusively prove that some of these attacks are being launched by other nations, but there seem to be significant resources behind them in terms of people and financing," Nelson said. "That's the scariest part, and extrapolating that idea into the future, I don't see a lot of encouraging signs for improvement. If you look at the zero day attacks, they only seem to be getting worse, and I don't see evidence that the systems vulnerabilities they target are going away anytime soon."
455355
The US government on Friday defended Secretary of State Colin Powell&#39;s comments this week on Iranian missile projects, saying it has &quot;solid information to substantiate clandestine
24079
Many busy Americans may be stumped by how exactly to manage the new dietary guidelines for Americans released last week.
289303
(InfoWorld) - The Department of Homeland Securityâs Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) raised a few eyebrows in late November when it sent a warning out to U.S. banks and financial institutions about a possible cyber attack by Islamic militants. The alert, dated Nov. 30, was triggered by a posting on what the DHS considered an Islamic jihadi Web site calling for hackers to attack U.S. financial and banking Web sites, apparently to protest the detention of Muslims at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. However, the warning was heavily qualified, with DHS calling the threat âmore aspirational than operational.â Financial firms downplayed the danger, too. One security executive at a major brokerage told InfoWorld that the warning was a ânon-event.â But could repeated warnings about such non-events eventually make critical infrastructure owners deaf to DHSâs warnings? InfoWorld Senior Editor Paul F. Roberts recently chatted with John Carlson, senior director of security and risk Assessment at BITS, a financial-services industry consortium focused on security, fraud, and risk management, about the DHS warning and state of the public-private partnership on cybersecurity. InfoWorld: Iâm guessing that your members received the US-CERT warning about the cyber terrorist attack? John Carlson: There were two messages sent: the first was [Nov. 30]; then a second revision came out [Dec. 1]. The gist of it was that these reports were not corroborated. IW: What was the reaction of BITS members to the warning? JC: Our members have an âall hazardsâ approach to business-continuity planning. Theyâve got well-developed approaches that have been bolstered since 9/11. In response to new regulatory requirements, firms have done a lot to improve backup, theyâve done tests with the various exchanges. Theyâre also working in closer harmony with the federal government to share information on threats and vulnerabilities. I think thereâs a spirit of appreciation that the government is willing to share information with the financial services industry. The firms take that information into account in responding and activating their business continuity plans. IW: How do your members apply information like this that comes from DHS? JC: Iâm not sure I can give a blanket answer. Each firm has its own mechanisms for gathering information. Risk-management professionals at these firms read the paper and understand the military conflicts and theyâre mindful of that. They take it into account when they have employees traveling. Theyâll monitor where they are. With the [bird flu] pandemic issue, firms were monitoring that closely and trying to figure out what impact it would have on their organizations. IW: Is there a danger from these warnings of creating a âBoy Who Cried Wolfâ situation, where firms begin to disregard the warnings? JC: Thereâs always a concern about the crying-wolf syndrome. But our firms appreciate getting the information even if itâs not corroborated. A continuous flow of information helps build trust between the private and public sectors. IW: Was this warning about the jihadist threat something that your members see all the time, or was this an unusual kind of warning from DHS? JC: I think the warning came across the transom at a high level [saying] âpay attention to this.â So it was different from what we normally get. Weâre getting a steady stream of information on threats and vulnerabilities and a range of things. For example, if thereâs a known virus thatâs being perpetrated in [the United States] or against a financial institution. Weâre also getting information on political changes around the world. IW: Do you think DHS has its arms around the cybersecurity problem? JC: My personal opinion is that the government has some capabilities, but not all capabilities. In general, our firms would like more information, but there are many reasons why if (the government) has the information they donât provide it. But itâs a touchy question. People have lots of different views. Â  IW: Do you feel like your members are getting all the information they need? JC: Thereâs some filtering, but I donât have information to compare or validate what the filter is. We talk about issues through coordinating councils that meet quarterly. Itâs a two way conversation.Â
138798
Eight of Saddam Hussein&#39;s top deputies held in US custody are refusing to eat, although they are taking liquids, a US officer responsible for detainees has said, playing down talk of a &quot;hunger strike&quot;.
648373
A controversial figure takes charges of a State Department advisory panel.
356349
Colin Powell&#39;s accusation this week that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear ballistic missile was based on information that is from a single, unvetted source, the Washington Post claimed today.
237287
WASHINGTON - US authorities worry terrorists could target foodstuffs in an attempt to sicken or kill hundreds, maybe thousands of people.
317782
Each Tuesday, the US Department of Defense provides an online update of American military casualties (the number of wounded or dead) from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
97405
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell shared information with reporters Wednesday about Iran&#39;s nuclear program that was classified and based on an unvetted, single source who provided information
737281
U.S. intelligence officials are cautioning that popular Internet services that enable computer users to adopt cartoon-like personas in three-dimensional online spaces also are creating security vulnerabilities by opening novel ways for terrorists and criminals to move money, organize and conduct...
161466
Detailed plans for the new US embassy in Baghdad are posted online, prompting fears of a breach of security.