DT In the news... Government, CyberSecurity, Inter-Agency cooperation

[TheCotMan]

Hey, it is getting easier and easier to find stories about DT...

URL1: Q&A: Defcon's Jeff Moss on cybersecurity, government's role

URL2: Hacker Jeff Moss: Inter-agency turf war plagues cybersecurity effort :

In URL1, "cyber," appears about 23 times.

In URL2, "cyber," appears about 7 times.

I was sad. I saw no mention of CyberMen, Daleks, or TimeLords. What's the deal?
You can't put CYBER in an article and not mention CyberMen! ;-)

URL1 is an interview, while URL2 is a brief summary.

[Chris]

Re: DT In the news... Government, CyberSecurity, Inter-Agency cooperation

Shouldn't this be in the Value Added News section?
Exterminate
Exterminate
Exterminate
Exterminate
Exterminate
Exterminate
Exterminate
Exterminate

[TheCotMan]

Re: DT In the news... Government, CyberSecurity, Inter-Agency cooperation

Shouldn't this be in the Value Added News section?

That is a good question! I didn't add enough value to the post for it to count as value added news. If I examined the article, and then provided commentary about the article, and then posed questions about it, then it could totally have been placed into Value Added News Discussion.

Exterminate
Exterminate
Exterminate
Exterminate
Exterminate
Exterminate
Exterminate
Exterminate

Yes! Killer robots are awesome!

[The Dark Tangent]

Re: DT In the news... Government, CyberSecurity, Inter-Agency cooperation

That is a good question! I didn't add enough value to the post for it to count as value added news. If I examined the article, and then provided commentary about the article, and then posed questions about it, then it could totally have been placed into Value Added News Discussion.


Yes! Killer robots are awesome!

Had I known the conversation would have been basically transcribed with little editing I would have done the interview quite differently. And mentioned Cyber more.

[TheCotMan]

Re: DT In the news... Government, CyberSecurity, Inter-Agency cooperation

Had I known the conversation would have been basically transcribed with little editing I would have done the interview quite differently. And mentioned Cyber more.

Heh-heh. See if you can work in CyberMen as a word to associate with it.. you know, the men that work in CyberSecurity are CyberMen. That would be awesome.

I'm surprised nobody has commented on anything in the substance of the articles here...

Let's see if these are of interest as a topic of discussion:

The point on the recommendation to limit the number of color codes was covered on the news shortly after it was announced. Various talking heads on the news channels thought it was a good idea, too.

As for criticism on other federal departments/organizations/groups lacking talented people, why can't that be solved through simple supply and demand? If one part of the government can provide more of what intelligent-and-qualified-people want in a job and get more talented people than other federal departments/organizations/groups that fail to entice the talent, why should the more effective departments/organizations/groups reward departments/organizations/groups that suck at hiring, enticing, encouraging and retaining skilled and talented people to their positions?

I'm a fan of encouraging winning systems and letting failing systems fail. This can be applied to gov departments, too.

[Club81]

Re: DT In the news... Government, CyberSecurity, Inter-Agency cooperation

I read them both. I liked the Q&A -- very informative. I was totally unaware of the NSA v. DHS talent tug-of-war. I'm speaking at the Software Assurance Forum in DC the first week of November, so it'll be very interesting to have a chance to visit with some of the DoD, DHS, Mitre, NIST etc... personnel.

The other point in the Q&A that I found especially interesting was the closing paragraphs about states having to be more involved. I hadn't considered this -- especially in South Dakota. What most people don't realize is that SD has quite a number of large business (financial sector specifically) because of the friendly tax structure.

[The Dark Tangent]

Re: DT In the news... Government, CyberSecurity, Inter-Agency cooperation

In related news:

Tuesday, October 20, 11:00 a.m. EDT, Secretary Napolitano will deliver a live webcast address about the urgent need to counter the threat of cyber attacks, and the shared responsibility in staying safe online. Visit www.dhs.gov on Tuesday to watch this live address. Increasing the general public’s awareness about computer and online risks is a critical part of Cybersecurity Awareness Month, recognized in October.

[Chris]

Re: DT In the news... Government, CyberSecurity, Inter-Agency cooperation

As for criticism on other federal departments/organizations/groups lacking talented people, why can't that be solved through simple supply and demand? If one part of the government can provide more of what intelligent-and-qualified-people want in a job and get more talented people than other federal departments/organizations/groups that fail to entice the talent, why should the more effective departments/organizations/groups reward departments/organizations/groups that suck at hiring, enticing, encouraging and retaining skilled and talented people to their positions?

I'm a fan of encouraging winning systems and letting failing systems fail. This can be applied to gov departments, too.

It can and it can't. Unfortunately, what I see a lot with .gov agencies is that they would LOVE to hire the best, the smartest, the most talented. They can even bring them on as contractors instead of as Feds so that they can pay them competively with corporate entities. The problem is, in the end they can't hire the smartest, they can hire the guy that already has the clearance.

The Federal governement can "afford" to wait the 12-18 months it takes to get a person cleared (SCI), but they can't pay as well as their contractors. They can also push through a clearance before you are hired in certain circumstances.

Contractors on the other hand can't even start the clearance process before you are hired. At that point they either have to have unclassified positions for you to fill while the clearance process moves forward (few and far between at places like NSA and CIA) or they have to put you on overhead. No company will put you on overhead for a year and a half.

The problem is that the US clearance process is HORRIBLY flawed. YOU don't own your clearance. You can't get your own clearance. You have to have an entity pay for your clearance, which requires several things, among them, a cleared position (billet) and the ability to hold that clearance (obtaining the ability to hold clearances is complex and difficult for small businesses but not impossible). If you leave an organization and/or position that requires your clearance, it is terminated. It can be reinstated or transferred during a set period of time but you can't "take it with you" and hold it yourself.

It's a difficult process that is confusing even to people that deal with clearances all of the time and is like a foreign language to pretty much everyone else.

If the governement wants to hire good people they need to fix the clearance process.

This doesn't even take in to account the people that (even though they are completely clearable) refuse to subject themselves to the (perceived) invasive clearance investigation.

I have always said that I think a DEF CON talk about the security clearance process, different types of clearances, what will disqualify you, etc would be a great idea. No one that really KNOWS the process has stepped up to do the talk.

[theprez98]

Re: DT In the news... Government, CyberSecurity, Inter-Agency cooperation

I have always said that I think a DEF CON talk about the security clearance process, different types of clearances, what will disqualify you, etc would be a great idea. No one that really KNOWS the process has stepped up to do the talk.

That is a good idea, maybe a panel discussion would work? I would certainly be willing to participate.

[Melesse]

Re: DT In the news... Government, CyberSecurity, Inter-Agency cooperation

I can certainly understand that, going through the clearance process was nerve wracking! I wouldn't even want to move to TS/SCI/Lifestyle Poly, as I've heard so many terrible things about the polygraph. One of my neighbors in NOVA when I lived with my parents was an Air Force General, and she repeatedly failed her polygraph. One of my coworkers failed a polygraph for a TS/SCI and not only did he not get his TS, he also lost his secret!

I don't even want to bother. I might try in five or ten years, when most of my more...youthful...peccadilloes have fallen behind, but I know that my wife and I engage in a lifestyle that, while not illegal, would certainly be considered "blackmail-able," and probably thus making me ineligible for a TS/SCI.

Mel

[Chris]

Re: DT In the news... Government, CyberSecurity, Inter-Agency cooperation

I know that my wife and I engage in a lifestyle that, while not illegal, would certainly be considered "blackmail-able," and probably thus making me ineligible for a TS/SCI.

Mel

You wouldn't be ineligible as long as you disclose it during the investigation. You can't be blackmailed if you don't care who finds out. This is another clearance misconception. It doesn't really matter (within reason) what you have done, as long as you tell the truth about it. It's the lying/hiding it that makes you blackmailable and will cost you the clearance.

[HighWiz]

Re: DT In the news... Government, CyberSecurity, Inter-Agency cooperation

I have always said that I think a DEF CON talk about the security clearance process, different types of clearances, what will disqualify you, etc would be a great idea. No one that really KNOWS the process has stepped up to do the talk.

I still remember back (when it existed) when you did a DC410 talk on landing an entry level info sec job (or something akin to that) and the preso seemed to end up being all about clearances.

but I know that my wife and I engage in a lifestyle that, while not illegal, would certainly be considered "blackmail-able," and probably thus making me ineligible for a TS/SCI.

Mel

If it's continued drug use, that could be an issue. If it's freaky sex shit/wife swapping then it won't cause nearly that stir that it would have, even.. 10 years ago.

[Chris]

Re: DT In the news... Government, CyberSecurity, Inter-Agency cooperation

If it's continued drug use, that could be an issue. If it's freaky sex shit/wife swapping then it won't cause nearly that stir that it would have, even.. 10 years ago.

Good point. Continued (or recent) criminal activity would be an issue. Now...define "recent" because that seems to vary from one adjudicator to another.

[Melesse]

Re: DT In the news... Government, CyberSecurity, Inter-Agency cooperation

Good point. Continued (or recent) criminal activity would be an issue. Now...define "recent" because that seems to vary from one adjudicator to another.

Nope, it's not illegal. It's more the dirty sex/wife swapping thing. However, as she's a teacher, and thus has a "morality clause" in her contract, it becomes somewhat blackmail-able. I could care less who knows. She cares very much since it's her livelihood that can depend on it lol.

And that's all, since this thread is supposed to be about DT and how famous and easy he is.

Wait, easy to find. Right.

M.

[shrdlu]

Re: DT In the news... Government, CyberSecurity, Inter-Agency cooperation

I have always said that I think a DEF CON talk about the security clearance process, different types of clearances, what will disqualify you, etc would be a great idea. No one that really KNOWS the process has stepped up to do the talk.

You know, if it wasn't for the very STRONG dislike I have of being on stage, I could do this. I actually know about all the bits (not just getting one, but investigations and other items). The procedure itself hasn't really changed much over the years, although what will or won't get a clearance denied certainly has.

There was a day when a clearnace for HighWiz would have been right out. I knew of someone that received a clearance in the late eighties, after sexual preference was supposedly off the table, and the investigation took two years, for a mere DOD Secret, at a time when most investigations were taking from 4 to 6 months.

The procedures vary slightly depending on what type of program as well (and whether the granting agency is DOD, or DOE, with various other wrinkles involved as well).

Interesting to think about.