Could this have been expected (?) - Security

This is a discussion on Could this have been expected (?) - Security ; Wed Dec 13, 7:14 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A number of countries are developing ways to knock out U.S. space systems, http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061214/...usa_weapons_dc Robert Joseph, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, did not name any such states ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Could this have been expected (?)

  1. Could this have been expected (?)

    Wed Dec 13, 7:14 PM ET

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A number of countries are developing ways to knock
    out U.S. space systems,

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061214/...usa_weapons_dc

    Robert Joseph, undersecretary of state for arms control and international
    security, did not name any such states

    [...]

    referred to such possibilities as maneuvering out of harm's way,
    redundancy, system "hardening," encryption and rapid frequency changes.

    Controversy, as usual, because we do not have sufficient details. Posted
    for interest and information.

    Is the ISS far behind? Why would anyone want to knock the US out of space
    (?). [Oh, please.]

    As above, FYI&I (interest and information). I am listening, but no reply
    necessary. Just a sad state of affairs, IMO. -- Best.

  2. Re: Could this have been expected

    Assuming there's a Linux context to the communique, I'll just follow my
    usual rap on tech security systems and their promoters. The big boys who
    decide on spending for big programs almost always opt for elaborate
    hardware costing tens of billions while overlooking the simplest of
    attacks an adversary might employ. Consider: the sat net you infer, with
    its rad-hardening, encryption freq. mix, etc...a Chinese orbital pod
    (low-reflective) with a crew of two visits each sat in the net and wraps
    aluminum foil around it. End of sys.

    Defense analysts need to wise up and start defending the country with
    common sense instead of dollar signs.

  3. Re: Could this have been expected

    On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 01:30:28 -0500, OSbandito wrote:

    > Defense analysts need to wise up and start defending the country with
    > common sense instead of dollar signs.


    snort.. maybe if one dropped loaves of bread instead of so
    many bombs, one's list of friends around the world would be a little
    longer, the need for "defending the country" a lot less... food for
    thought...

  4. Re: Could this have been expected

    OSbandito wrote:
    > Assuming there's a Linux context to the communique, I'll just follow my
    > usual rap on tech security systems and their promoters. The big boys who
    > decide on spending for big programs almost always opt for elaborate
    > hardware costing tens of billions while overlooking the simplest of
    > attacks an adversary might employ. Consider: the sat net you infer, with
    > its rad-hardening, encryption freq. mix, etc...a Chinese orbital pod
    > (low-reflective) with a crew of two visits each sat in the net and wraps
    > aluminum foil around it. End of sys.
    >
    > Defense analysts need to wise up and start defending the country with
    > common sense instead of dollar signs.

    Buck Rodgers or Flash Gordon may have been able to do such things but in
    the real world wrapping aluminum foil around each satellite in a network
    would be pretty darn hard. The fuel needed to go from orbit to orbit
    alone would be pretty daunting.

  5. Re: Could this have been expected

    OSbandito wrote:

    > Assuming there's a Linux context to the communique, I'll just follow my
    > usual rap on tech security systems and their promoters. The big boys who
    > decide on spending for big programs almost always opt for elaborate
    > hardware costing tens of billions while overlooking the simplest of
    > attacks an adversary might employ.


    [...]

    [A nod to Barton L. Phillips' realistic comments.]

    What has happened before could happen again. The most likely attacks on
    IT infrastructure are rooted in a monoculture of M$ based
    proprietary software, incessant new zero-day openings (or anything newer
    than 30 days, I guess) and unchecked proliferation of known botnets. This
    allows [massive] attacks on the ground-based assets that interface with
    and control the space assets and all other infrastructure. By now, this is
    simply and easily understood stuff, that could be easily defended against.
    There are many smart people watching these things daily. It is still
    frequently ignored or insufficiently considered, to all our detriment.

    Some governments and agencies are recently embracing open source systems
    and software, which in its broadest variety will resist the monoculture
    and most widespread zero-day attacks. Consensus is still needed to
    immediately and collectively disrupt botnets. Illuminating of satellites
    still seems a _way_ secondary threat. But it is apparently a new sign of
    how much serious hostility there is in these times. We have been warned.

    > Defense analysts need to wise up and start defending the country with
    > common sense instead of dollar signs.


    Greetings and wishes to a perceived fellow fiscal conservative. I
    recommend mr.b's remarks.

+ Reply to Thread