i got a chance to listen to Richard Clarke talk w/ Terry Gross on Fresh Air today, and while it was full of a lot of the things that suck about listening to mass-media talk about infosec, there were definately some gems...
i'd say it's worth a listen... anywho, onto the content:
[why it sucks to be an infosec defense guy]
"somehow from a thumb-drive, a virus a worm got into the classified network, which is supposed to be a closed loop network, of CENTCOM and attacked compromised thousands of computers of our warfighters in Iraq and Afghanistan and probably exfiltrated large amounts of information to someplace in the internet [in December 2008]"
ok, so this blurb says two things to me.
1) "it attacked an infected thousands of computers on a closed-loop network" - here's a lot of assumption, but when i hear about worms spreading in closed networks, it makes me say 'oh you didn't apply security patches to those machines because you thought they were safe'. unless this thumb-drive was full of 0day, this incident is classic failure to follow best-practices because you assumed some other layer of defense would keep you safe.
2) and wait, was this "closed-loop" network airgapped? well, clearly it wasn't if you were able to exfiltrate any data out of it to the internet. and even if it wasn't an airgapped network, why the #@%(*@#%* are you letting this classified military network which supports men & women with guns TALK TO THE INTERNET?!?! srsly guys, you know firewall policies can be set to block traffic leaving your network too, right?
this kind of stuff just sucks. here you have a network which should be one of the most secured in the world, and has tons of resources dedicated to protecting it, and it falls flat on it's face w/ two well known best practices. when .mils aren't doin this stuff, you know that corp networks are probably worse. how can you tell me to help protect you if you're unwilling to patch and control your network? and you're surprised when bad things happen to you? srsly?
we know how to do so much good defensive stuff, but it's a lot of mundane process and procedure. it takes cycles and people, and it takes some documentation and training, some audit and enforcement, and it takes some effort and work. and it seems like no one is doing it... booo :(
oh well... c'est la vie
[an example of real-world cyberwar]
as a bonus...
remember when Israel bombed some secret facility in Syria? well, according to Clarke, that attack was performed by Israeli F-15s and F-16s which are very not-stealthy fighters. so a reasonable question is why weren't these planes shot at/down by Syrian air-defense networks?
according to Clarke, the Syrians saw nothing on their radar at the time and after the fact because "the Israelis had used cyberwar as part of a traditional attack. They had taken control of the Syrian air-defense system, and made all of the radars look like there was nothing in the sky, even though the sky was filled with Israeli fighter-bombers."
anyway, just wanted to include this because so many people in the infosec game seem to think that cyberwar can only be a digital-pearl-harbor type catastrophic attack. as if the entire attack will be encompassed by bytes on a wire. in my opinion cyberwar capabilities can be used effectively as a small part of larger tactical engagements. dismissing cyberwar as a fantasy ignores real-world realities and capabilities which are apparently being put to use today by state actors, and possibly others...