U.S. Homeland Chief: Cyber 9/11 Could Happen "Imminently".....

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano warned on Thursday that a major cyber attack is a looming threat and could have the same sort of impact as last year's Superstorm Sandy, which knocked out electricity in a large swathe of the Northeast.
Napolitano said a "cyber 9/11" could happen "imminently" and that critical infrastructure - including water, electricity and gas - was very vulnerable to such a strike.

"We shouldn't wait until there is a 9/11 in the cyber world. There are things we can and should be doing right now that, if not prevent, would mitigate the extent of damage," said Napolitano, speaking at the Wilson Center think tank in Washington and referring to the September 11, 2001, attacks.



She urged Congress to pass legislation governing cyber security so the government could share information with the private sector to prevent an attack on infrastructure, much of which is privately owned.
A cyber security bill failed in Congress last year after business and privacy groups opposed it. The measure would have increased information-sharing between private companies and U.S. intelligence agencies and established voluntary standards for businesses that control power grids or water treatment plants.

Business groups said the legislation was government overreach. Privacy groups feared it might lead to Internet eavesdropping.

New cyber legislation is being considered, but it is unclear whether it will get through the gridlocked Congress.
President Barack Obama is expected to soon issue an executive order that would set up a voluntary system to help protect some critical infrastructure and offer incentives to companies that participate.....snip~

U.S. homeland chief: cyber 9/11 could happen "imminently" - Yahoo! News

Why would Obama need to enact EP for companies that want to voluntarily agree to share info with the Fed? So Homeland Security will seek another bill to put thru congress. Thoughts?

The government can always share its information so that is BS. What they really want is no warrant access to every single thing on the web from private providers.

I am sure it is a conspiracy....

:roll:

Redress said:

I am sure it is a conspiracy....

:roll:

Click to expand...

Show me a law that says the government absolutely cannot share threat information with the public. *hint--anything classified can be declassified by the POTUS*

It looks like the government wants an excuse in order to justify seizing control of the internet and be able to shut down the internet at will.

Keep the dirty fingers of the Obama government off of the people's internet. We all know what they want.

jamesrage said:

It looks like the government wants an excuse in order to justify seizing control of the internet and be able to shut down the internet at will.

Click to expand...

Well we do know they are targeting all social media.....huh? At least so far this has been another setback for Team Obama!!!

Redress said:

I am sure it is a conspiracy....

:roll:

Click to expand...

Were you thinking this was some conspiracy to this? How many Cyber Security Laws have wee seen this President get passed?

The only cyber security needed to protect critical infrastructure like powerplants is quite simple: DON'T HOOK IT UP TO THE INTERNET. It doesn't require giving the government potentially abusive power and actually provides a real improvement in security.

What other Cyber Security Laws have we seen passed? Yet none of those passed.....deal with any companies with Infrastructure?

Sounds like another government official talking about technology she has absolutely no clue about.

Opening a government back door into any system does not improve security but weakens it.

The only way to make such systems more secure and far less likely to be affected by a broad-scale attack would be to make sure they are Linux or other BSD/Unix based OS/Servers instead of running Microsoft servers, if they are not already doing so. Unlike Windows, these systems cannot be attacked with any measure of success due to the nature of the systems, each would have to be hacked individually, even that falls to low probability except for Windows based systems.

Since the Government mainly runs Windows based servers, such a route into a Linux/etc system would open a vulnerability, not close any.

We should all be suspicious of such measures, and neither political party can be trusted on this issue. I can think of many ways to improve cyber security that could be required of operators of critical systems that don't involve increased sharing of confidential information between corporations and government, or increased surveillance and control of citizens. For example, requiring redundant backup systems and secure offline storage of critical data.

Obama to issue EP over cyber security after State of the Union Address.....Why are those states not dealing with this issue and rather than having the Fed come in on it? Is there any reason to even allow the federal government any chance of coming in and then dictating how things will be? Other than a some issue that would give reason to come into a state over whatever infrastructure needed protection. Also if the FED knows of anything shouldn't they have to inform the state and those concerned?

Carper: Expect White House cyber security order after State of the Union

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Carper (D-Del.) said the White House has signaled that it will likely introduce its cyber-security order in the second half of February, following President Obama's State of the Union address.

The White House began drafting the executive order after Congress failed to pass cybersecurity legislation last year. The administration has argued that the cybersecurity threat facing the United States is too great for it not to take action while Congress grapples with passing legislation.

The executive order builds off a section in a cybersecurity bill that was co-sponsored by Rockefeller, Carper and Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), which was ultimately blocked by Senate Republicans. The cyber order would create a voluntary program in which companies operating crucial infrastructure would agree to meet a set of cybersecurity standards developed, in part, by the government.

Cybersecurity will likely resurface on Congress's radar this year after major U.S. banks and newspapers, such The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, have suffered a spate of cyberattacks. Defense officials have also issued warnings about Iran and China's cyber capabilities.

Read more: Carper: Expect White House cyber security order after State of the Union - The Hill's Hillicon Valley
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Of course this is an EP that is being issued to create a voluntary program. But then with that would come Federal Rules and regulations. Also if Obama issue the EP why would they hold a meeting afterwards if no legislation was passed. Wouldn't have Obama gone around Congress again just with the EP?

Of course there's going to be an imminent attack. There's always going to be an imminent attack when the Feds are trying to get some new law passed.

Gaius46 said:

Of course there's going to be an imminent attack. There's always going to be an imminent attack when the Feds are trying to get some new law passed.

Click to expand...

Well I think they can see just over this last week that it is more than some hackers associated with this Anonymous. Still why is there a need for EP if Companies will allow them to do so voluntarily?

Obama is still looking to use EP over it.

Buzz words: 9/11...Imminently...attack

In a closed society there always has to be a threat. They always have to restrict rights for your "safety."

Freedom is not safe and was never intended to be safe.

When CISPA passed...it opened the door to government control over a the internet. Our government is trying to seize control over the Internet. That is a fact.

One day, I hope, the people will realize that we are slipping away from freedom. The first thing you should look at is this enormous bureaucracy named Homeland Security. It is responsible for a lot of wasted money...TSA anyone?

We don't need Homeland Security at all. We were fine without it. We stopped terrorism without that waste of money. 9/11 has put too much paranoia in the populous. So much so that we have allowed the government to grab more power than was ever intended.

When will enough be enough? Where will our generation sit in American history? Will we be the ones to restore freedom, or the ones who allowed an Authoritarian government to seize power?

AreteCourage said:

Buzz words: 9/11...Imminently...attack

In a closed society there always has to be a threat. They always have to restrict rights for your "safety."

Freedom is not safe and was never intended to be safe.

When CISPA passed...it opened the door to government control over a the internet. Our government is trying to seize control over the Internet. That is a fact.

One day, I hope, the people will realize that we are slipping away from freedom. The first thing you should look at is this enormous bureaucracy named Homeland Security. It is responsible for a lot of wasted money...TSA anyone?

We don't need Homeland Security at all. We were fine without it. We stopped terrorism without that waste of money. 9/11 has put too much paranoia in the populous. So much so that we have allowed the government to grab more power than was ever intended.

When will enough be enough? Where will our generation sit in American history? Will we be the ones to restore freedom, or the ones who allowed an Authoritarian government to seize power?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I slammed Bush for the creation of this Special Police Force. Plus as you saw Napolitano isn't backing away from it anyways.

Still what need for EP if as they say some companies are volunteering?