Balanced? I don't read it as such. Hell, he even advocates a position where if an incident even appears as if it came from China, then we don't bother trying to track it - just hold the Chinese government accountable, regardless. And Healey's piece focuses only on the Chinese, which, although China may be the origin of the majority of cyber espionage, the threat is active in all corners of the world.Originally Posted by davidbfpo
However, I do agree with Healey about declassification of malware signatures for private sector security. Overclassification is a serious obstacle to efficiency in too many key areas - a problem clearly identified post-911, but still nowhere near adequately addressed.
But back to the issue - Any realistic and practical advocate of cyber-defense should be stressing the growing potential global threat, not scare-mongering against one particular actor - especially when that characterization builds the perception that China is the sole threat. The threat is real, and although espionage originating from China makes up the largest proportion (Russia is a major, sophisticated player as well), that does not excuse minimizing or ignoring the global nature of cyber espionage. And the global threat will only expand and build with the growth and development of technological capabilities - in effect, the cyber threat is the 21st century's arms race, but with a potentially unlimited number of state and non-state players.
Fortunately, those at the dirty-boots level of cyber defense (who are never actually in a position to get their boots dirty) have been well aware of the growing nature of the threat for a long time, and have been actively engaged in the evolutionary and innovative development of counter-measures for just as long. The mouthpieces at the national public level are simply players engaged in what is to be a bureaucratic spillage of blood over securing future funding, as we approach a defense drawdown and cuts that may resemble the immediate post-Cold War era.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks