[96203] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kradorex Xeron)
Mon Apr 23 16:37:24 2007
From: Kradorex Xeron <admin@digibase.ca>
Reply-To: admin@digibase.ca
To: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:36:15 -0400
In-Reply-To: <462CFD9F.3030401@infiltrated.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Monday 23 April 2007 14:40, J. Oquendo wrote:
> Marcus H. Sachs wrote:
> > If we had "clean" registries and signed/verifiable advertisements this
> > would not be an issue. Most of you know that DHS was pushing the Secure
> > Protocols for the Routing Infrastructure initiative
> > (http://www.cyber.st.dhs.gov/spri.html). Due to budget cuts this progr=
am
> > is on the shelf for now. However, we are still interested in making it
> > happen.
> >
> > I think that the discussion about 7.0.0.0/24 several days ago could also
> > have been avoided if we had already implemented some of the SPRI ideas.
> >
> > Marc
>
> Out of utter curiousness (not arrogance)... Why in the world should the
> DHS be given control to the routing infrastructure when they can't even
> secure their own networks.
>
That is rediculous... The DHS should have no juristictional power over an=20
international and collective entity (The Internet), Why? Because the USA do=
es=20
not own the internet, no country does. it's just as I posted in the former:=
=20
an international and collective entity.
All of this "let's monitor traffic for terrorists" is a case where the USA=
=20
clearly has overstepped their bounds.
The USA government wants to remove the "collective" factor of the internet =
and=20
place an absolute authority (themselves) in charge of the internet.
> //QUOTE//
>
> =E2=80=9CThey will exploit anything and everything,=E2=80=9D an official =
with the Naval
> Network Warfare Command told Federal Computer Week (FCW) on condition of
> anonymity.
>
> More recently, Major General William Lord told Government Computer News
> in August 2006 that China has downloaded 10 to 20 terabytes of data from
> DoD=E2=80=99s main network, NIPRNet.
> //END QUOTE//
>
> http://www.scmagazine.com/uk/news/article/634401/chinese-hackers-waging-c=
yb
>erwar-us/
>
> I could instantly slap together about 10 links within the past 2 weeks
> of these same things occurring over and over within the government...
>
> I fail to see how/why DHS being in the middle of this would have helped.
> I can't count how many times I've attempted to contact someone in the
> DoD in referenced to compromised hosts and it seems one hand didn't
> know what the other hand was doing and in almost 80% of my contact
> attempts, no response was ever given...
>
The DHS is a single point of failiure, as they fail to ensure their own=20
security, how can they ensure the security of internet communications?
> So as a network operator who needs something done now, you expect
> someone to go through the bureaucracy of the US government to get
> something resolved? I think one could watch watch 5 coats of paint
> dry faster.
>
If you want stuff done like yesterday, any government will never satisfy yo=
ur=20
requirement, it's amazing they don't make you fill out paperwork to file a=
=20
report then mail it in. :P
> Not only that, all you need is just that ONE instance where "hackers
> owned our infrastructure" and we'll be in a much worse place then we
> are in now. That is of course someone is fibbing in attempts to get
> more money... "Hackers owned NIPR we need a new strategic plan to
> get back at them. Send us $30 million"... No thanks keep these keys
> away from ANY government body.
Once again, having someone parked in the middle results in a single point o=
f=20
failiure, and in this case, a rather volitile one.
