Risk
1/10/2013
11:12 AM
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

U.K. Armed Forces Leaving Cyber Back Door Open?

Huge resources have been promised to beef up country's cyber warfare defense, but little has actually been sent to armed forces, bipartisan report says.

Has the U.K. left itself dangerously open to serious harm from a cyber attack on its armed forces?

That's the danger suggested by a report by lawmakers, who point out that brave talk about major investment in the form of £650 million ($1 billion) in protecting the U.K.'s cyber defenses has translated to a much more modest £90 million ($144 million) for British soldiers, sailors and air force personnel.

In fact, IT security leaders in the British fighting forces found that sum so paltry they've dipped into their own hard-pressed 2012-13 budget by a further £30 million ($48 million) -- which is also deemed inefficient. This has to be put in the context that in the 2011-12 financial timeframe, these forces had a budget of $63 billion (the U.K. hovers between being the fourth or fifth biggest combatant in the world in term of its national access to arms).

The alleged underfunding is translating on the ground to supposedly risky workarounds like using too much off-the-shelf packaged software instead of internally developed customized apps. Worse, in most cases, the most teams are being told to do is to update their anti-virus software, a move that is unlikely to hold up any halfway determined incursion from an antagonist's cyber warfare staff.

[ Not all security breaches involve sophisticated technology. Read Royal Security Fail: 'May I Speak To Kate?' ]

The study isn't going to be the basis for any kind of official policy; the work of the (lower) house of the British polity, the House of Commons' Defence Committee is more along the lines of a Senate Hearing.

But these reports -- produced by cross-party (bipartisan) groups who interview experts and stakeholders -- are still taken seriously. In this case, the politicians were also provided extensive data from Symantec and other security leaders as well as the U.K.'s defense industries, which include companies like BAE Systems, EADS and Raytheon. Its warnings are likely to boost lobbying by the MoD (Ministry of Defence, the British equivalent of the Pentagon) for more resources.

The report contends that increasing reliance by the U.K. state defenses on information and communication technology isn't being matched by enough actual work to boost safety. Two years ago, the government identified cyber warfare as on a par as a threat with international terrorism, but it seems to have done little of practical impact to match that level of rhetoric.

"The government needs to put in place -- as it has not yet done -- mechanisms, people, education, skills, thinking and policies which take into account both the opportunities and the vulnerabilities which cyberspace presents," the Committee's chair told the U.K. press today. The opportunity created by cyber tools and techniques to enhance the military capabilities of the U.K.'s military is clear, he added.

Reaction to the report has ranged from warmth from part of what we should still probably call the military-industrial complex, who agreed with the warning, to commentators who pointed out that compared to its G20 peers, the U.K. is actually pretty much holding its own in starting to build an appropriate cyber defense infrastructure.

Whatever the truth, in the age of Stuxnet, upping your anti-viral capability may not be all that MoD CIOs should be doing.

Hack.me is a free platform to build, host and share simple and complex vulnerable Web applications. Find out more about it in this free Black Hat webcast on Jan. 17, with Armando Romeo, founder of eLearnSecurity.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
PJS880
50%
50%
PJS880,
User Rank: Ninja
1/21/2013 | 3:10:21 AM
re: U.K. Armed Forces Leaving Cyber Back Door Open?
Now that the government is aware of the lacking cyber defense capabilities of their armed forces how quick are they going to make a change? That has to pretty worrisome to UK soldiers; I mean a soldier doesnGÇÖt have enough to worry about then this on top of all of that. They should not be dealing with off the shelf software and they should be producing custom in-house software regardless of the cost!

Paul Sprague
InformationWeek Contributor
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
Partner Perspectives
What's This?
In a digital world inundated with advanced security threats, Intel Security seeks to transform how we live and work to keep our information secure. Through hardware and software development, Intel Security delivers robust solutions that integrate security into every layer of every digital device. In combining the security expertise of McAfee with the innovation, performance, and trust of Intel, this vision becomes a reality.

As we rely on technology to enhance our everyday and business life, we must too consider the security of the intellectual property and confidential data that is housed on these devices. As we increase the number of devices we use, we increase the number of gateways and opportunity for security threats. Intel Security takes the “security connected” approach to ensure that every device is secure, and that all security solutions are seamlessly integrated.
Featured Writers
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading's October Tech Digest
Fast data analysis can stymie attacks and strengthen enterprise security. Does your team have the data smarts?
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2014-2021
Published: 2014-10-24
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in admincp/apilog.php in vBulletin 4.4.2 and earlier, and 5.0.x through 5.0.5 allows remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted XMLRPC API request, as demonstrated using the client name.

CVE-2014-3604
Published: 2014-10-24
Certificates.java in Not Yet Commons SSL before 0.3.15 does not properly verify that the server hostname matches a domain name in the subject's Common Name (CN) field of the X.509 certificate, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof SSL servers via an arbitrary valid certificate.

CVE-2014-6230
Published: 2014-10-24
WP-Ban plugin before 1.6.4 for WordPress, when running in certain configurations, allows remote attackers to bypass the IP blacklist via a crafted X-Forwarded-For header.

CVE-2014-6251
Published: 2014-10-24
Stack-based buffer overflow in CPUMiner before 2.4.1 allows remote attackers to have an unspecified impact by sending a mining.subscribe response with a large nonce2 length, then triggering the overflow with a mining.notify request.

CVE-2014-7180
Published: 2014-10-24
Electric Cloud ElectricCommander before 4.2.6 and 5.x before 5.0.3 uses world-writable permissions for (1) eccert.pl and (2) ecconfigure.pl, which allows local users to execute arbitrary Perl code by modifying these files.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Follow Dark Reading editors into the field as they talk with noted experts from the security world.