Risk
4/16/2010
11:15 AM
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

NSA Director Tells Senate He Won't Overstep In Role As U.S. Cyber Command Director

'This is not about efforts to militarize cyberspace,' says Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander during his confirmation hearing

The Obama administration's candidate to lead the U.S. effort against cyber warfare assured lawmakers Thursday he can successfully balance the strategic military, technological, and cooperative aspects of the job he hopes to take on.

In his confirmation hearing Thursday before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander fielded questions about how he would perform in a position created only last year to perform a task some lawmakers themselves admittedly don't quite understand.

The Cyber Command, part of the U.S. Strategic Command, went into action in September specifically to protect Department of Defense networks and take charge of cyber warfare activities. It's based in Ft. Meade, Md., where the National Security Agency -- which Alexander currently leads -- is also headquartered.

The new command has raised concerns from lawmakers because it will act in the same territory as the NSA and the Department of Homeland Security, which are working as civilian agencies to protect U.S. networks against cyber attacks.

Senators have expressed concerns about the militarization of cybersecurity efforts, and some admitted Thursday during the hearing that they don't fully understand the scope of cyber warfare in the context of a military action.

In his opening comments Thursday, Alexander assured lawmakers that he won't overstep the boundaries of his role if confirmed to lead the Cyber Command.

"This is not about efforts to militarize cyberspace," he said. "Rather it's about safeguarding the integrity of our military system. My goal if confirmed will be to significantly improve the way we defend ourselves in this domain."

However, he said that his role would not merely be a defensive one, and that Cyber Command should mount offensive cyber attacks in the event of a cyber war.

Alexander said he would work alongside the DHS, in particular, to define the scope of his role and to develop strategies. The DHS is the government agency in charge of cybersecurity on U.S. soil.

Indeed, one of the trickiest issues lawmakers have been grappling with is the relationship between Cyber Command and the DHS. The DHS has been working with private companies that own most of that critical infrastructure to forge relationships and share intelligence, and ultimately is responsible for protecting networks at home.

However, Cyber Command would play a key role if there was a major attack from a foreign entity on critical networks, and Alexander was asked by the committee how he would juggle responsibilities.

"Our responsibility is to provide technical support to the DHS to help them build the technology they need to defend [critical] networks," he said. "I think that partnership continues to grow."

The committee posed to Alexander a hypothetical situation that described an attack coming from outside the country but routed through computers in the U.S., which would put it in the domain of the DHS and raise privacy concerns for U.S. citizens.

Alexander said in that case it would be necessary to coordinate efforts very closely with the DHS and the President himself, who would have the ultimate authority in that situation to act.

But this is one area he said that is not clearly defined by policy, which he said is still lacking to help the Cyber Command protect the DoD in the event of a cyber war. "That's one of the things the administration is trying to address," Alexander said.

Indeed, cybersecurity and cyber warfare policy has not evolved nearly as quickly as the threat the Cyber Command, DHS, and NSA are attempting to ward off. The House of Representatives only recently passed a cybersecurity bill while the Senate is currently considering one, but neither have gone into effect yet.

Alexander said the DoD network is hit with hundreds of thousands of probes a day that are attempting to detect vulnerabilities in the network, which is one of the reasons the Cyber Command was created in the first place.

"We have been alarmed by the increase, especially this year," he said. "It's growing rapidly."

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Discuss" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
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-2014-1927
Published: 2014-10-25
The shell_quote function in python-gnupg 0.3.5 does not properly quote strings, which allows context-dependent attackers to execute arbitrary code via shell metacharacters in unspecified vectors, as demonstrated using "$(" command-substitution sequences, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-1928....

CVE-2014-1928
Published: 2014-10-25
The shell_quote function in python-gnupg 0.3.5 does not properly escape characters, which allows context-dependent attackers to execute arbitrary code via shell metacharacters in unspecified vectors, as demonstrated using "\" (backslash) characters to form multi-command sequences, a different vulner...

CVE-2014-1929
Published: 2014-10-25
python-gnupg 0.3.5 and 0.3.6 allows context-dependent attackers to have an unspecified impact via vectors related to "option injection through positional arguments." NOTE: this vulnerability exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2013-7323.

CVE-2014-3409
Published: 2014-10-25
The Ethernet Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) handling feature in Cisco IOS 12.2(33)SRE9a and earlier and IOS XE 3.13S and earlier allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (device reload) via malformed CFM packets, aka Bug ID CSCuq93406.

CVE-2014-3636
Published: 2014-10-25
D-Bus 1.3.0 through 1.6.x before 1.6.24 and 1.8.x before 1.8.8 allows local users to (1) cause a denial of service (prevention of new connections and connection drop) by queuing the maximum number of file descriptors or (2) cause a denial of service (disconnect) via multiple messages that combine to...

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.