Back to news

November 16, 2017 | International, Aerospace, C4ISR, Security

Cyber consequences: Attacks are hitting the C-suite

Ask Charles Bouchard what keeps him awake at night and the chief executive officer of Lockheed Martin Canada won't hesitate: “Our ability to protect our cyber systems.”

At a time when access to intellectual property (IP) is raising debate among aerospace OEMs, suppliers, in-service support and MRO (maintenance, repair and overhaul) companies, and governments and militaries, protecting data is a hot topic.

Lockheed Martin has seen enough of its IP stolen in recent years to take the problem seriously. But Bouchard believes many industry executives don't truly understand the challenge or the cost.

“It's one thing to say, we want the IP. The next question is, can you defend it? Can you protect it? That is a problem today,” he told Skies. “Subcontractors . . . need to protect their data because they are connecting to our systems, especially if IP will be passed to them. How are we going to do that? We have gone beyond putting a guard at the front gate and a lock on the door. [And] for some, it's a significant investment.”

Cyber defence is a national imperative, said retired Major-General Robert Wheeler, a 32-year veteran of the United States Air Force and a senior advisor to Avascent Global Advisors.

Whether the threat comes from nations or non-state actors such as terrorist or criminal organizations, cyber experts are seeing an increase in frequency and capability “in this particular type of warfare.”

“They are going after companies that are not prepared to deal with it, to take their IP and create havoc...,” the former deputy chief information officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense told executives at the Canadian Aerospace Summit in Ottawa Nov. 7.

Modern aircraft, with their vast supply chains and increasingly networked systems, present an attractive “avenue for bad guys to get in.”

In a presentation that highlighted recent attacks in Canada, the U.S. and elsewhere, Wheeler showed how the relentless pursuit of corporate and government data has jeopardized military, commercial and critical infrastructure systems and programs.

The 2011 attack on Defence Research and Development Canada, for example, was not only a costly systems problem to fix, it also raised questions about what government, industry and research data was exfiltrated. Likewise, the 2015 hack of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management was alarming because the benign-sounding agency houses the security clearances, including digital photo and biometric identification, for government, intelligence and military personnel.

“Data is the commodity of the 21st century,” said Wheeler.

While the sheer volume of new data might be a sign that more intellectual property is being created and the economy is growing, corporate breaches are keeping pace, and “the cost of each breach is accelerating” in terms of dollars and lost IP.

Cyber attacks are also starting to impact the C-suite, he noted. The 2013 breach of Target's payment card system cost chief executive officer Gregg Steinhafel his job, and executives with credit reporting agency Equifax have been “publicly flogged” in the wake of the hack of millions of client records in October.

ere may be greater consequences for companies that don't do due diligence, Wheeler suggested, pointing to changes taking shape in the legal regime following the Target attack.

While greater investment in cyber defence is important, “this is not a technology issue,” he said. “This is a leadership issue” that requires a change in organizational culture and executives who understand the challenge and can “walk the talk.” It also requires more employee training, not only in best cyber hygiene practices, but also in how to use networking and cyber tools to be more resilient, agile and quick to respond.

The payoff is a more effective, efficient and competitive company. “[So] many solutions to problems of this world today are in the data,” he said. “If you do this correctly . . . there is an opportunity to be more competitive, more collaborative, to come up with faster ideas in an environment and age when we have to come up with faster ideas.”

https://www.skiesmag.com/news/cyber-consequences-attacks-hitting-c-suite/

On the same subject

  • Opinion: Are Flat Pentagon Budgets The New Up Or The New Down?

    January 28, 2021 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

    Opinion: Are Flat Pentagon Budgets The New Up Or The New Down?

    Byron Callan January 26, 2021 The Biden administration probably will not unveil an outyear spending plan for the Defense Department until the late spring of 2021 at the earliest, and more likely it will come out with the fiscal 2023 budget submission in February 2022. The administration should, however, be commenting on some of the bigger changes as different reviews and assessments are completed before that budget plan is released. Consensus now is that Pentagon spending will be flat at least in the first term of the Biden administration, though analysts are not clear on what this means. Will the Pentagon's budget be unchanged from the level that was appropriated for fiscal 2021? Will it be flat in inflation-adjusted terms, which means it would rise at 2% annually in current dollars? Or will the budget be flat in current dollars, which would entail a roughly 2% annual decline in Pentagon purchasing power, assuming inflation is 2%? Each would have different outcomes for the spending that would flow to contractors. Defense optimists could argue that flat budgets historically have not lasted too long. There were periods in which budgets were flat over 2-4 years annually in the late 1950s, early 1960s and mid-1990s. Flat periods, however, were succeeded by growth—usually because of a crisis or a new military contingency. No one has a working crystal ball that will show what is ahead for the 2020s. There are reasons to believe, however, that the 2020s are different. Although interest rates are at historic lows, the ratio of U.S. debt to GDP is at levels seen during World War II. There is pent-up demand for non-defense discretionary spending—notably for infrastructure, and an aging U.S. population will likely demand more health care and other “social” spending. “Endless wars” in the Middle East may temper Americans' willingness to engage in new overseas missions, unless a major provocation occurs that is akin to the 9/11 attacks. The flat budget period could last longer than the post-World War II era suggests. Is “flat” good for contractors? That depends. Markets started to digest that U.S. defense spending was flattening in 2020. The largest U.S. defense contractors underperformed the S&P 500 in 2020 and are doing so again in the first days of 2021. The initial market verdict is that flat is not good. The assessment might be true, but it is going to depend on two factors: how the Pentagon reallocates resources in a flat budget environment and how contractors change their strategies and portfolios. A flat top-line defense budget could be positive if the Pentagon can successfully cut military personnel and operations and maintenance (O&M) spending. Both are tall tasks. Winding down operations in Afghanistan and the Middle East is not going to free up significant troop numbers, and in any event, both are apt to exert gravitational pulls from which the U.S. cannot easily break free. Global security risks are not going to allow the sort of force structure cuts that occurred at the end of the Cold War and the Korean and Vietnam wars. Readiness and training also will remain a priority in this environment. Spending on military personnel and O&M that keeps pace with inflation may place even more pressure on investment. If those accounts grow at 1-2% annually, in a flat top-line period, that will put even more pressure on investment. Still, while there has been no indication so far, it is conceivable that the Biden administration will propose reductions in force structure and will attack O&M costs with more vigor. It will take 1-2 years at least to realize those savings, but they could be applied to modernize a smaller military. For a number of years, the Pentagon attempted to retire older “legacy” weapon systems in order to fund new investment, but Congress has stymied efforts to muster out older Navy cruisers, aircraft carrier refueling systems and aircraft such as the A-10. The Defense Department could renew this line of attack, but it may be reminded of the old adage that repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity. The Pentagon will have to change its approach here by offering more incentives to states and districts that could be affected by the elimination of squadrons or units, and it has to be more forceful in confronting contractors whose net interests are harmed by such moves. A final thought is how contractors' strategies might change. In 2020 and so far in 2021, outperformance was evidenced by small-to-midsize contractors that appeared better aligned with Pentagon investment priorities in artificial intelligence, autonomy, supply chain resilience and low-cost weapons. The largest contractors may be able to unlock value in a flat top-line environment if they can spin off segments that are stagnant or declining. Sprawling program portfolios are apt to perform more in line with market growth rates, and that is not a recipe for superior performance. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/budget-policy-operations/opinion-are-flat-pentagon-budgets-new-or-new-down

  • Polish defense minister: F-35 acquisition ‘not far away’

    May 1, 2019 | International, Aerospace

    Polish defense minister: F-35 acquisition ‘not far away’

    By: Jarosław Adamowski WARSAW, Poland — Polish Defence Minister Mariusz Blaszczak said April 29 that the Polish government aimed to sign a deal to station U.S. troops in Poland this year, and a contract to purchase F-35 fighter jets was “not far away” from being signed. Blaszczak's announcement in an interview with local broadcaster TVP indicates that Warsaw could aim to negotiate on the potential troop deployment in parallel with the aircraft acquisition. Poland has pitched for the United States to build a permanent military base in the country, offering to pay at least $2 billion toward the project, dubbed “Fort Trump.” On April 25, during her visit to Warsaw, Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said that a U.S. Air Force team was to be sent to Poland in May to demonstrate the capabilities of the F-35 to Polish defence ministry officials, as reported by local news agency PAP. Last February, Blaszczak said the planned acquisition of 32 fifth-generation aircraft would be carried out as part of the country's military modernization program. Under the initiative, Warsaw aims to spend 185 billion zloty ($48.5 billion) on new weapons and equipment by 2026. The envisioned procurement is part of Poland's efforts to to replace its outdated Soviet-designed Sukhoi Su-22 and Mikoyan MiG-29 fighter jets. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/04/30/polish-defense-minister-f-35-acquisition-not-far-away/

  • US, Japan and South Korea strongly condemn North Korea's ICBM launch

    October 31, 2024 | International, Aerospace, Land

    US, Japan and South Korea strongly condemn North Korea's ICBM launch

All news