23 janvier 2019 | International, C4ISR

Can the National Guard help solve states' cyber problems?

By:

The Department of Defense, in conjunction with the National Guard, has drafted a plan to allow for better coordination and information sharing to states in the event of a cyber emergency.

Aside from the typical assistance the National Guard offers states, such as natural disaster cleanup, the Guard also helps states respond to major cyber threats or incidents. This can include securing critical infrastructure such as power plants, water treatment plants or major ports.

The new plan, known as a concept of operation, describes a framework for how information flows from the federal government — Department of Homeland Security and Cyber Command — to the states to help government officials improve their cybersecurity.

The plan is still in draft form, Lt. Col. Jody Ogle, director of communications for cyber programs at the West Virginia National Guard, told reporters Jan. 17.

“That concept of operation helps shape that framework for how that information can flow up and down” the government, Ogle said. For example, if an IT technician working for a secretary of state notices something out of the ordinary on the network, that can be passed up to higher levels of the government and included with other threat signals across sensors on the network making that initial small tidbit of information more actionable.

Ogle said he helped write the concept during a recent stint at U.S. Cyber Command's Joint Force Headquarters-DoD Information Networks, which is tasked with defending DoD's network.

Full article: https://www.fifthdomain.com/dod/2019/01/22/can-the-national-guard-help-solve-states-cyber-problems

Sur le même sujet

  • Trump administration prepares to leave Open Skies Treaty

    22 mai 2020 | International, Aérospatial

    Trump administration prepares to leave Open Skies Treaty

    By: Aaron Mehta and Joe Gould WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has made a final decision to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty, sources confirmed to Defense News on Thursday. The news was confirmed by U.S. President Donald Trump midday, followed by a formal announcement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that the administration will make a formal notification on Friday, kicking off a six-month clock before a formal exit occurs. “We may, however, reconsider our withdrawal should Russia return to full compliance with the Treaty,” Pompeo said in a statement. What “full compliance” means, however, is unclear. Chris Ford, assistant secretary of state for international security and nonproliferation, told reporters there are “many variables” as to what that would entail, particularly as a number of American complaints about Russian activities involve behaviors that, Ford acknowledged, are “not in fact violations of the treaty.” As an example of the latter, Ford pointed to restrictions on flights over Kaliningrad. Russia has in the past restricted the length of flights over the city, which is not a direct violation but contradicts the confidence-building nature of the agreement, Ford said. That Russia will sometimes loosen those restrictions, such as earlier this year for an Open Skies flyover by Estonian, Lithuanian and American observers, is proof that the Kremlin “clearly regards its Open Skies legal obligations as something akin more to guidelines, or options, for them,” he argued. “It's the combination of all those things that has led to this decision. And so were Russia to return to compliance, we would have to presumably make that decision at the time about what to do with it, do in response to that, on the basis of the circumstances that have changed at that time,” Ford said. “Just as our decision now has many variables, we have to sort of see what the net impact of Russian behavior at that time in the world is. But that's a conversation we would very much like to have, if Russia would give the world the opportunity to see that happen.” In a statement released online, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs called the move “very regrettable" and hit at the Trump administration's “general policy” of going after arms control agreements. International discussions The administration Thursday morning began informing the other 34 members in the agreement, which allows mutual reconnaissance flights over the member nations, including Russia. An emergency meeting of NATO members is scheduled for Friday in Brussels, per multiple reports. The move, first reported Thursday by The New York Times, was not a surprise, as administration officials signaled to European allies toward the end of last year that unless major changes were made to the overflight agreement, the U.S. would consider withdrawing. However, there had been little movement in the months since, giving advocates hope that a decision to exit the treaty had not been finalized. “It was pretty clear from meetings that it was basically a done deal and it was just a matter of when,” one European source said. Allies generally argue the treaty is a valuable channel for transparency and dialogue between Russia and the United States, the world's top two nuclear superpowers. Critics of the treaty have argued that the U.S. gets better intelligence from satellite systems and that the funding to replace the aging OC-135 aircraft can be spent elsewhere. A second European source acknowledged that Russia has not always complied with the treaty, but said there was a sense that those issues could be resolved. The source predicted that those NATO members who are also part of the treaty will remain, but was unclear what Russia will do next. “If you're Russia, you can stay in and take the moral high ground, say, ‘We still honor international treaties, even if America doesn't,' or you can say the treaty is diminished beyond usefulness and you pull out. I don't know which they'll do, but neither is good for NATO," the source said. The source added that while it is true the U.S. gets its best intelligence from its satellites as opposed to OC-135 flights, focusing entirely on that is “selfish” because “a lot of NATO allies rely on Open Skies for visibility into what goes on in Russia.” The Pentagon released a statement late on Thursday, saying “The United States has been in close communication with our Allies and partners regarding our review of the Treaty and we will explore options to provide additional imagery products to Allies to mitigate any gaps that may result from this withdrawal.” Key Democrats and arms control advocates quickly denounced the administration's withdrawal plans as dangerous and destabilizing to America's relationships with allies, with former CIA director Michael Hayden, a frequent Trump critic, decrying the move as “insane.” Conservative voices applauded the move as Trump standing up to Russia's violations of the treaty. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., expressed his belief the funding that would have gone into repairing the OC-135 should now go toward broader nuclear modernization. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith, D-Wash., and House Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., blasted the administration for defying a requirement in the 2020 defense policy law that Trump first give Congress 120 days' notice. Multiple communications with Congress on the issue had “gone unanswered,” they said. “The Administration's decision to withdraw the United States from the Open Skies Treaty is a slap in the face to our allies in Europe, leaves our deployed forces in the region at risk, and is in blatant violation of the law,” they said in a joint statement. “This decision weakens our national security interests, isolates the United States since the Treaty will continue without us, and abandons a useful tool to hold Russia accountable." When signing the defense policy legislation into law, Trump indicated he didn't consider himself bound by the requirement, citing his executive powers. “I reiterate the longstanding understanding of the executive branch that these types of provisions encompass only actions for which such advance certification or notification is feasible and consistent with the President's exclusive constitutional authorities as Commander in Chief and as the sole representative of the Nation in foreign affairs," the president's Dec. 20 signing statement read. Throughout its term, the Trump administration has been skeptical of arms control agreements. The U.S. and Russia walked away from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty last August, and officials have expressed skepticism about renewing the New START nuclear agreement with Russia, which expires in 2021. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/05/21/trump-admin-to-withdraw-from-open-skies-treaty/

  • Selon un rapport, le déficit d'entraînement des pilotes de l'armée de l'Air et de l'Espace est "préoccupant" - Zone Militaire

    27 octobre 2022 | International, Aérospatial

    Selon un rapport, le déficit d'entraînement des pilotes de l'armée de l'Air et de l'Espace est "préoccupant" - Zone Militaire

    Lors d'un exercice récent, des Eurofighter Typhoon et des F-35B de la Royal Air Force ont vidé les stocks de missiles air-air AIM-132 ASRAAM devant être

  • UK should rethink deadline for defense, foreign policy review, says former national security adviser

    20 mars 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    UK should rethink deadline for defense, foreign policy review, says former national security adviser

    By: Andrew Chuter LONDON — Former British national security adviser Peter Ricketts has urged the government to put the brakes on its plan to complete an integrated review of defense, security, foreign policy and development by July. The new coronavirus pandemic is partly to blame, he said. “I do not see how a deep, thorough and integrated review covering the entire spectrum [of requirements] can now be done by July,“ Ricketts told a March 17 parliamentary Defence Select Committee hearing on the government's plan. Conservative Party Prime Minister Boris Johnson initiated the review following his general election win in early December. Johnson promised it would be the most fundamental review of its kind since the end of the Cold War. Analysts and others have been concerned that the review will be fudged in the rush to complete the promised deep dive into defense, foreign policy and security strategy reform. The defense committee already called for a delay, and it has questions about how the review is being run. Tobias Elwood, the recently appointed committee chairman, said the panel is “not impressed” by the initial way the review is progressing. Elwood said at the March 17 hearing that the Army had been told to submit their requirements by Mar 20, before they had been informed by the government what its new foreign policy will look like. The committee met with Army chiefs last week. The Foreign Office has produced five separate essays on its view of Britain's role in the world, and the Army had not seen the documents, said Elwood. One government lobbyist said that Elwood's remarks showed that Dominic Cummins, Boris Johnson's special adviser and one of the main proponents for radical change in the defense sector, had settled on an answer even before the review questions had been asked. “He's not listening and doesn't appear to care much how he gets the outcome he wants, particularly around areas like technology and procurement,” he said. Ricketts told the committee the already tight timescale had been further jeopardized by the government's concentration on the unfolding COVID-19 pandemic. “I do not see how you could possibly complete the review over the [coming] months, not least because of the bandwidth available for senior ministers and the government more generally [as a result of the virus],” he said. COVID-19′s influence on defense matters was further illustrated March 19 when the Ministry of Defence announced that thousands of regular and reserve troops are being put on standby to assist public services as part of a new support force. Ricketts, who led the Conservative government's 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review, said that given the situation, it is possible Johnson might want to put off the review as well as the comprehensive spending review that's running in parallel. The spending review sets the level of departmental spending across government for several years ahead. Alex Ashbourne-Walmsley of Ashbourne Strategic Consulting also believes the defense and funding reviews should be postponed. “It makes no sense to me that the U.K. should continue with either the defense review process or the comprehensive spending review when it is still too soon to determine the long-term economic and social impacts of coronavirus. It would be more sensible to defer everything for at least a year,” she said. Ricketts has suggested the government could come up with baseline foreign policy principles and some initial military priorities while leaving the more detailed work until later. Both he and Jock Stirupp, the former chief of the Defence Staff, told the committee that it is important the defense review and the comprehensive spending review are done in tandem to ensure the money and military requirements went hand-in-hand. The MoD is facing a serious funding shortfall, which is likely to lead to further cancellations or delays to major programs. A recent report by the National Audit Office, the government financial watchdog, said the MoD's 10-year defense equipment plan shows there is a potential funding shortfall of up to £13 billion (U.S. $15 billion). The funding gap is shrinking, but this is the third year in a row the National Audit Office has deemed the plan unaffordable. Defence Procurement Minister Jeremy Quin told Parliament during a session on defense questions March 16 that the government had every intention of continuing with the review. “It's important we get on with it," he said. "We need to take firm decisions, and the swifter, the better.” Defence Secretary Ben Wallace was quizzed about the integrated review timetable in the March 16 session. He said the government is regularly reviewing the decision on timing. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/03/19/uk-should-rethink-deadline-for-defense-foreign-policy-review-says-former-national-security-adviser/

Toutes les nouvelles