15 août 2018 | International, C4ISR

Experts predict countries will use smart devices to launch cyberattacks

By:

A vast majority of security professionals and experts who attended the Black Hat conference in Las Vegas predict that nation-states will target smart devices in the next year, according to a survey.

Ninety-three percent of respondents told Armis, a security platform, that they expected governments to exploit connected devices during a hack or cyberattack. Twenty-three percent of respondents said that the energy and utility sector were most at risk of being attacked through smart devices, the survey found.

Hackers are using connected devices as intermediaries to attack computer networks, the FBI warned Aug. 2. Examples of previous hacks using smart devices include an attack on a Las Vegas casino through the thermometer of an aquarium.

Full Article: https://www.fifthdomain.com/critical-infrastructure/2018/08/14/experts-predict-countries-will-use-smart-devices-to-launch-cyberattacks/

Sur le même sujet

  • Finland’s Air Force chief tackles recruiting challenges and its quest for a future fighter

    12 août 2019 | International, Aérospatial

    Finland’s Air Force chief tackles recruiting challenges and its quest for a future fighter

    By: Valerie Insinna TIKKAKOSKI, Finland — The Finnish Air Force is changing. In a matter of years, it will decide on its future fighter — a €7-€10 billion (U.S. $7.8-$11.2 billion) program that could tie Finland more closely to the country that wins the competition. It's revamping its command-and-control infrastructure. And like other international air forces, it's putting increased pressure on itself to boost readiness. Maj. Gen. Pasi Jokinen, who became the commander of Finland's Air Force in April, oversees the transformation. The job has its perks: During U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein's trip to Finland in July — his first visit to the nation — the two officers took a break from meetings and sat backseat in two Finnish F/A-18 Hornets for a training mission. Goldfein later said the flight signified the growing trust between the two air forces. Jokinen spoke on July 21 with Defense News, which traveled to Finland with Goldfein, about the service's readiness challenges and its modernization priorities. Tell me about your conversation here today with Gen. Goldfein. Well, we talked about a lot of interesting topics. We talked about the operation environment and the Finnish Air Force and what we do here, and the cooperation with the U.S. and all that. He obviously was aware of a lot of things, but we went into very good detail about everything like that. We know what's happening here, we are strongly here, we are committed here and everything is running smoothly. You said you talked about the operational environment for Finland right now. Can you characterize that, and is it changing? Well, I think we have been using that word “new normal” after Crimea and after 2014, so activity in the Baltic region and in this region is in a little bit elevated level — let's put it that way. And of course our eastern neighbor is actively doing things in Syria and eastern Ukraine. It has had some effects. It seems that they have this big exercise cycle, [in] running the Zapad [exercise] and how they rotate the different regions. In 2017 we saw again this western Russia exercise, and it was noted. It was at peak activity level. Activity-wise, 2017 was the highlight, and now we are calmed down a little bit, but still we are above the level before 2014. Is it fair to say that the number of intercepts peaked in 2017? Yeah, well, when their activity is high, our activity is high. And of course the Gulf of Finland, which is the international airspace nearby our border, that's one of the areas of interest. You used the word “intercepts,” though; that activity is there. I mean, of course then they are operating also in the other, the northeast and eastern border, but that's a solid border. I mean, obviously they are on their side and we are on our side. Then the international airspace where we meet, OK. The Gulf of Finland is mainly transit for mainland Russia to Kaliningrad and back, and in the southern Baltic Sea, or the Baltic sea down more south, there's more room to maneuver, do stuff like that. Here is the very narrow — long but narrow — corridor that normally there is no operational type of maneuvers, neither side, but it's a transit. But we like to know who is going where and all that. Then obviously one the things are that they do not always use transponders or flight plans. There are no flight plans, so we need to find out who is there. That has improved a bit over the years. The equipment is newer and they have the western transponders and they use them, so it's a little bit better situation that we had a few years back, but it's not 100 percent covered with the flight plans or transponders. As you look across the entire Air Force, what's your No. 1 concern? Is it budget? Is it what you're seeing threat-wise from potential adversaries? Well, I'm not concerned about the adversary. Things are relatively stable. We have good relations in all the directions, all directions there. Defense forces in general has been resourced relatively well. The readiness, of course, requires some money. And of course the Army has had a bigger transition the last few years out of the services, from a training organization into a readiness organization. There's of course a need for more money, for operating money also. And the government has been giving quite good money in the last few years. Now the future is not that bright. I mean, there's some dark clouds there. I'm concerned. Of course, the main procurement program, like the HX [fighter replacement program], seems to be well on track, and I'm very happy about that, and that is their main priority, of course, to keep that in schedule and in budget for the procurement side of the house. People have been — I don't know if “stressed” is the right word — but they have been under pressure for the readiness, and we've also gotten more vacant jobs. We are recruiting people, people on the field and into the practical work— so the aircraft maintenance, the surveillance tasks. It's very important that the recruitment works. Aside from HX, are there other modernization efforts that you're trying to keep on track? Well, we are, before the HX selection, before the HX comes in. Right now we are working on our C4I system. But we have had quite a lot of new pieces there and they are IOC [initial operational capability], becoming FOC [full operational capability]. Then whatever solution or whatever HX candidate is chosen, there is a requirement to be able to process and handle all that [information]. So we are working that before so when selection is done and it's actually coming in, the infrastructure is prepared for that. Obviously we need to then fine-tune it, depending on the selection, at the end of the day, but right now we are working on the basic infrastructure. What has Finland already fielded? What is coming up that is still in the planning stages or in the competitive stages? For the C4 side of house? Well, OK, we've got our sensors, relative new sensors for the surveillance sensors. And our networks and the infrastructure and the servers, kind of like the infrastructure there, both the networks and for the servers. They are relatively new. So it's there, and we are getting that into use as we speak or in the near future. Then it's all about the processes and methods and how to handle the data and how to use the data. So that's something that people in organizations need to learn. Not the hardware, but the people need to learn, so that's something that we are working on. Then, when we get the HX here and we know what it is, then we do the necessary adjustments. And it's obviously platform-specific and [dependent on] the requirements there. In all cases, we need to be able to be better in joint warfare inside Finland with data services and of course maintain the international interoperability portion, whether it's about tactical data links or whether it's other things. Did you discuss interoperability with the U.S. Air Force with Gen. Goldfein? Well, yeah, sure. Technology is one thing. You are interoperable and you can use the data and all that. But the processes [of] how you do it is one thing, but then there's this policy side of the house, that if you don't have the policy or to actually be there — interoperable all the time — then you just need to be prepared for that. We are an independent nation. We are not a NATO member, and we are not doing common planning. We are operating as neighbors here. Our AOR [area of responsibility] and the EUCOM [U.S. European Command] AOR and NATO AOR, they are all overlapping or next to each other. Coordination and deconfliction [are] some things that we need to be ready to do. The policy is important and the SOPs [standard operating procedures] and all that. The U.S. is interested in rapidly generating air power in times of crisis. How can the U.S. better defend its bases or set up new expeditionary air bases if needed? From what I understand, that's something that Finland has the capability to do. Did that come up in conversation, and do you think that there are things that the U.S. can learn from Finland in that area? In Finland, we have our main base. But yes, we can deploy and we can swarm, distribute our assets, and then have them under the command and control, and make centralized effects out of those distributed things. So yeah, that was talked about. Of course, it requires the ability to move and begin to move [your resources from the base]. It requires a good situational awareness and plans [for] how to do it, and then the timely execution of that. We've talked about the general concept, and yes, it was mentioned by Gen. Goldfein that they are looking for a more expeditionary mindset, that huge massive bases that you can generate the air power may not be the thing that you want to stick. Finland is not that small [of an] area. There are smaller nations than us, but still in the global or the U.S. scale, it's still a small area. The thing is to look for the agility and mobility and know what's happening and do the right things from there, either move or disperse. Is that a capability in which Finland continues to invest? Yeah, it's part of the HX program. So now the question is how much. It's good for that fight that you distribute, but the main operation is get out there and do the job, then come back and you can go out again. That is the important thing — that you get the effect in the air, what you're doing from the air or in the air. Then it's nice for the survivability part and all that to be distributed. That's what we are still looking [at]. But then, to what extent? That is to be determined. We will find it out when the HX goes forward. On HX, I understand Finland is looking for some industrial incentives. Has it become clear yet what each company might be willing to offer? We are in the middle of the process. I don't know whether the offers are final. We have the ideas that we are discussing. There is a requirement that we need to be able to do certain stuff in Finland, with the Finnish resources and [people with] Finnish passports. That is a requirement [that] is still there. How do you think Finland will have to balance the cost of this project with the capability it wants? That equation needs to be solved, but we have two years of time to solve it. We have the money — €7 billion to €10 billion. And we need to maximize the capability on that money. Are you making additional investments in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities? There is a desire to have the proper amount of ISR. Obviously the HX is going bring something into it, and we also have a recent area there that we are investigating. Probably when there's better visibility, when we are actually selecting and getting through HX, then we [will] know where the gaps are, and then we are going to fill them in [with] other programs. https://www.defensenews.com/2019/08/09/finlands-air-force-chief-tackles-recruiting-challenges-and-its-quest-for-a-future-fighter/

  • Integrated Hypersonic Plan Forms Amid Overlap Concerns

    1 août 2019 | International, Aérospatial

    Integrated Hypersonic Plan Forms Amid Overlap Concerns

    WEST LAFAYETTE, Indiana—The U.S. Defense Department says data from an upcoming four-year test campaign covering 40 flights and three basic vehicle concepts will lay the foundation for a comprehensive hypersonic weapon road map that should allay growing congressional concerns over potential overlaps in costly weapons development capability. To a quarter of the tests, representing as many as 10 flights, will be focused on air-breathing scramjet-powered vehicles, says Mike White, assistant director for hypersonics at the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. Speaking to Aerospace DAILY on the sidelines of the inaugural National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) hypersonics capability conference at Purdue University here, White says test results from both boosted glide vehicle flights and powered missiles will form the basis for the integrated development plan. The overarching road map also will include the integration of a counter hypersonic development strategy, the preliminary steps toward which have been proposed by both the recently formed Space Development Agency (SDA) and the Missile Defense Agency. The SDA is studying a space-based distributed satellite architecture, while the latter has proposed a Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking and Surveillance System (HBTSS). “Offensive and defensive coordination is my job,” White says. The bulk of the prototype tests will be conducted using the common hypersonic glide body (C-HGB). Developed by Sandia National Laboratories, the bi-conic re-entry vehicle has been adopted as the basis for near-term boosted glide weapons by the U.S. Air Force, Army and Navy, with only minor differences in each version planned to reflect the varying operational characteristics of each role. The Army, which plans to ground launch the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW) from transporter erector vehicles, is meanwhile making the first moves toward industrializing production of what up to now has been small batch manufacturing runs of experimental vehicles. The service has issued a solicitation for transition of the design and production capability of the initial prototype LRHW C-HGB variant out of Sandia into industry. A contract award is expected to be issued this month. Other versions of the C-HGB are in development for the Navy's vertically launched Intermediate Range Conventional Strike Weapon (IR-CPS), and the Air Force's Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon (HCSW). Underwater launch tests of the IR-CPS, which follows the successful Flight Experiment-1 test in October 2017, from the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Kauai, Hawaii, are due to run through 2024. The Air Force is scheduled to complete critical design review of the HCSW in 2020 prior to launch tests from a B-52. At least five other flight-test campaigns make up the remainder of the hectic four-year plan, three of which will be focused on the DARPA-led Tactical Boost Glide (TBG) vehicle and two proposed follow-on air-launched rapid response weapon (ARRW) vehicles in competitive development by Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. The balance are two air breathing vehicles, also in development by Lockheed/Aerojet Rocketdyne and Raytheon/Northrop Grumman, which will be evaluated under the Air Force's Hypersonic Air-Breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC) program. Despite the ongoing efforts to refine the hypersonic road map, the proliferation of prototype vehicle programs continues to cause concern in Congress. Warning that not all programs will receive the funding requested in the fiscal 2020 budget, Peter Visclosky, chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, says some reductions are planned. Commenting at the NDIA event, he says, “Justifications in the budget for this effort receive the same scrutiny as every other program in the department and unfortunately certain aspects of that 2020 budget request were lacking.” Without identifying particular initiatives, Visclosky adds, “There were cuts to those specific programs where the justifications did not lead to a review. Each of the services impacted have been made aware of the issues that the committee has raised and the need to better define the strategy for the investment in these systems.” Visclosky also cautions that hypersonics, which is provisionally funded with a budget of $2.3 billion for fiscal 2020 and $10.5 billion over the period to 2024, also faces broader threats at a time of increased spending on other high-profile defense programs. “I am concerned about affordability in the future because this is a competitive process,” he said. “We have a nuclear modernization process that is underway and there is going to be a bulge in the federal budget. There is a new submarine and there is going to be a bulge in the budget. It is the same for the new [B-21] bomber under development and, while the Army doesn't have that ‘one' new program, collectively for the modernization program there is going to be one. “We need to make sure there is a concerted effort for commonality and collaboration to a common technical standard and system architecture. I think this will drive better affordability into the sustainment of the system,” he adds. https://aviationweek.com/defense/integrated-hypersonic-plan-forms-amid-overlap-concerns

  • Cybersecurity CPEs: Unraveling the What, Why & How

    10 juin 2024 | International, Sécurité

    Cybersecurity CPEs: Unraveling the What, Why & How

    Did you know CISSP holders need to earn 120 CPE credits every three years? Learn how these credits help keep your skills sharp and your certifications

Toutes les nouvelles