Apple, China and iCloud Data Safety?

Posted on March 8, 2018March 8, 2018 by Denise Simon

Primer: Pegatron, the factory at the corner of Xiu Yan and Shen Jiang roads is one of the most secretive facilities at the heart of iPhone production and covers an area equal to almost 90 football fields. In the center is a plaza with a firehouse, police station and post office. There are shuttle buses, mega-cafeterias, landscaped lawns and koi ponds. The grey and brown-hued concrete buildings are meant to evoke traditional Chinese architecture. The brand-new Shanghai Disneyland, which opens its doors in June, is a 20-minute drive away.

Inside, the factory still hides a secret, according to China Labor Watch. Base pay remains so low that workers need overtime simply to make ends meet, the advocacy group said. It said 1,261 pay stubs from Pegatron’s Shanghai facility from September and October 2015 show evidence of excessive overtime. Pegatron, an Asustek spinoff, is the world’s biggest contract electronics manufacturer after Foxconn, according to Bloomberg Intelligence. More here.

Image result for pegatron china apple photo

Image result for icloud china apple photo

This Wednesday, Apple will be making some significant changes to how data is stored for users of its iCloud service in China – raising major concerns that the Chinese authorities will now be able to freely monitor Apple’s users in China. This may be quite worrying for he population and may remind you of the iCloud breach on 31 August 2014. Ever since then, people have been very sceptical of storing precious information online and have been purchasing services from businesses like http://www.thefinalstep.co.uk/ to protect their data from any hackers.

Apple has a reputation for being a powerful advocate for privacy and security. The company uses strong encryption by default in its services and grabbed headlines when it appealed a US court order that would allow the FBI to get around the phone’s security. Apple CEO Tim Cook even sent all Apple consumers a personal letter explaining the importance of privacy.

With China, however, a different story has emerged. Apple has been criticised for blocking Chinese users’ access to the Apple News app and for removing VPN apps from the App Store in China. The changes being made to iCloud are the latest indication that China’s repressive legal environment is making it difficult for Apple to uphold its commitments to user privacy and security. What do these changes mean and what options do Apple’s customers have to protect themselves?

What is happening to Apple’s iCloud service in China?

On 28 February, Apple will transfer operation of its iCloud service for Chinese users to a Chinese company, Guizhou-Cloud Big Data Industry Development Co., Ltd (“GCBD”). The concept of iCloud and other Cloud computing services can be quite confusing to some, especially if it is something completely new to you. It is very interesting to look into. As many of us use services like this to store our files and photos, it makes sense to know what this is all about. Why not look into a site like https://www.salesforce.com/what-is-cloud-computing/ to stay informed.

The move will affect any photos, documents, contacts, messages and other user data and content that Chinese users store on Apple’s cloud-based servers. New Chinese legislation enacted in 2017 requires cloud services to be operated by Chinese companies, meaning companies like Apple must either lease server space inside China or establish joint ventures with Chinese partners.

How does storing user data in China put individuals at risk?

Domestic law gives the Chinese government virtually unfettered access to user data stored inside China without adequate protection for users’ rights to privacy, freedom of expression or other basic human rights. Chinese police enjoy sweeping discretion and use broad and ambiguously constructed laws and regulations to silence dissent, restrict or censor information and harass and prosecute human rights defenders and others in the name of “national security” and other purported criminal offences. As a result, Chinese Internet users can face arrest and imprisonment for merely expressing, communicating or accessing information and ideas that the authorities don’t like.

Furthermore, China’s Cyber Security Law requires network operators to provide “technical support and assistance” to law enforcement and state security agents. That means that when the authorities come to GCBD requesting information about an iCloud user for the purposes of a criminal investigation, the company has a legal obligation to provide it and few, if any, viable legal avenues to challenge or refuse the request.

Apple says it has control over encryption keys and that it won’t allow backdoors. Won’t that protect users in China?

It all depends on the circumstances under which the company will allow GCBD – and the Chinese authorities – access to intelligible decrypted data on iCloud users. When users accept the terms of service for iCloud in China, they agree to allow their information and content to be turned over to law enforcement “if legally required to do so”. Significantly, from now on Apple will store the encryption keys for Chinese users in China, not in the US – making it all but inevitable that the company will be forced to hand over decrypted data so long as the request complies with Chinese law.

Given that many provisions of Chinese law offer inadequate protection to privacy, freedom of expression and other rights, simply checking whether government information requests comply with Chinese law doesn’t address whether complying with the request might contribute to human rights violations. Apple hasn’t confirmed whether or how it will assess whether government information requests might violate users’ human rights. We won’t really know how Apple will respond until it’s put to the test, and unfortunately that’s probably just a matter of time.

As for “backdoors”, or technical measures that would allow law enforcement or other government agencies to access unencrypted user data without having to ask for it, Apple’s commitment to prevent their use is admirable. But the commitment is meaningless if law enforcement can get the companies to decrypt user information simply by saying that it is for a criminal investigation.

What should iCloud users inside China do to protect themselves?

The best way to protect your personal information from being accessed by the Chinese government is to avoid storing it on servers inside China. Users with a credit card and billing address outside China can use those to register their accounts and keep storing their iCloud data outside China. Otherwise, the only option available to Chinese users is to delete their iCloud accounts and permanently opt out of the service. (Apple has provided instructions for how to do so here.) Individual users should seriously consider the risks involved and come to their own decision, but Apple should protect Chinese users by switching iCloud off by default and giving users very clear warnings about the risks they may face by opting in to the service.

How can ICT companies act responsibly when operating in China?

Companies have a responsibility to respect all human rights wherever they operate in the world. Users of their products and services need to be given clear and specific information about risks they might face to their privacy and freedom of expression in China, and what action the company is taking in response. Companies should carry out regular and verifiable human rights impact assessments and demonstrate publicly that they have oversight, due diligence and accountability measures in place to ensure respect for human rights. Finally, companies should do everything they can to influence the Chinese government to protect and respect human rights and speak up and challenge government actions when they threaten human rights. If a company finds that it is unable to mitigate the high risk of human rights violations, it may be forced to decide not to operate in China.

Apple’s official website declares: “At Apple, we believe privacy is a fundamental human right.” It remains to be seen whether Apple can put its words into action.

Space Warfare, the New Battlefield

Posted on March 8, 2018March 8, 2018 by Denise Simon

Image result for military space warfare photo

Primer: The Pentagon is considering creating a combatant command for space warfare, the latest step by the Defense Department to respond to Chinese and Russian militarization high above Earth.

The move — one of several under consideration — is mentioned in a new Pentagon report sent to Congress last week. Right now, space forces are dispersed throughout the military and intelligence community.

There are two kinds of combatant commands. Geographic cocoms oversee military operations in six regions of the world. Functional ones — like U.S. Strategic Command and U.S.Transportation Command — oversee operations that span multiple geographical commands. U.S. Cyber Command is considered a subunified command under STRATCOM, but is being elevated to a functional command.

The Pentagon is looking into whether space should have its own combatant command or subunified command (like Cyber Command), the report says. Space forces were grouped under U.S. Space Command, a unified combatant command, until 2002.

Image result for u.s. space command

***

The Pentagon is preparing for war should China, Russia, or other adversaries attack vital American satellites and other space systems, a senior Pentagon official told Congress on Wednesday.

The Pentagon has requested $12.5 billion in funding for the fiscal year 2019 that begins Oct. 1 for building up what he termed a “more resilient defendable space architecture.”

The request is $1.1 billion more than funding for last year on military space.

Rood, and Air Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of the Omaha-based Strategic Command, testified on the command’s budget request of $24 billion.

Neither elaborated on what space warfare capabilities are being developed. The Pentagon also has not said how it would deter and defend satellites from attack.

Space defense so far has involved development of intelligence capabilities to identify and assess if an incident in space is an attack, or the result of a malfunction or disruption due to collision with space debris.

Military space “resilience” also calls for the Pentagon to rapidly replace or restore satellites after attacks or other disruptions.

The Pentagon’s Defense Science Board, in a report last year, warned that the vulnerability of U.S. satellites to electronic attack was “a crisis to be dealt with immediately.”

The Joint Staff intelligence directorate warned earlier this year that China and Russia will have fully developed space attack weapons in place by 2020 that will threaten all U.S. satellites in low earth orbit—100 miles to 1,200 miles in space.

“Space is a warfighting domain just like the air, ground, maritime, and cyberspace domains,” Hyten said.

Currently, a defense and intelligence center called the National Space Defense Center, located at Schriever Air Force Base, Colorado, runs 24-hour operations for rapid detection, warning, and defense from space attacks.

War games involving space war also are held regularly with U.S. military forces and allies, including Asian and European allies.

China has conducted at least seven tests of hypersonic vehicles and Russia as well has conducted several hypersonic missile tests.

The hypersonic vehicles are designed to defeat missile defenses. More here.

***

February 2018: The Pentagon put Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellites in orbit to ensure communication in the event of a nuclear attack. But those spacecraft could also play a role in the rapid militarization of space.

Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellites will be able to keep the U.S. military in communication even after a nuclear attack.
They’re also more resistant to electronic jamming, which is a growing concern as tensions with China and Russia heat up.
In the war of the future, nations may try to physically destroy other nations’ satellites to disrupt communications and navigation.

Your phone is not going to work on the day nuclear war starts. But the U.S. President, National Security Council, and combat commanders count on being able to communicate. This doomsday connection relies on what we call Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellites that sit in geostationary orbit.

“We need systems that work on the worst day in the history of the world,” says Todd Harrison, director of the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

There are four AEHF sats in orbit today. The proposed 2019 U.S. Air Force budget shows about $29.8 million in funding to complete two more, which would launch in 2019 and 2020. Air Force staffers say more money has been set aside in 2019 to ready the software and databases for the pair of new sats.

The Air Force talks about the AEHF satellites as part of its new focus on modernizing America’s nuclear abilities. “We must concurrently modernize the entire nuclear triad and the command and control systems that enable its effectiveness,” says Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson. The Trump administration has its eye on nuclear weapons, but these satellites also sit at the nexus of another big defense trend: Space warfare.

The Department of Defense is also investing in new jam-resistant GPS satellites. It is pouring money into future satellite programs, including AEHF, to the tune of $677 million for research and development in 2019. As orbital threats grow, new potential users—especially the U.S. Army—are taking interest in what the doomsday spacecraft can do. Preparing for post-apocalyptic communication may be just the beginning. More here.

CFIUS, what is Worse than Uranium One?

Posted on March 6, 2018March 6, 2018 by Denise Simon

When Douglas Campbell, the FBI informant and Uranium One whistle-blower says that Obama himself approved the deal, he was right. Campbell has delivered in February, written testimony annexed with full evidence to three congressional committees. Further, he was provided an monetary award/reward for his remarkable work as an informant. For the full summary and details, go here.

Campbell’s lawyer of record, Victoria Toensing has sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions to further investigate the matter and the media smearing of Campbell himself including committee leaks. That letter is found here.

AG Sessions has not responded at the time of this post.

Image result for cfius photo

Meanwhile, looking deeper into Obama and CFIUS….

By law, CFIUS, Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, does not publicly disclose information provided to CFIUS by parties to a transaction, nor does it reveal the fact that the parties have submitted the transaction for review. If CFIUS determines that the transaction poses national security concerns that cannot be resolved, it will refer the transaction to the President which the President has 15 days after completion of CFIUS’s investigation to decide. The President must publicly announce his decision.

CFIUS provides an annual report to Congress, but the last report was dated 2015. This report is in accordance with section 721(m) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 and the amended section of the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007.

The Process

During the review period, CFIUS members examine the transaction in order to identify and address, as appropriate, any national security concerns that arise as a result of the transaction. CFIUS concludes action on the preponderant majority of transactions during or at the end of the initial 30-day review period. In certain circumstances defined in section 721 and at § 800.503 of the regulations, CFIUS may initiate a subsequent investigation, which must be completed within 45 days. In certain circumstances described at section 6(c) of Executive Order 11858, as amended, and § 800.506 of the regulations, CFIUS may also refer a transaction to the President for decision. In such case, section 721 requires the President to announce a decision with respect to a transaction within 15 days of CFIUS’s completion of the investigation. If CFIUS finds that a covered transaction presents national security risks and that other provisions of law do not provide adequate authority to address the risks, then CFIUS may enter into an agreement with, or impose conditions on, parties to mitigate such risks or may refer the case to the President for action.

Where CFIUS has completed all action with respect to a covered transaction or the President has announced a decision not to exercise his authority under section 721 with respect to the covered transaction, then the parties receive a “safe harbor” with respect to that transaction, as described in § 800.601 of the regulations and section 7(f) of Executive Order 11858, as amended.

Rejection

During the entire term of President, he only got one referral that he rejected. President Obama blocked a privately owned Chinese company from building wind turbines close to a Navy military site in Oregon due to national security concerns, and the company said it would challenge the action in court.

Ralls Corp, which had been installing wind turbine generators made in China by Sany Group, has four wind farm projects that are within or in the vicinity of restricted air space at a naval weapons systems training facility, according to the Obama administration.

“There is credible evidence that leads me to believe” that Ralls Corp, Sany Group and the two Sany Group executives who own Ralls “might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States,” Obama said in issuing his decision.

Industry Sectors

From 2009-2015, 75% of the foreign transactions included finance, information, mining, utilities and transportation. From 2013-2015, China was the largest country with transactions by far with manufacturing being the majority of the transactions. If there are concerns with any part of the transaction, CFIUS will work on mitigation measures as they relate to national security such that CFIUS earnestly wants the transaction(s) to occur. CFIUS offers onsite compliance, assigns additional staff and offers tracking systems as well as instructions and procedures from in-house expertise to meet stipulations and standards where on other issues, waivers can be designated if compliance is too difficult or adverse to national security standards and law.

Review Concerns

Expanded conditions for national security considerations include vulnerabilities, cyber, sabotage and exploitation. Further, if any transaction leads to complications to critical infrastructure or energy production or would affect the U.S. financial system and would in some conditions have access to sensitive government information, classified material or in any manner threaten a government employee, involve activities related to weapons, munitions, aerospace, satellite or radar system(s), these items would impair the approval process or under the CFIUS review, mitigation procedures would be applied.

Little is of consequence when a foreign company that under cover is actually controlled by a foreign government which is a terrifying condition. A 2011 Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive report to Congress stated that the pace of foreign economic collection and industrial espionage activities against major U.S corporations and U.S. government agencies is accelerating.

photo

Are we sure we want China, Russia or any Middle Eastern country investing in any form or part in the United States when we have the likes of Warren Buffet or Bill Gates and those billions?

Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) introduced legislation on Wednesday to prevent the U.S. government from using products from certain Chinese telecommunications firms.

The impetus for Cotton and Rubio’s legislation is concern over the Chinese government using hypothetical backdoors in ZTE and Huawei phones to spy on U.S. government officials.

“Huawei is effectively an arm of the Chinese government, and it’s more than capable of stealing information from U.S. officials by hacking its devices,” Cotton said in a statement. “There are plenty of other companies that can meet our technology needs, and we shouldn’t make it any easier for China to spy on us.”

Uranium One violated all conditions set forth in the CFIUS law. China is yet a larger security issue and all agency members of CFIUS are aware of this and the history of both Russia and China.

The risks and violations of law are well known in Congress and legislation has been introduced to address major concerns, yet still the United States is and has sold out to at least 2 rogue countries and no security assessments have been published.

The 25 Most Powerful Militaries in the World

Posted on February 28, 2018February 28, 2018 by Denise Simon

Primer:

One of the most senior generals in the U.S. suggested America faces losing influence in the world because its partners are looking to buy military equipment and training from its rivals, particularly Russia and China, who offer cheaper weapons and can supply them faster.

In a statement to the House Armed Services Committee, General Joseph L. Votel, commander of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), warned that “some of our partners are seeking alternate sources of military equipment from near-peer competitors like Russia and China”.

Votel said the U.S. increasingly relies on “interoperability” in its military operations—using its allies to “accomplish common objectives”—and so its programs to supply partners with the equipment and training they need are vital in maintaining this cooperation.

He made reference to U.S. government-funded Building Partner Capacity (BPC) programs, which “encompass security cooperation and security assistance activities,” and Foreign Military Sales (FMS).

“However, due to political considerations, cost, or delivery speed, some of our partners are seeking alternate sources of military equipment from near-peer competitors like Russia and China,” Votel said. “When our partners go elsewhere, it reduces our interoperability and challenges our ability to incorporate their contributions into theater efforts.”

In 2017, the U.S. State Department spent $5.7bn on Foreign Military Financing, according to a data guide published by the Security Assistance Monitor group, around the average spend in recent years. That military aid went to 53 countries, including $150m for Iraq, $350m for Jordan, and $3.1bn for Israel. More here.

***

Ranking from Business Insider

25. Algeria

Power Index rating: 0.4366

Total population: 40,263,711

Total military personnel: 792,350

Total aircraft strength: 502

Fighter aircraft: 89

Combat tanks: 2,405

Total naval assets: 85

Defense budget: $10.6 billion

24. Saudi Arabia

Power Index rating: 0.4302

Total population: 28,160,273

Total military personnel: 256,000

Total aircraft strength: 790

Fighter aircraft: 177

Combat tanks: 1,142

Total naval assets: 55

Defense budget: $56.7 billion

23. North Korea

Power Index rating: 0.4218

Total population: 25,115,311

Total military personnel: 6,445,000

Total aircraft strength: 944

Fighter aircraft: 458

Combat tanks: 5,025

Total naval assets: 967

Defense budget: $7.5 billion

22. Australia

Power Index rating: 0.4072

Total population: 22,992,654

Total military personnel: 81,000

Total aircraft strength: 465

Fighter aircraft: 78

Combat tanks: 59

Total naval assets: 47 (two aircraft carriers)

Defense budget: $24.1 billion

21. Iran

Power Index rating: 0.3933

Total population: 82,801,633

Total military personnel: 934,000

Total aircraft strength: 477

Fighter aircraft: 137

Combat tanks: 1,616

Total naval assets: 398

Defense budget: $6.3 billion

20. Thailand

Power Index rating: 0.3892

Total population: 68,200,824

Total military personnel: 627,425

Total aircraft strength: 555

Fighter aircraft: 76

Combat tanks: 737

Total naval assets: 81 (one aircraft carrier)

Defense budget: $5.4 billion

19. Poland

Power Index rating: 0.3831

Total population: 38,523,261

Total military personnel: 184,650

Total aircraft strength: 465

Fighter aircraft: 99

Combat tanks: 1,065

Total naval assets: 83

Defense budget: $9.4 billion

18. Taiwan

Power Index rating: 0.3765

Total population: 23,464,787

Total military personnel: 1,932,500

Total aircraft strength: 850

Fighter aircraft: 286

Combat tanks: 2,005

Total naval assets: 87

Defense budget: $10.7 billion

17. Brazil

Power Index rating: 0.3654

Total population: 205,823,665

Total military personnel: 1,987,000

Total aircraft strength: 697

Fighter aircraft: 43

Combat tanks: 469

Total naval assets: 110

Defense budget: $24.5 billion

16. Vietnam

Power Index rating: 0.3587

Total population: 95,261,021

Total military personnel: 5,488,500

Total aircraft strength: 278

Fighter aircraft: 76

Combat 1,545

Total naval assets: 65

Defense budget: $3.4 billion

15. Israel

Power Index rating: 0.3476

Total population: 8,174,527

Total military personnel: 718,250

Total aircraft strength: 652

Fighter aircraft: 243

Combat tanks: 2,620

Total naval assets: 65

Defense budget: $15.5 billion

14. Indonesia

Power Index rating: 0.3347

Total population: 258,316,051

Total military personnel: 975,750

Total aircraft strength: 441

Fighter aircraft: 39

Combat tanks: 418

Total naval assets: 221

Defense budget: $6.9 billion

13. Pakistan

Power Index rating: 0.3287

Total population: 201,995,540

Total military personnel: 919,000

Total aircraft strength: 951

Fighter aircraft: 301

Combat tanks: 2,924

Total naval assets: 197

Defense budget: $7 billion

12. South Korea

Power Index rating: 0.2741

Total population: 50,924,172

Total military personnel: 5,829,750

Total aircraft strength: 1,477

Fighter aircraft: 406

Combat tanks: 2,654

Total naval assets: 166 (one aircraft carrier)

Defense budget: $43.8 billion

11. Italy

Power Index rating: 0.2694

Total population: 62,007,540

Total military personnel: 267,500

Total aircraft strength: 822

Fighter aircraft: 79

Combat tanks: 200

Total naval assets: 143 (two aircraft carriers)

Defense budget: $34 billion

10. Egypt

Power Index rating: 0.2676

Total population: 94,666,993

Total military personnel: 1,329,250

Total aircraft strength: 1,132

Fighter aircraft: 337

Combat tanks: 4,110

Total naval assets: 319 (two aircraft carriers)

Defense budget: $4.4 billion

9. Germany

Power Index rating: 0.2609

Total population: 80,722,792

Total military personnel: 210,000

Total aircraft strength: 698

Fighter aircraft: 92

Combat tanks: 543

Total naval assets: 81

Defense budget: $39.2 billion

8. Turkey

Power Index rating: 0.2491

Total population: 80,274,604

Total military personnel: 743,415

Total aircraft strength: 1,018

Fighter aircraft: 207

Combat tanks: 2,445

Total naval assets: 194

Defense budget: $8.2 billion

7. Japan

Power Index rating: 0.2137

Total population: 126,702,133

Total military personnel: 311,875

Total aircraft strength: 1,594

Fighter aircraft: 288

Combat tanks: 700

Total naval assets: 131 (four aircraft carriers)

Defense budget: $43.8 billion

6. United Kingdom

Power Index rating: 0.2131

Total population: 64,430,428

Total military personnel: 232,675

Total aircraft strength: 856

Fighter aircraft: 88

Combat tanks 249

Total naval assets: 76 (two aircraft carriers)

Defense budget: $45.7 billion

5. France

Power Index rating: 0.1914

Total population: 66,836,154

Total military personnel: 387,635

Total aicraft strength: 1,305

Fighter aircraft 296

Combat tanks: 406

Total naval assets: 118 (four aircraft carriers)

Defense budget: $35 billion

4. India

Power Index rating: 0.1593

Total population: 1,266,883,598

Total military personnel: 4,207,250

Total aircraft strength: 2,102

Fighter aircraft: 676

Combat tanks: 4,426

Total naval assets: 295 (three aircraft carriers)

Defense budget: $51 billion

3. China

Power Index rating: 0.0945

Total population: 1,373,541,278

Total military personnel: 3,712,500

Total aircraft strength: 2,955

Fighter aircraft: 1,271

Combat tanks: 6,457

Total naval assets: 714 (one aircraft carrier)

Defense budget: $161.7 billion

2. Russia

Power Index rating: 0.0929

Total population: 142,355,415

Total military personnel: 3,371,027

Total aircraft strength: 3,794

Fighter aircraft: 806

Combat tanks: 20,216

Total naval assets: 352 (one aircraft carrier)

Defense budget: $44.6 billion

1. United States

Power Index rating: 0.0857

Total population: 323,995,528

Total military personnel: 2,363,675

Total aircraft: 13,762

Fighter aircraft: 2,296

Combat tanks: 5,884

Total naval assets: 415 (19 aircraft carriers)

Defense budget: $587.8 billion

Cyber: ‘Our adversaries have grown more emboldened’

Posted on February 27, 2018February 27, 2018 by Denise Simon

Primer:

Russia hasn’t been sufficiently penalized for its meddling in the 2016 U.S. elections and that has emboldened Moscow to continue interfering in American elections, Adm. Michael Rogers, Commander of the U.S. Cyber Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday.

“They haven’t paid a price sufficient to change their behavior,” Rogers said under questioning by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. Although the United States has taken some actions, including imposing additional sanctions and Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III has indicted more than a dozen Russians for their role in the interference, “it hasn’t changed the calculus,” Rogers said, adding that “it hasn’t generated the change in behavior that we all know we need.”

In another exchange with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Rogers said that Russian President Vladimir Putin has probably come to the conclusion that “that there’s little price to pay here so I can continue the activity” of interfering in the U.S. election system. More here.

*** In context however, where is Senator(s) Warren and Blumenthal’s proposed legislation on sanctions or punishment toward Russia for cyber and active measures interference? It was political posturing by Warren and Blumenthal when they can introduce multi-faceted legislation as Russia, China and North Korea continue to attack the United States via layered cyber operations including espionage.

Meanwhile…. Image result for admiral rogers nsa photo

WASHINGTON, Feb. 27, 2018 —

Although competitors such as China and Russia remain the greatest threat to U.S. security, rogue regimes such as Iran and North Korea have increased in capabilities and have begun using aggressive methods to conduct malicious cyberspace activities, the military’s top cyber officer told Congress today.

Navy Adm. Michael S. Rogers, director of the National Security Agency, commander of U.S. Cyber Command and chief of the Central Security Service, testified at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

“Our adversaries have grown more emboldened, conducting increasingly aggressive activities to extend their influence without fear of significant consequence,” Rogers said. “We must change our approaches and responses here if we are to change this dynamic.”

But as the cyber domain has evolved, Rogers told the senators, Cybercom’s three major mission areas endure: protecting the Department of Defense Information Network; enabling other joint force commanders by delivering effects in and through cyberspace; and defending the nation against cyber threats through support to the Department of Homeland Security and others when directed to do so by the president or secretary of defense.

Cybercom Milestones

Rogers highlighted milestones in Cybercom’s growth.

Joint Force Headquarters DODIN, the subordinate headquarters responsible for securing, operating and defending the Defense Department’s complex information technology infrastructure, has achieved full operational capability, he said.

Joint Task Force Ares, created to lead the fight in cyber against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, has successfully integrated cyberspace operations into broader military campaigns, has achieved some “excellent results,” and will continue to pursue ISIS in support of the nation’s objectives, the admiral told the Senate panel.

Cybercom also has significantly enhanced training in cyber operation platforms to prepare the battlespace against key adversaries, he said.

Milestones expected to be achieved this year include Cyber Command’s elevation to a combatant command responsible for providing mission-ready cyberspace operations forces to other combatant commanders, Rogers said.

New Facility

In addition, the admiral said, Cybercom will be moving into a state-of-the-art integrated cyber center and joint operations facility at Fort Meade, Maryland, enhancing the coordination and planning of operations against cyber threats.

“Without cyberspace superiority in today’s battlefield, risk to mission increases across all domains and endangers our security,” Rogers said.

Cybercom’s focus on innovation and rapid tech development has extended all the way to small businesses and working with the private sector while maintaining cybersecurity, Rogers told the committee.

“We intend in the coming year to create an unclassified collaboration venue where businesses and academia can help us tackle tough problems without needing to jump over clearance hurdles, for example, which for many are very difficult barriers,” Rogers explained.

After serving more than four years as a commander of Cybercom and after nearly 37 years of service as a naval officer, Rogers is set to retire this spring.

“I will do all I can during the intervening period to ensure the mission continues, that our men and women remain ever motivated, and that we have a smooth transition,” he said.

What is happening to Apple’s iCloud service in China?

How does storing user data in China put individuals at risk?

Apple says it has control over encryption keys and that it won’t allow backdoors. Won’t that protect users in China?

What should iCloud users inside China do to protect themselves?

How can ICT companies act responsibly when operating in China?

Primer:

25. Algeria

24. Saudi Arabia

23. North Korea

22. Australia

21. Iran

20. Thailand

19. Poland

18. Taiwan

17. Brazil

16. Vietnam

15. Israel

14. Indonesia

13. Pakistan

12. South Korea

11. Italy

10. Egypt

9. Germany

8. Turkey

7. Japan

6. United Kingdom

5. France

4. India

3. China

2. Russia

1. United States