Obama Will Propose New Efforts to Make Our Creaky Physically Dangerous Critical Infrastructure CyberSafe

One of Obama’s key proposals in tonight’s State of the Union will be yet another effort to shore up the cybersecurity of our critical infrastructure.

As a threshold matter, I find it a remarkable coinkydink that the WaPo just reported the leaked findings of an NIE saying that the Chinese (and Israelis and Russians and the French, but the Chinese are bigger and badder, apparently) continue to rob us blind via cybertheft. I look forward to learning whether this — unlike the convenient drone rule book leaks supporting John Brennan’s confirmation — get reported as sanctioned leaks, as required under the Intelligence Authorization.

And speaking of John Brennan, he’s the Homeland Security Czar. A big part of his job is keeping us safe from precisely these kinds of attacks. So why didn’t he get a single question about why he should be CIA Director considering he has been such an abject failure keeping us safe from cyberattacks? (He was asked a question about CIA’s role in cybersecurity, but not asked to explain why he has been such a failure in his current role.)

Now, frankly, I don’t know that that is much John Brennan’s fault. Folks will say that the problem is — as it has been since Richard Clarke first started fearmongering on this front — that corporations won’t participate willingly and no one is going to make them.

But the proposal — which you’ll see if you tune in — doesn’t change that. It’s still voluntary.

And here’s the thing that all the cyberexperts in the world seem to be missing. Not only are the private owners of our critical infrastructure unwilling to fix their cyberdefenses. They’re not willing to keep their brick and mortar infrastructure up to date either. See, for example, PG&E or ConEd‘s recent records, for example.

Look, if these companies refuse to keep up their physical infrastructure and their cyber infrastructure, there’s probably an underlying reason motivating their negligence that no amount of immunity or winks or risk-free information sharing on the cyber side is going to fix. Moreover, if they are physically fundamentally unsafe, no amount of tinkering with their cybersecurity is going to make them safe. They’ll be vulnerable to a terrorist attack and be vulnerable to not entirely random failures and explosions.

You need to solve the underlying problem if you want to keep our critical infrastructure safe. And yet another EO, particularly one limited to cybersecurity and not affect brick and mortar integrity, will not do that.

Updated: Reading Obama’s longer proposal, it does aim to increase the “resiliency” of our physical infrastructure too. So it is not limited to cyber. That said, the underlying problem remains. Private companies aren’t spending the money to invest in this, whether it is physical resilience (or bare minimum functionality) or cyberdefense.

Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @dcbigjohn Have you been butt hurt? Perhaps even "sliced"? I want to create a "safe space" for your feelings on this!
emptywheel How do newspapers know the best books of any given year 3 days before 2nd to last month ends?
bmaz @TyreJim @LegallyErin And, yet, I have still not heard from her on the Bears/Packers fiasco.
bmaz @GottaLaff "Terrorism", whether "domestic" or "foreign", is where both the founding Constitution and Bill of Rights goes to die.
bmaz @JasonLeopold @breaking Jesus fucking christ, even you are using the idiotic term "active shooter"???? Stop!
emptywheel @FreedomofPress Um, you mean @NYTimes reports on something many outlets have reported on years earlier. No investigation there.
bmaz @GottaLaff Honestly, no, its not. Crime, murder, aggravated assault, kidnapping etc? Sure. Society will rule day too much called "terrorism"
bmaz @bsdtectr Meh, on the whole Fuented is just lame and shallow more than problematic
bmaz Because @CNN sure wouldn't be using thugs like this if they wanted sober, honest and expert reportage and commentary
bmaz One can only assume that @CNN uses reactionary police biased jackboot thugs like Jonathan Gilliam+Harry Houck to drive up ratings.
bmaz @bmaz Fuentes is often a little shallow, but not a biased jackboot jerk. Which can't be said for CNN "experts" Jonathan Gilliam+Harry Houck.
emptywheel RT @CliveSSmith: Mothers of Saudi kids set to be crucified for protesting ask to be executed with their sons, @Repr
November 2015
« Oct