Who will define cybersecurity
Who will define cybersecurity
29 October 2012 by Paul Dempsey
It's always amusing to see Intel and AMD agree on something other than the x86 architecture (and even now, AMD's flirting more openly than ever with ARM). So, their joint involvement in the Cyber Security Research Alliance (CSRA) is worth a look. Particularly since it also involves Lockheed Martin, Honeywell and RSA.
However you slice it, last week's announcement gave us a very American approach to the problem. All five companies are publicly known, but they are also significant Pentagon contractors. The plan is for their new, shall we say, assembly to now team up with Nick Fury - sorry I meant NIST, the federal government-controlled standards/research agency and build viable digital defences.
I can't blame any of the companies for doing this. Indeed, they should be lauded. President Obama has banged the drum pretty hard on cybersecurity threats throughout his administration but there's been little public evidence of comparative private sector response. Until now.
But anyone believing that the CSRA will provide benefits beyond US shores, should think again. The issues being addressed here are first and foremost those of 'national security'. Sharing the initiative's fruits in an age where cyberattacks may well be the ultimate expression of asymmetric warfare will be difficult. Remember, some of the tenser moments in this area have more recently arisen where supposed 'allies' have been caught hacking one another.
To its credit, the UK coalition government has also tried to get British companies thinking about the same threats. However, where right now are the country's equivalent players in terms of developing tools and protection?
Perhaps it's just our traditional secrecy and plans are well advanced. Somehow, though, I doubt and so I suspect do you.
Certainly, something a little more immediately obvious than a Bond movie - even a really, really good Bond movie - should get the ball rolling.
For sure, the CSRA does talk about developing viable 'technology transfer' mechanisms and all its members sell to NATO members as well as the Department of Defense.
But, as ever, nations will only have the most advanced systems in an arena where the 'latest' changes every day, if its own national technology powerhouses (even if it can only be done at NATO or EU level) get involved.
The CSRA is therefore something of a global wake-up call.
However you slice it, last week's announcement gave us a very American approach to the problem. All five companies are publicly known, but they are also significant Pentagon contractors. The plan is for their new, shall we say, assembly to now team up with Nick Fury - sorry I meant NIST, the federal government-controlled standards/research agency and build viable digital defences.
I can't blame any of the companies for doing this. Indeed, they should be lauded. President Obama has banged the drum pretty hard on cybersecurity threats throughout his administration but there's been little public evidence of comparative private sector response. Until now.
But anyone believing that the CSRA will provide benefits beyond US shores, should think again. The issues being addressed here are first and foremost those of 'national security'. Sharing the initiative's fruits in an age where cyberattacks may well be the ultimate expression of asymmetric warfare will be difficult. Remember, some of the tenser moments in this area have more recently arisen where supposed 'allies' have been caught hacking one another.
To its credit, the UK coalition government has also tried to get British companies thinking about the same threats. However, where right now are the country's equivalent players in terms of developing tools and protection?
Perhaps it's just our traditional secrecy and plans are well advanced. Somehow, though, I doubt and so I suspect do you.
Certainly, something a little more immediately obvious than a Bond movie - even a really, really good Bond movie - should get the ball rolling.
For sure, the CSRA does talk about developing viable 'technology transfer' mechanisms and all its members sell to NATO members as well as the Department of Defense.
But, as ever, nations will only have the most advanced systems in an arena where the 'latest' changes every day, if its own national technology powerhouses (even if it can only be done at NATO or EU level) get involved.
The CSRA is therefore something of a global wake-up call.
FuseTalk Standard Edition - © 1999-2013 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.
Latest Issue
"Africa is abundant with engineering opportunity. We look at some of the projects and the problems."
News
Most viewed
- Greenpeace frowns at Centrica's getting a shale-gas venture stake
- HMS Queen Elizabeth nears completion
- World’s most advanced comms satellite shipped to launch site
- Scientist to benefit from exascale supercomputer deal
- Chinese space capsule reaches its ‘Heavenly Palace’
- Dinosaurs’ app uses augmented reality
From forums
- E&T magazine - Debate - HS2, the need for speed [01:33 pm 18/06/13]
- Creating an Iphone App [05:50 pm 17/06/13]
- CO2 is good [07:29 pm 16/06/13]
- DECC-EDF makes yet another attempt to fund 3rd Generation Nuclear at any cost [05:02 pm 15/06/13]
- Transformers Vector Group [09:46 am 15/06/13]










