Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/10/cyber_storm_ii_exercises/

US, UK and friends have cyber-war party

I'll hose your network, if you hose mine

By Dan Goodin

Posted in Security, 10th March 2008 19:11 GMT

Business and government leaders from the US, UK and three other countries will spend much of this week simulating and defending against a large-scale cyber attack in an exercise designed to strengthen coordinated responses to what many perceive as a growing threat.

Participants of Cyber Storm II, which also include about 40 private-sector companies, will enact a scenario in which "persistent, fictitious adversaries" launch an extended attack using websites, email, phones, faxes and other communications systems. Other countries involved are Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

Cyber Storm II comes two weeks after the Pentagon released an assessment of China's military might, warning the People's Liberation Army was intent on expanding its capabilities for cyber warfare. It also comes amid intelligence reports that utilities in several countries have sustained cyber attacks that caused power outages.

This week's exercises are a follow up to Cyber Storm I, which was completed two years ago. They are mandated by an act of Congress that requires the public and private sectors to strengthen cyber preparedness.

Companies including Cisco, Juniper Networks, Dow Chemical, Air Products & Chemical and Wachovia are participating. Nine US states and at least 18 federal agencies are also involved. They represent the chemical, information technology, communications and transportation industries, which are considered ctritical parts of the infrastructure. The US Department of Homeland Security is hosting the event - no doubt with danishes and plenty of Starbucks coffee.

The exercises are designed to sharpen and assess participants' ability to respond to a multi-day, coordinated attack and better understand the "cascading effects" such attacks can have.

Results of Cyber Storm I pointed the the need for better coordination between various agencies and for a common framework for communicating among different parties.

While it's not necessarily a bad idea to simulate imagined threats, there's no indication that participants will delve into actual practices that are known to put national security at risk. For example, last week came word that a private website operator regularly received official Air Force communications containing sensitive information because his email address was similar to those of military leaders. Additionally, a Pentagon official has now confirmed that an attack last year on a network belonging to the Department of Defense involved a Windows vulnerability and allowed the intruders to steal "an amazing amount" of data.

As these episodes make clear, sometimes we can be our own worst enemy, no simulation necessary. ®