Mediaboss Marketing

In addition to the big Russian hack, some other surprising news occurred in the cybersecurity world this holiday season. The Pentagon is reportedly considering ending the dual-hat arrangement that allows the commander of U.S. Cyber Command to simultaneously serve as director of the National Security Agency.

This idea, which has surfaced repeatedly since the standup of CYBERCOM, will not advance U.S. national security. The current arrangement has served both organizations well for years. There is no immediate need to split the two offices right now.

According to reports, the plan to end the dual-hat arrangement has been sent to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Mark Milley, who, according to public law, would have to sign off on the split along with acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller.

This initiative has caused some consternation in Congress, since lawmakers enacted legislation to address this very issue. The fiscal 2017 and 2018 National Defense Authorization Acts put certain roadblocks in place to ensure a proposal to make the split would not harm national security. In essence, both the secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs need to sign off and certify the plan will not harm national security before the arrangement is ended.

The dual-hat arrangement started in 2009 when Cyber Command was created in order to provide it with the support and resources it needed to conduct its mission. The arrangement gave the growing Cyber Command the ability to borrow manpower and other resources from the NSA.

A lot has changed since 2009. Cyber Command has built 133 Cyber Mission Force teams and has conducted sophisticated operations, such as the cyber campaign against the Islamic State, which disrupted the latters ability to distribute propaganda online. This means CYBERCOM has gained in experience and developed capacity.

But how ready is it to split its command, and can that be done without affecting its operations? More fundamentally, should splitting the command be a long-term goal?

The initial push to end the dual-hat started during the Obama presidency and was politically motivated in the wake of the Snowden controversy. But military necessity should guide this shift, not politics. So what are the arguments for and against?

Sign up for the C4ISRNET newsletter about future battlefield technologies.

(please select a country) United States United Kingdom Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, The Democratic Republic of The Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote D'ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

Subscribe

By giving us your email, you are opting in to the C4ISRNET Daily Brief.

Advocates for ending the dual-hat argue that one commander can lead to unfair prioritization of one organization NSA or CYBERCOM over the other. They also question the ability for one person to effectively manage two large organizations and claim that increased use of the NSAs advanced tools could lead to their premature exposure, possibly through a CYBERCOM operation.

Advocates for keeping the current arrangement focus on the close cooperation and synergy it allows between the two organizations that help their operations, the faster decision-making process it enables and the more efficient use of resources, since the two organizations can more easily share.

While there are arguments on both sides and many see the split happening at some point down the road, two things seem clear. A split should not be done hastily or prematurely. The close cooperation between the two organizations must be preserved.

And lets not forget the timing. Right now, the U.S. government is reeling from a massive breach by suspected Russian hackers with sweeping consequences, making this an inopportune moment for large organizational changes that could hinder cyber operations.

Both the former commander, Adm. Michael Rogers, and current commander, Gen. Paul Nakasone, have expressed caution about ending the arrangement prematurely. Both have said the arrangement works and enables the close relationship between the two organizations.

The two organizations operate under different legal authorities. Cyber Command draws its authorities from Title 10, which governs military forces, and NSA usually operates under Title 50 governing intelligence functions. This mirrors how cyber operations work as well, with the need for close collaboration between intelligence and military operations.

This means that Cyber Command and the NSA are able to collaborate in a way that other military forces are not able to cooperate with their intelligence counterparts. They currently enjoy a large degree of corporate synergy, where their close cooperation and unified command makes them more effective than if they were apart.

As Gen. Nakasone has said, The National Security Agency is our most important partner; the strength of this relationship will remain critical to the defense of the nation. The agencys world-class expertise, technical capabilities and accesses are crucial to USCYBERCOMs success.

Ending the dual-hat should only be done if it will enhance the effectiveness of both organizations in their operations, and a clear plan should be created with support from Congress, as it will need congressional support to be successful. Policymakers should continue to support the growth and development of Cyber Command to ensure that it would be ready for a future split down the road.

James Di Pane is a researcher at the Heritage Foundations Center for National Defense who focuses on military cybersecurity issues.

See the article here:
Now is not the right time to split NSA and CYBERCOM - C4ISRNet

Edward J. Snowden and his wife, Lindsay Mills, announced the birth of their first child Friday amid a push for President Trump to pardon the fugitive leaker of crimes keeping him from returning to the U.S.

The couple, who have resided in Russia for the last several years, shared photos on social media showing them holding their newborn child.

Happy Holidays from our newly expanded family, Ms. Mills said on Instagram where she posted the photos. The greatest gift is the love we share, Mr. Snowden added on Twitter where he shared one of them.

Mr. Snowden, a former CIA employee and National Security Agency contractor, admittedly leaked a trove of classified documents to the media in 2013 exposing the NSAs vast operations and capabilities.

The Department of Justice under former President Barack Obama accordingly charged Mr. Snowden with stealing and violating the U.S. Espionage Act, putting him at risk of serving up to 30 years in prison.

However, Mr. Snowden has successfully avoided the long arm of the law during the last 7.5 years as a result of residing in Russia, which does not have an extradition agreement with the U.S. government.

Mr. Snowden said while his wife was expecting that they were both applying for dual citizenship to avoid the possibility of being legally separated from their son, a Russian citizen by birth.

After years of separation from our parents, my wife and I have no desire to be separated from our son. Thats why, in this era of pandemics and closed borders, were applying for dual US-Russian citizenship, Mr. Snowden said last month on Twitter.

Anatoly Kucherena, a lawyer for Mr. Snowden, said on Saturday that both Ms. Mills and her newborn son are in excellent health, Russias Interfax news agency reported over the weekend.

Mr. Snowden, 37, has previously said he will return to the U.S. if given a trial he deems fair, although some of his defenders are now pushing the president to have the case against him dropped entirely.

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, both Republicans closely allied with Mr. Trump, each advocated recently for Mr. Trump to pardon Mr. Snowden before his presidency ends.

Mr. Trump, who called Mr. Snowden a traitor prior to becoming president, said in August that he was considering granting him a pardon. He has since pardoned dozens of others.

Read the rest here:
Edward Snowden and wife share photos of newborn son amid push for Trump to pardon NSA leaker - Washington Times

Source: Adobe/afxhome

The most popular cryptocurrency, Bitcoin (BTC), is filled with conspiracy theories, ranging from the plausible to the downright absurd.

Lets take a quick look at the most common Bitcoin conspiracy theories for a good laugh or - if you choose to believe them - a peek down the rabbit hole.

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018, a new block was mined on the Bitcoin blockchain. It was a typical block, except that its hash was 00000000000000000021e800c1e8df51b22c1588e5a624bea17e9faa34b2dc4a.

It caused a massive uproar among the community, with Twitter and Reddit awash with speculations concerning the origins and meaning of the number.

The reason for the excitement around this particular block hash, something many within the community are already familiar with, is a number. First, upon a cursory glance, the number of zeros at the beginning of the block hash was similar to the ones in the block hash of the Genesis Block, or the first block of Bitcoin ever mined.

Given the lengths supposedly undertaken by the pseudonymous creator of BTC, Satoshi Nakamoto, to achieve that hash in the Genesis Block, some believe it to be meaningful. Additionally, it was pointed out that it is highly improbable for the June 2018 hash to be generated at random.

Secondly, the number that came after the first zeros was 21e8. This number is an important one in physics because it refers to the E8 Theory, which is an attempt to describe all known fundamental interactions in physics and to stand as a possible theory of everything.

Possible explanations for the event ranged from a simple chance to AI or Nakamotos resurgence and even time travel.

Possibly, the biggest mystery (together with when moon?) in the Bitcoin world is its creator Satoshi Nakamoto. It is assumed this was either a person or a group of people working in concert to create the worlds first decentralized digital currency. The people listed as possible Nakamoto candidates reads like the whos who of the cypherpunk movement, such as Hal Finney, Adam Back, and Nick Szabo, computer scientist, legal scholar, and cryptographer known for his research in cryptocurrency.

Meanwhile, Finey, who died in 2014, was the first-ever recipient of a BTC transaction sent from Satoshi. Also, he was identified as a possible Nakamoto ghostwriter by Newsweek and the New Yorker. In fact, shortly before his death, Forbes wrote about the fact that Finney, a cryptography pioneer, had a neighbor named Nakamoto.

Also, Adam Back, CEO of major blockchain technology firm Blockstream, was one of the first two people to receive an email from Satoshi, and he was also cited in the Bitcoin white paper.

Another computer scientist, Craig S. Wright has infamously claimed to be Nakamoto but has never been able to prove it.

Given the complexity of Bitcoin and the deep understanding of economics showcased by Nakamoto, many are of the opinion that Nakamoto was actually a group of people. Many contend that it is improbable that one person could be so well versed in many different areas of scholarship to create a technological tool so robust that it continues to stand the test of time today.

The etymology of Satoshi Nakamoto corresponds to knowledge or enlightenment and the middle or center. The vague nature of the words can mean one of two things, either awoken by being at the source or central intelligence. The latter is a much-speculated theory, that the US National Security Agency (NSA) (or some other government intelligence operation) created the cryptocurrency.

The most quoted evidence backing this theory is the fact that Bitcoin employs a common cryptography tool to create its public and private keys. The theory is that this in itself could provide the NSA with a back door to the Bitcoin blockchain.

Another reason cited by pundits of this theory is the fact that social media threads, on sites like Reddit, which question the NSA/Bitcoin connection are deleted. Finally, even Ethereum (ETH) co-founder Vitalik Buterin (before his ETH career even started) reportedly said that he wouldnt be surprised if [Nakamoto] is actually an American working for the NSA specializing in cryptography. Then he got sick of the governments monetary policies and decided to create Bitcoin. He also added: Or the NSA itself decided to create Bitcoin.

However, several years later, Buterin clarified that his opinions have changed a lot since his NSA-related statements in 2011.

Blockstream is a blockchain technology company staffed by well-known and well-regarded developers. It is led by aforementioned Adam Back, a cryptographer aligned with the cypherpunk movement. It is through these endeavors where he interacted with Satoshi Nakamoto, corresponding with him, which led to him being cited in the Bitcoin whitepaper.

Blockstream describes itself as the global leader in Bitcoin and blockchain technology. Founded in 2014, the company aims to create a range of products and services which should ease the use and adoption of bitcoin and other blockchain-based digital currencies. Blockstream has raised large amounts in its funding rounds since its inception.

To the onlooker, Blockstream should be a well-regarded institution within the space. Meanwhile, for a number within the space, Blockstream seems to be hell-bent on destroying the original intent of Bitcoin with its driving motivations being profit.

However, these accusations can be heard from the Bitcoin Cash (BCH), which is a hard fork of Bitcoin, camp mostly. They claim that Blockstream is against any changes that may scale Bitcoin because they want users to use their proprietary sidechains, such as the Liquid Network.

Given that many of the Bitcoin Core developers also work at Blockstream, this is an "interesting" accusation, to say the least. While it is an old conspiracy theory, it keeps morphing with time.

In 2018, a Danish firm called BiChip (which, ironically, seems to be spreading vaccines-related conspiracy theories by itself) released an update to their subdermal chip, allowing people to store the XRP token inside themselves. By writing the chip, users could transact with their XRP holdings. The chip has since expanded its abilities and can now be used by BTC users too.

Conservative and religious circles were quick to point out the similarities between the emerging tech and the mark of the beast.

The mark of the beast references a theme in the Book of Revelations where people in the end times will be unable to trade without having the mark of the beast, either in their hand or on their forehead. Given the subdermal nature of the chip, speculation was rife and the theory took hold quickly.

That speculation inspired even more end-time related theories, with people claiming that Bitcoin was intended to usher in the New World Order where artificial intelligence would be lord to all. The theory is that AI created Bitcoin, using the prospect of profit as a lure to trap humanity into worshipping it.

___

In either case, despite all these conspiracists, Bitcoin is about to turn 12 on January 3, the anniversary of the first block in the Bitcoin blockchain mined, and it looks ready to ignore even more and even crazier conspiracy theories going forward.

___

Learn more: Bitcoin Wheel Cannot Be StoppedCrypto in 2021: Bitcoin To Ride The Same Wave Of Macroeconomic ProblemsCrypto Adoption in 2021: Bitcoin Rules, Ethereum Grows & Faces RivalsCrypto in 2021: Institutions Prefer Bitcoin, Retail Open to Altcoins

Here is the original post:
Satoshi Nakamoto from NSA, AntiChrist and Other Bitcoin Conspiracy Theories - Cryptonews

Sheep producers are invited to find out more about post-Brexit trade and future agricultural policy at a series of virtual events starting next month.

The events, organised by the National Sheep Association (NSA), will take place each Wednesday morning at 8.30am for four weeks from January 20.

With so much still to be announced on how the UKs departure from the EU will shape our future sheep industry, combined with changes to agricultural legislation and support payments, there will no doubt be many sheep farmers out there seeking some support and guidance as we start the new year, said NSA chief executive Phil Stocker.

NSA is excited to launch this new series of short webinars to help the nations sheep farmers keep up to date on the latest announcements affecting them.

We will be welcoming industry leaders from across the UK as well as NSA office holders and some of our corporate supporters to present what we hope will be engaging and useful short sessions that can be enjoyed over breakfast before the days jobs really begin.

Farmers and crofters interested in finding out more about the events are asked to register their interest online here.

Read the original here:
Trade and policy in spotlight at webinars for sheep producers - Press and Journal

Dehradun: Giving an all new twist to the controversy surrounding the construction of 88-kilometre-long Kandi Road, a proposed stretch cutting through the Corbett Tiger Reserve (CTR) to reduce the distance between Garhwal and Kumaon regions by around 70 kilometres, Harak Singh Rawat, forest and environment minister of Uttarakhand, on Sunday said that the road has a strategic value and is of national importance. The minister said that the proposed road will be crucial for the safety of the country and ensure swift movement of Army troops during any emergency. Rawat has also written a letter to national security advisor Ajit Doval in this regard. Speaking with TOI, Rawat said, Uttarakhand has the headquarters of the Indian Armys Garhwal Rifles in Lansdowne and the headquarters of Kumaon Regiment in Ranikhet. Our state holds strategic importance and therefore, swift movement of Army troops is needed here. In case of an emergency, our forces might need a shorter and quicker route to Pithoragarh or Champawat. Here, the proposed Kandi Road can be of immense significance. Therefore, I have written to national security advisor Ajit Doval. Also, I intend to meet defence minister Rajnath Singh and discuss the issue with him very soon. In 1998, the Supreme Court had rejected the proposal of Kandi Road and had agreed upon the construction of an alternate road through Uttar Pradesh. While hearing the writ petition Navin M. Raheja Vs. Union of India and Others filed in 1998, the apex court had stated that it is the duty of the state to preserve and protect the Corbett National Park as it is a national asset. If constructed, the Kandi Road will cut through the 24-km-long buffer zone between Ramnagar and Khara Gate areas, a 21-km-long core breeding area of CTR, and a 32-km-long buffer zone between Kalagarh and Pakhro in CTR. Notably, Corbett has the highest tiger density in the world. On an average, the reserve has 19.7 big cats per 100 square kilometres. According to WII scientists, the proposed Kandi Road may lead to more incidents of animals getting hurt in accidents. Earlier on December 18, Rawat had announced a bus service through Pakhro-Morghatti-Kalagarh-Ramnagar route (Kandi Road stretch). We are not yet opening up the stretch for public use as there are several legalities to it but it is my understanding that the road is of immense strategic importance and therefore, I want it to be constructed on priority for the safety of our nation, added Rawat. Kandi Road is seen as the dream project of the incumbent state government as it would cut down the travel time for people of Kumaon and Garhwal regions. It was announced by the chief minister after assuming office in 2017. If the road is constructed, people will not have to pass by Najibabad, Nagina and Afzalgarh pockets of Bijnor district of Uttar Pradesh to travel between Garhwal and Kumaon regions. Back in 2017, WII scientists had stated that Kandi Road should ideally see the daylight soon as both Uttarkhand and Uttar Pradesh have BJP-led state governments. Also, the saffron party has a comfortable majority in the Centre as well. And an alternate route road through Amangarh, Badapur, and Sauwala of Uttar Pradesh would do the needful rather than passing through Kandi Road by fragmenting habitat of big cats.

Read the original:
Now, Ukhand forest minister calls road through Corbett of strategic value, writes to NSA Ajit Doval ci - Times of India