Threat Intelligence

2/27/2018
03:36 PM
50%
50%

NSA's Rogers: No White House Request for Action Against Russian Hacking

US Cyber Command head Michael Rogers told US Senate Armed Services Committee that actions to deter Russian hackers from interfering with upcoming US elections requires an order from the White House.

NSA director and US Cyber Command head Admiral Michael Rogers today testified in an open hearing of the US Senate Armed Services Committee that his agency has not been asked to do anything about Russian hackers targeting the US election system. Rogers told the committee that he doesn't "have the day-to-day authority" to authorize activity to counter the attacks, according to a Politico report.

A request for direct action would have to come from the President, through the Secretary of Defense. This is the second time in a month that the head of a US security agency has confirmed that no request to address Russian election interference has come from the White House. In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Feb. 13, Rogers, FBI Director Christopher Wray, CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Robert Ashley, and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Director Robert Cardillo, all confirmed that Russia had used "active measures" against the integrity of the 2016 US election and the upcoming 2018 elections are a significant potential target.

Rogers said Russia continues to target the US election process in part because "... they haven’t paid a price ... that is sufficient to get them to change their behavior." He also confirmed that he has shared with individuals in the Trump administration his opinion on the attacks and what might be done to stop them. But Rogers said he has neither asked for, nor volunteered, a formal plan in writing.

When asked whether it might be possible to stop the cyberattacks at their point of origin, rather than simply working on a US endpoint defense, Rogers said that he felt a plan to do so could be developed that was both legal and implementable. As to whether it would be effective, Rogers was more cautious: "It depends on the specifics," he said. "I don't want to over-promise."

Read more here.

Here is a video clip from CSPAN of Rogers' testimony today:

 

 

Black Hat Asia returns to Singapore with hands-on technical Trainings, cutting-edge Briefings, Arsenal open-source tool demonstrations, top-tier solutions and service providers in the Business Hall. Click for information on the conference and to register.

 

Dark Reading's Quick Hits delivers a brief synopsis and summary of the significance of breaking news events. For more information from the original source of the news item, please follow the link provided in this article. View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
jbconner
50%
50%
jbconner,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/28/2018 | 1:01:38 PM
SO he's admitting that he is not doing his job?
"his agency has not been asked to do anything about Russian hackers targeting the US election system. Rogers told the committee that he doesn't "have the day-to-day authority" to authorize activity to counter the attacks"

"He also confirmed that he has shared with individuals in the Trump administration his opinion on the attacks and what might be done to stop them."

"But Rogers said he has neither asked for, nor volunteered, a formal plan in writing."

Isn't it his job to develop a formal plan of exactly what his agency would do to combat this threat and then formally submit that in writing to the White House for approval? Does he sit around always waiting for someone to request that he do his job, and doesn't do anything until then? Shouldn't the heads of all the intelligence agencies be constantly developing plans to deal with not only this threat, but all other threats to national security? And if they don't have the authority to implement those plans, then submit those plans to the commander-in-chief and the White House for approval? And not just tell a few people about their opinions?

If they did that and the request was turned down by the White House, then this would be a different story. But as is, it is partisan BS being pushed by media bias.

If someone asked me what I was doing to prevent a breach into my organization, and I said that I haven't had any request from my executive officers for any action to prevent a breach, so I'm not developing a plan to submit to them for approval, I would be justifiably FIRED for not doing my job.
Higher Education: 15 Books to Help Cybersecurity Pros Be Better
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  12/12/2018
Worst Password Blunders of 2018 Hit Organizations East and West
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  12/12/2018
2019 Attacker Playbook
Ericka Chickowski, Contributing Writer, Dark Reading,  12/14/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
10 Best Practices That Could Reshape Your IT Security Department
This Dark Reading Tech Digest, explores ten best practices that could reshape IT security departments.
Flash Poll
[Sponsored Content] The State of Encryption and How to Improve It
[Sponsored Content] The State of Encryption and How to Improve It
Encryption and access controls are considered to be the ultimate safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of data, which is why they're mandated in so many compliance and regulatory standards. While the cybersecurity market boasts a wide variety of encryption technologies, many data breaches reveal that sensitive and personal data has often been left unencrypted and, therefore, vulnerable.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2017-1265
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-17
IBM Security Guardium 10.0, 10.0.1, 10.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.3, 10.1.4, and 10.5 does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate. This weakness might allow an attacker to spoof a trusted entity by using a man-in-the-middle (MITM) techniques. IBM X-Force ID: 124740.
CVE-2017-1272
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-17
IBM Security Guardium 10.0 and 10.5 stores sensitive information in URL parameters. This may lead to information disclosure if unauthorized parties have access to the URLs via server logs, referrer header or browser history. IBM X-Force ID: 124747. IBM X-Force ID: 124747.
CVE-2017-1597
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-17
IBM Security Guardium 10.0, 10.0.1, 10.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.3, 10.1.4, and 10.5 Database Activity Monitor does not require that users should have strong passwords by default, which makes it easier for attackers to compromise user accounts. IBM X-Force ID: 132610.
CVE-2018-1889
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-17
IBM Security Guardium 10.0 and 10.5 is vulnerable to cross-site scripting. This vulnerability allows users to embed arbitrary JavaScript code in the Web UI thus altering the intended functionality potentially leading to credentials disclosure within a trusted session. IBM X-Force ID: 152080.
CVE-2018-1891
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-17
IBM Security Guardium 10 and 10.5 is vulnerable to cross-site scripting. This vulnerability allows users to embed arbitrary JavaScript code in the Web UI thus altering the intended functionality potentially leading to credentials disclosure within a trusted session. IBM X-Force ID: 152082.