Feds Who Didn't Even Discover The OPM Hack Themselves, Still Say We Should Give Them Cybersecurity Powers
from the really-now? dept
We already described how the recent hack into the US federal government's Office of Personnel Management (OPM) appears to be much more serious than was initially reported. The hack, likely by Chinese state hackers, appear to have obtained basically detailed personal info on all current and many former federal government employees.And here's the amazing thing: the federal government wasn't the one who figured out they'd been hacked. Instead, it's now coming out that it was discovered during a product demo from a cybersecurity company (guess their product works, huh?). According to the Wall Street Journal:
But four people familiar with the investigation said the breach was actually discovered during a mid-April sales demonstration at OPM by a Virginia company called CyTech Services, which has a networks forensics platform called CyFIR. CyTech, trying to show OPM how its cybersecurity product worked, ran a diagnostics study on OPM’s network and discovered malware was embedded on the network. Investigators believe the hackers had been in the network for a year or more.That may go down as one of the most effective product demos ever.
But, what's really sickening about all of this is that the federal government is already using this hack -- which it failed to discover -- as an excuse to pass new cybersecurity legislation, whose sole purpose is to give the feds more information, in the (faulty) belief that they'll "help" prevent future attacks. Within days of the initial report of the hack, Senator Mitch McConnell pointed to it as the reason to push cybersecurity legislation:
“It might or might not deal with every aspect of what apparently happened a few days ago. But Congress is going to act on cybersecurity on this bill in the very near future.”Thankfully, cooler heads -- including Senator Patrick Leahy -- prevailed in pointing out that the OPM hack is no reason to rush into cybersecurity legislation -- but it's even more ridiculous than that. The entire premise of these cybersecurity bills is that we need this kind of information sharing so that government folks can "help" to better protect "critical infrastructure." But these same guys are so clueless they can't even protect their own staff files -- and then need outside help to even discover that they were hacked a year ago?
Perhaps it's time to move in the other direction and take away the government's mandate over "cybersecurity" because it's shown little indication that it can handle the problem.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cisa, cybersecurity, fud, hack, information sharing, mitch mcconnell, office of personnel management, opm
Companies: cytech services
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Seconded!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Okay, the big "L's" win this one; the government is incompetent at dealing with cybersecurity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/s maybe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree that it's not OK, but we haven't exactly got the moral high ground.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because the US is so in debt to China that the Chinese practically own it now. You could say that the Chinese are just keeping tabs on their investment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OPM = Office of Personnel Mismanagement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OPM = Office of Personnel Mismanagement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why do people connect sensitive/critical assets to the internet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Isn't it supposed to be the job of NSA to secure data like this?
Maybe they need to spend a few hundred billion more on their illegal domestic surveillance programs. Everyone knows that mass collection, processing and storage of potential dirt on civil society actors is the first step in setting up basic network security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/06/14/britain-security-idINKBN0OU02420150614
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just as the law needs to be overhauled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]