JS_Harris - 9:53 am on Sep 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

I've read all 55 pages. Though idealistic it describes many unrealistic solutions.

For example: SEC. 4. REAL-TIME CYBERSECURITY DASHBOARD.
It states that within 90 days of the bills passing a new dashboard to monitor all government sites should be devised and it should be finished within a year.

The problem: adding even one line of additional code provides more entry points and weaknesses. Likewise adding one more warning flag (if that's all the dashboard does) means one more potential false alarm to trigger which may lead to real consequences as a result of reactions to it. Such a control panel, with an untold number of people having access, would become a very juicy target in and of itself making it the very problem it would attempt to solve.

The bill simply doesn't offer any truly technical solutions imo. I see it as attempting to place more cameras on the front door instead of improving the locks on all doors.

I'd prefer to see more ounces of prevention included in it.

Further in the same paragraph of text is this

(a) CREATION AND SUPPORT OF CYBERSECURITY CENTERS- The Secretary of Commerce shall provide assistance for the creation and support of Regional Cybersecurity Centers for the promotion and implementation of cybersecurity standards. Each Center shall be affiliated with a United States-based nonprofit institution or organization, or consortium thereof, that applies for and is awarded financial assistance under this section.

The secretary of commerce doesn't make military decisions about who leads the troops in real wars, I fail to see why they would be appointed that task against virtual attacks. It's my feeling that the bill isn't ready and has real issues. As written a lot of NEW controls and systems will be created with a distinct lack of military participation.