[iwar] [fc:Executive.Branch.Agencies.Flunk.Computer.Security.Tests]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-11-11 06:41:11


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-3847-1005489644-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Sun, 11 Nov 2001 06:42:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 32414 invoked by uid 510); 11 Nov 2001 14:39:39 -0000
Received: from n31.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.81) by all.net with SMTP; 11 Nov 2001 14:39:39 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-3847-1005489644-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com
Received: from [10.1.4.53] by n31.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Nov 2001 14:40:45 -0000
X-Sender: fc@red.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 11 Nov 2001 14:40:44 -0000
Received: (qmail 8562 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2001 14:40:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Nov 2001 14:40:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO red.all.net) (65.0.156.78) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Nov 2001 14:40:44 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by red.all.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fABEfBB13287 for iwar@onelist.com; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 06:41:11 -0800
Message-Id: <200111111441.fABEfBB13287@red.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
X-Yahoo-Profile: fcallnet
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 06:41:11 -0800 (PST)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Executive.Branch.Agencies.Flunk.Computer.Security.Tests]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Executive Branch Agencies Flunk Computer Security Tests 
By Brian Krebs, Newsbytes, 11/9/2001
<a href="http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/172052.html">http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/172052.html>

The majority of executive branch agencies earned failing or barely
passing grades for computer security, and most actually managed to
perform more poorly than last year, according to a report released
today. 
Two-thirds of executive branch agencies - including the departments of
Defense, Agriculture, Education, Energy, Justice, Labor, Transportation
and Treasury and eight other departments - earned an "F" for computer
security. Such abysmal scores helped win the government a overall "F"
grade this year, down from a "D-" awarded in last year's computer
security report card. 
Rep. Stephen Horn, R-Calif., chairman of the House subcommittee that
handed out the grades, scolded the Defense Department and Department of
Energy for failing to protect the nation's most sensitive secrets at a
time when it is imperative that such information be kept out of the
hands of hackers and cyber-terrorists. 
"In the aftermath of the terrible events of September 11th, the nation
has prudently focused on its vulnerabilities," Horn said. "However, as
the oversight conducted by this subcommittee during the last six years
has shown, the nation cannot afford to ignore risks associated with
cyber attacks."

The National Science Foundation earned the highest mark - a "B+" - and
the Social Security Administration and NASA each merited a "C" grade.
The Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of State, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and the General Services Administration earned "D" grades. 
The grades were based on the results of penetration testing and
assessments of how well agencies met standard network security measures,
such as limiting access to privileged data and eliminating
easily-guessed passwords. 
In its analysis of the penetration tests, the General Accounting Office
noted that this year's grades may be lower because agencies
significantly expanded the scope of their testing. 
Nevertheless, the GAO found all 24 agencies had weak computer-access
controls for sensitive data and systems "that make it possible for an
individual or group to inappropriately modify, destroy or disclose
sensitive data or computer programs for purposes such as personal gain
or sabotage." 
The GAO also found that most agencies are doing a poor job installing
readily available patches for commonly known software hacks. According
to the Federal Computer Incident Response Center, such deficiencies are
the root cause of some 90 percent of successful attacks on government
computers. 
In August, the GAO discovered that many internal systems at the Commerce
Department did not require passwords, even for administrator accounts.
The GAO also found widespread use of obvious passwords such as
"password," and noted that password files were either unencrypted or
unprotected - allowing anyone on the network to obtain the most powerful
account passwords. 
The grades are required under the Government Information Security Reform
Act, a law passed in November 2000 that requires federal agencies to
asses and test the security of their non-classified information systems. 
The reports issued today will be tied to each agency's budget request
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the coming
fiscal year. 
Harris Miller, president of the Information Technology Association of
America, called the government's failing grades "unacceptable," and
urged lawmakers to commit more funds to computer security efforts. 
"Federal agencies simply do not have the funding available in their
current budgets," Miller said. 
But Mark Forman, associate director of information technology for the
OMB, said agencies have all the money they need to protect their
systems. Rather, most simply must do a better job coordinating their
efforts and ensuring accountability for computer security at the highest
levels on down, he said. 
"We do not believe that, given the large total amount already being
spent on security, that simply adding more money will solve the
problems," Forman said. "Such an approach has not worked for IT in
general - it shifts attention away from effective management and
investment of existing resources - and it will not work for IT
security." 
The 24 executive branch agencies have requested a total of $2.7 billion
for computer security in the coming fiscal year, and Forman promised
that OMB would soon cut funding for projects that continue to flout the
agency's security guidelines. 
"We are going to stop funding for any project that does not adequately
address security requirements and neglects to document how security
planning and funding is integrated into the life cycle of the project." 
Horn, whose subcommittee has presided over hearings documenting many of
the same computer security weaknesses at the same agencies each year
after year, appeared skeptical that any progress would be made. 
"We've been around here a long time, and it's always the same old game,"
Horn said. "We'll see what happens next year."

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Universal Inkjet Refill Kit $29.95
Refill any ink cartridge for less!
Includes black and color ink.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/r9F0cB/MkNDAA/ySSFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-12-31 20:59:59 PST