<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>gdp's Comments</title>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<link>https://www.intensedebate.com/users/989396</link>
		<description>Comments by Technolytics</description>
<item>
<title>Defense Tech : Cyber Assaults Hit Web Sites of the Mexican Government</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2011/09/19/cyber-assaults-hit-web-sites-of-the-mexican-government/#IDComment195326596</link>
<description>that is a very interesting way of putting it. </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:48:19 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2011/09/19/cyber-assaults-hit-web-sites-of-the-mexican-government/#IDComment195326596</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : Partnerships Against Cyber Crime</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2011/07/11/partnerships-against-cyber-crime/#IDComment172453180</link>
<description>I guess my point about ICSPA was missed.  They are trying to bridge the gap between the public and private sector.  Just as the same international partnership is necessary for cyber warfare. Will they succeed - to early to tell.   </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2011 23:47:17 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2011/07/11/partnerships-against-cyber-crime/#IDComment172453180</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : Making Headway on Cyber Counterfeits</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2011/07/05/making-headway-on-cyber-counterfeits/#IDComment169990713</link>
<description>We know there are counterfeit chips orbiting the earth right now as well.  Identifying those 59,000 counterfeit chips is a big step toward putting integrity back in our supply chain. There is still a long way to go.  Not that long ago we did not even look at security problems or integrity issues in the supply chain. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 5 Jul 2011 16:18:58 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2011/07/05/making-headway-on-cyber-counterfeits/#IDComment169990713</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : The Near-term Horizon</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2011/06/13/the-near-term-horizon/#IDComment162646777</link>
<description>I thought he might have a scoop on covert ops after the US Defense Industry was attacked. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:26:58 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2011/06/13/the-near-term-horizon/#IDComment162646777</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : NATO Must Increase Efforts</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2011/06/07/nato-must-increase-efforts/#IDComment160710764</link>
<description> UoMUC like the CIA choose to advertize on this page because of the large number of people visiting the site. The operators of the site sell the ad space like most other web pages! </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 8 Jun 2011 18:45:13 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2011/06/07/nato-must-increase-efforts/#IDComment160710764</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : President Obama’s Cyber Security Plan</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2011/05/20/president-obama%e2%80%99s-cyber-security-plan/#IDComment155428765</link>
<description>Sen Collins pushed back on Obama&amp;#039;s cyber plan to make public the results of security assessments on critical systems -is that a good idea?  </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2011 01:11:22 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2011/05/20/president-obama%e2%80%99s-cyber-security-plan/#IDComment155428765</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : Get On With It!</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2011/05/16/get-on-with-it/#IDComment153554032</link>
<description>Actually I am a realist!  Look at all the data!!! </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2011 18:49:59 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2011/05/16/get-on-with-it/#IDComment153554032</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : Cyber Terrorism May Accelerate!</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2011/05/09/cyber-terrorism-may-accelerate/#IDComment150980928</link>
<description>That is the same question I have.  I would have NEVER disclosed any of the digital device collection. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 May 2011 13:25:42 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2011/05/09/cyber-terrorism-may-accelerate/#IDComment150980928</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : Cyber Terrorism May Accelerate!</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2011/05/09/cyber-terrorism-may-accelerate/#IDComment150374443</link>
<description>2.7 terabytes - &amp;quot;Enough to fill the library of a small university&amp;quot; </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 9 May 2011 18:39:14 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2011/05/09/cyber-terrorism-may-accelerate/#IDComment150374443</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : To Kill the Kill Switch or Not</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2011/02/07/to-kill-the-kill-switch-or-not/#IDComment126701375</link>
<description>History has shown us that the enemy&amp;#039;s use highly distributed attacks so that will be difficult and time consuming not to mention we may be doing that to unwilling participants that are being used as pawns that the true enemy hides behind. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 8 Feb 2011 15:29:38 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2011/02/07/to-kill-the-kill-switch-or-not/#IDComment126701375</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : To Kill the Kill Switch or Not</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2011/02/07/to-kill-the-kill-switch-or-not/#IDComment126700868</link>
<description>There are no 100% solutions.  This is better than what we have now! </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 8 Feb 2011 15:26:27 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2011/02/07/to-kill-the-kill-switch-or-not/#IDComment126700868</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : Good news or is it?</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2011/01/24/good-news-or-is-it/#IDComment123517751</link>
<description>Ass ymmetric may be more accurate in some cases! </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:15:45 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2011/01/24/good-news-or-is-it/#IDComment123517751</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : Cyber Espionage Just Got A lot More Serious</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2010/12/10/cyber-espionage-just-got-a-lot-more-serious/#IDComment115130322</link>
<description>I had one of my posting blocked as well.  Go   figure    I have alerted the tech guys about the issue </description>
<pubDate>Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:38:35 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2010/12/10/cyber-espionage-just-got-a-lot-more-serious/#IDComment115130322</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : Wikileaks Fiasco Exposes Gaping Holes in Cyber Domain</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2010/08/09/wikileaks-fiasco-exposes-gaping-holes-in-cyber-domain/#IDComment92024186</link>
<description>You hit at the hear of the issue I have been blogging about for years.   There is an absence of of formal terms and definitions for cyber terrorism, cyber war, cyber attack and cyber espionage.   I believe that making copies of US classified materials and giving them to anyone outside the United States or perhaps the United nations is an act of espionage because of the information they contain and the resulting damage.        You also hit another key point - A human recovered the info from electronic storage using the standard means (which he was given access to).  Where we differ is in my opinion and the opinion of several others, all active clearances fell that if you copy a digital file on to a CD that is an electronic function.  I would further state that I believe there is case law that would backup this interpretation.   What is so perplexing to me is what the hell ever happened to compartmentalization?  That was to isolate, control and protect classified data - if that were in place, how did the soldier ever access such a broad swath of classified data? </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:56:01 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2010/08/09/wikileaks-fiasco-exposes-gaping-holes-in-cyber-domain/#IDComment92024186</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : New CYBERCOM Chief Says Military Has Zero Real Time Situational Awareness of Its Networks</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2010/06/03/new-cybercom-chief-speaks/#IDComment78435062</link>
<description>Sorry but I did not write this one. </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 4 Jun 2010 00:23:13 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2010/06/03/new-cybercom-chief-speaks/#IDComment78435062</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : Everyone Knows More than the Person Responsible for Cyber Security</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2010/05/26/everyone-knows-more-than-the-person-responsible-for-cyber-security/#IDComment77537569</link>
<description>This is really a sad state of affairs when it comes to our Congressional Leadership pulling something like this! </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 28 May 2010 19:08:15 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2010/05/26/everyone-knows-more-than-the-person-responsible-for-cyber-security/#IDComment77537569</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : Everyone Knows More than the Person Responsible for Cyber Security</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2010/05/26/everyone-knows-more-than-the-person-responsible-for-cyber-security/#IDComment77502796</link>
<description>Add this to your thinking about this posting.    Hill Wants Access to Secret SIPRNet    &lt;a href=&quot;http://whatsbrewin.nextgov.com/2010/05/hill_wants_access_to_secret_siprnet.php?oref=latest_posts&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://whatsbrewin.nextgov.com/2010/05/hill_wants...&lt;/a&gt; </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 28 May 2010 15:36:26 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2010/05/26/everyone-knows-more-than-the-person-responsible-for-cyber-security/#IDComment77502796</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : The Race to Build a Secure Operating System</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2010/05/11/the-race-to-build-a-secure-operating-system/#IDComment74917906</link>
<description>Generally speaking - the business community tends to say away from all things NSA due to issues with public opinion.  Also they want a commercial company behind their products and DEMAND full support. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2010 17:59:50 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2010/05/11/the-race-to-build-a-secure-operating-system/#IDComment74917906</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : China Demands Computer Encryption Codes From Cyber Security Firms</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2010/05/03/china-demands-computer-encryption-codes-from-cyber-security-firms/#IDComment72498884</link>
<description>We looked at that and the costs are too significant to support two completely different product lines (one for China and one for the NATO countries).  They  cannot share any circuitry or code. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 4 May 2010 19:57:40 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2010/05/03/china-demands-computer-encryption-codes-from-cyber-security-firms/#IDComment72498884</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>