Showing posts with label Experts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Experts. Show all posts

Friday, 20 September 2013

Experts praise Pentagon's march to security standards

September 20, 2013 06:00 AM ETCSO - The Pentagon's decision to move its thousands of networks under a single security architecture is the right strategy to bolster defenses against hackers and malicious insiders, experts say.

The massive consolidation of the Defense Department's 15,000 networks into a "joint information environment" is expected to cut costs, as well as improve security against Edward Snowden-like leaks, National Defense magazine reported.

The former contractor took thousands of documents from the National Security Agency and distributed them to the media, which is driving a national debate on NSA surveillance of Americans.

Thwarting hackers is also behind the Pentagon's move to have all four branches of the military, defense agencies and overseas commands use the same network and security systems. The expected benefits include killing redundancies and making it easier to detect hacker-induced anomalies.

The transition away from the Pentagon's current mishmash of technology unique to the various government entities is expected to take years. However, experts contacted by CSOonline said the outcome will likely justify the time and expense.

"The better security comes from the lack of complexity," Ron Gula, chief executive and technical officer of Tenable Network Security, said.

Consolidating networks and standardizing systems mean less technology to monitor while making it easier to see when something has been compromised, Gula said.

The Pentagon has already started the transition. The U.S. European Command based in Stuttgart, Germany, was recently brought under a single security architecture. "We are building increments," Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronnie D. Hawkins Jr., head of the Defense Information Systems Agency, told National Defense.

The consolidation effort is likely to include having one data center in a region where there were multiple centers, said Jody Brazil, president and chief technology officer for network security management company FireMon. Having just one means "you now invest more heavily in securing that one data center."

"That's at least what I've heard them talk about and I think it makes sense," Brazil said. 

[In Depth: NSA surveillance controversy: Much ado about nothing new?]

Removing silos of technology spread throughout the Defense Department will make it much easier to monitor events across computer systems, Brazil said. In addition, performance data gathered from the systems will be easier to analyze for unusual occurrences. 

Sharing information across all entities will also be easier, because everyone will be able to understand the data, since it will come from the same systems. Brazil said.

For catching Snowden-like leakers, the Pentagon plans to standardize on identity access management technology used for fixed computers and mobile devices, Hawkins told National Defense. In addition, workers and contractors would be subject to "no notice inspections" to ensure they are complying with security standards.

No security architecture is bulletproof, particularly against the highly sophisticated, state-sponsored hackers the Defense Department is battling from countries like China. Experts acknowledged that breaching a standardized network could enable intruders to travel much deeper than they would if they had invaded a system unique to one agency.

However, having the same systems throughout means security pros will know the potential entry points. With different systems, those weaknesses are much more difficult to tract and monitor.

"I'd rather defend against a few knowns than defend against all the unknowns," Gula said.

The most difficult barrier the Pentagon is likely to face is the army of employees comfortable with the old computer systems, but who now have to march to something new.

"People as a species don't like change," Gula said. "They don't like to learn new things."

The Pentagon also will struggle to find enough experts to make the technical changes, administer the new systems and train employees to use them.

"That remains one of the bigger challenges," Brazil said.

Pentagon officials told National Defense that the transition will not require additional funding from Congress, but would come out of the Defense Department's cybersecurity budget.

This story is reprinted from CSO Online.com, an online resource for information executives. Story Copyright CXO Media Inc., 2006. All rights reserved.

View the original article here

Thursday, 8 August 2013

!MEDIA ALERT: September 11, 2012 - Smith Experts Available to Comment on Latest Kodak Moves to Exit Bankruptcy

Media Alert: Sept. 10, 2012

Smith Experts Available to Comment on Latest Kodak
Moves to Exit Bankruptcy

COLLEGE PARK, Md. – Faculty experts in the University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business are available to discuss, and give historical perspective on, the recently announced Kodak-management changes and job cuts as the company maneuvers to emerge from bankruptcy protection.

The Smith School has an in-house facility for live or taped interviews via fiber-optic line for television or multimedia content.

Kodak Misses its Moment

Hank Lucas, the Robert H. Smith Professor of Information systems, has written Searching for Survival: Lessons from Disruptive Technologies (Praeger, 2012). Contact him at 301-405-0100 or hlucas@rhsmith.umd.edu. 

Lucas’ book includes a chapter "Kodak Misses its Moment." He summarizes it here:

“Kodak is a tragic example of a company that had everything going for it, but was unable to cope when innovative digital technologies came along. Kodak’s demise was brought about not by a single event, but as with many disasters, a series of conditions and events brought the company down." These include:

Kodak’s own invention of the digital camera in 1975The firm’s inability to understand that others flooding the market with digital cameras, combined with the Internet, changed the process by which people captured and shared images The company’s rigid bureaucratic structure prevented it from responding quickly to threatsSenior management was unable to convince middle managers to move away from their analog, chemical and film mindsetManagement was distracted by foreign competition (e.g. Fuji) in film and a suit by Polaroid on instant photographyKodak exhibited a certain amount of arrogance thinking that it could control the pace at which consumers converted from film to digital photographyThe company wanted to protect its cash cow film business as long as possibleOver the years Kodak tried to diversify into unrelated fields and then pulled outOne hundred-plus years of success and a market share that at times exceeded 90 percent 'Kodak Should Have Folded Earlier'

Brent Goldfarb, associate professor of entrepreneurship and management, recently co-authored "Optimal Inertia: When Organizations Should Fail" in the journal Ecology and Strategy. He says Kodak is one such company that should have "failed," or closed down in an orderly fashion, instead of turning to bankruptcy. Contact him at 301-405-9672 or bgoldfarb@rhsmith.umd.edu.

Goldfarb's position, detailed in this Smith YouTube Channel video, is summarized here:

"Kodak was faced with a particularly difficult problem. The production of film is a very sensitive process, and for this reason Kodak was a rigid organization - small mistakes could have large consequences. This made the transition to digital costly. Ironically, Kodak was reasonably successful in their transition and quickly achieved a market leading position. The problem was that market leadership in a low-margin business is not a great prize. Kodak was not a victim of poor management, rather, the poor circumstance of being on the wrong side of creative destruction; its fate largely unavoidable.

Instead of trying to pursue the digital photography market, (Kodak) would have been better off slowly shutting down while profiting as much as possible from the dying film market. While this is a terrible outcome for Kodak stakeholders, particularly employees, history did not treat the company kindly anyway. They might have been better off trying to provide enough resources to the employees being displaced and to those managing the shrinking enterprise so as to ensure continuity and thereby extracting as much profit as possible from the market. They could then return what's left to the shareholders, whose dividends are increased further with the company not plowing money back into research and development."

About the Robert H. Smith School of Business
The Robert H. Smith School of Business is an internationally recognized leader in management education and research. One of 12 colleges and schools at the University of Maryland, College Park, the Smith School offers undergraduate, full-time and part-time MBA, executive MBA, MS in business, PhD and executive education programs, as well as outreach services to the corporate community. The school offers its degree, custom and certification programs in learning locations in North America and Asia.


View the original article here