![]() ![]() I would prefer to think that the academics and industry are way ahead in designs and similar as you theorized, the military is simply good at piecing the COTS materials and slamming down the NDA/Official Secrets Act/Hush Hush hammer and reinforce secrecy even if the knowledge might benefit more people (over-classification) and as we can see, the COTS suppliers like General Dynamics and the likes are very good at keeping their relations with their cash supplier (NSA). ![]() What I can imagine is a set of keystreams container assigned to a device and if it got captured, they simply marked it so no one would reuse that particular container of keystreams. It’s qCrypt-xStream product (essentially it’s HSM since it’s a Key Manager product) in it’s PDF white paper ( ) states that it has an “Encrypted keystore with TPM root of trust” which means you need this thing (essentially a HSM to store and manage OTP keystream mats) at your “secure facilities” so that you can somehow decrypt the “miraculously” secured device in transit on the field. The quantum encryption that Quintessence Lab uses might simply be assumed that keystreams are securely transported wrapped in symmetric keys or by some conventional ways and already present at destination location. Russia/China/India probably follow other routes but we all know they are good at copying products they captured via espionage or on the field although they may have their innovations somewhere. ![]() The other big semi-conductor and electronics company we all know would be NXP/Phillips working for the Dutch and they are in contact and collaboration with NSA so that would be assumed to be using UKUSA technology. These are big powerhouses in technology and budgets in a way.Ĭonsidering the reach of UKUSA influences, it is unlikely there are much variants of these sort of stuff and from the recent revelations of BND/Germany needing to obey NSA’s orders to send back selectors to target European targets in exchange for certain equipment or technology, we can tell that Germany may not be on the cutting edge of those technologies in the military field ? It is not going to be easy to find an equipment not of European/USA/Russia/China in origin. It’s a “brave new world” or rather it isn’t and it’s causing issues before it’s got started.Ĭontinuing off from the previous Squid post comments regarding Type-1/High Assurance equipment. There have been jokes in the more normal military about the cyber-warriors REMFs getting “purple hearts for tripping over power cords”… The biggest risk they face is a car crash driving home after a shift, nobody shoots at them and they don’t do anything “heroic” by the usual standard used for medals. Part of the reason for this appears to be related to the thorny issue of medals, the top brass have already put their foot right in it with drone pilots and crews. The problem with cyber-warriors is that the military wants them as combat roles even if some are more akin to consultant roles. This works because the consultants are not filling “combat roles”. The traditional way of keeping expertise in technical subjects in the military is, early in their careers they move out into industry and become consultants. Which means any expertiese goes with them.Īrguably to be good at security you need a depth and bredth of experience that’s uncommon even in thirty year olds and you are still “improving” in your fifties and sixties, long after all but the most senior of officers have been put out to grass. The hidden problem is “fit to fight” the military tend to have an age cut off based on rank, and don’t keep the lower ranks much over thirty and even senior non commissioned are generally shown the door in their forties. The creative types are not traditional officer material but expect pay grades up in the more senior officer renumeration rates or they will move out to industry. ![]() The problem is “career structure”, button stabbers are by and large not much above NCO level and the brass know this, thus there is not realy a career path to follow. The admin and managment types are much like they are in other branches of the military. The “creatives” are a problem whilst you can teach the basics over a period of years it’s still very much a “gift”, thus they are not common. You can regard the “button stabbers” as “script followers” be it offensive or defencive, the amount of “analytics” involved is not that high, whilst not “monkey see monkey do” you would expect anyone who had graduated from college to be able to do it, but quickly find it uninspiring. There are three basic types required, “button stabbers”, “admin/managment” and “creatives”. Oh and there is also the “burr under the blanket” issue of medals… The military has a couple of problems when it comes to “cyber-warriors.įirstly the actual aptitude and intelligence required and secondly a worthwhile career structure to retain those with ability. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |