The General Services Administration’s 15-year, $50 billion next-generation telecommunications contract will be key for agencies implementing emerging secure network architectures that literally “trust no one,” according to a new white paper.
With its cadre of software-defined network (SDN) services and other advanced networking capabilities, the GSA’s Enterprise Infrastructure Services contract “is one of the core components of any zero-trust network,” Department of Education Chief Information Security Officer Steven Hernandez said at an April 17 ACT-IAC telecommunications and cybersecurity community of interest meeting.
A European Commission plan to push WiFi as the technology of choice for connected cars over 5G has caused controversy. EU transport chief Violeta Bulc told EURACTIV in an interview that saving lives is the most important factor and WiFi is the only proven option
It’s quite simple really. First, WiFi is a proven technology and has almost no patents on it anymore. It’s available now, is easy to implement and it’s cheap. It’s affordable for everyone. One of the main political points during my mandate was to improve road safety and set up a systemic approach to it. I suffer personally when I see that 25,000 people lose their lives every year and 137,000 are seriously injured.
Now, people want us to wait three or four years in case the new technology becomes available. We have technology that can be deployed now and can save lives. I don’t want to be part of those statistics. I don’t want my kids, my friends, anyone a part of those three year statistics because we had the technology and didn’t act.
Amid growing pressure from the US on European governments to reject Chinese tech firms, Huawei’s rotating CEO Ken Hu said on Tuesday (16 April) that the EU was doing “a great job” on cybersecurity.
In a keynote speech during its annual analyst summit in Shenzhen, where the company is based, Hu’s words were seen as a signal of the importance given by the company to European regulators. EURACTIV.com was invited to the summit.
Hu mentioned the cybersecurity center opened in Brussels in early March in order to increase the transparency of the work done in this field and the cooperation with stakeholders and European regulators.
In an interview with our partner DerTagesspiegel, German Justice Minister Katarina Barley explains why she wants digital firms to share their collected data with the public, and to limit the power of companies such as Facebook and Amazon.
Because, in addition to Interior Minister Horst Seehofer, who is actually also responsible for data security, I keep an eye, from the consumer’s point of view, on what happens to their data. This is very relevant to the health sector because data in that field is one of the most personal.
There needs to be a guarantee for security, more so than in any other area. This applies not only to how data is being processed and stored, but also to how it can later be used by the research sector in an anonymised and pseudonymised form.
Bottom line: Huawei leads the world in the ability to rapidly produce cheap telecom hardware (as well as the underlying software.) Recent reports, including one from NATO, state it plainly. It’s one reason why European countries, including U.S. allies like Germany and the U.K., have been reluctant to ban tech from Huawei outright, even in the face of heavy U.S. pressure.
But — quietly — many European countries like the U.K. and France actually are banning Huawei’s 5G tech in part by effectively quarantining it away from vital parts of infrastructure, or military and intelligence activities, according to James Lewis, senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
“They don’t let Huawei near their sensitive intelligence facilities, their sensitive military facilities,” said Lewis.
The Defense Department has been ramping up efforts to quash supply chain vulnerabilities with enhanced cybersecurity guidance that gives the organization greater access to contractors’ security protocols and controls even before awarding a contract.
According to Tom Tollerton of the accounting firm Dixon Hughes Goodman’s cybersecurity advisory team, DOD has been firing off a series of memos and guidance since late 2018 aimed at tweaking contracting language and improving security conditions pre-award.
The most recent of which was in January from Ellen Lord, DOD acquisition head, designating the Defense Contracting and Management Agency with assessing contractors’ compliance with the NIST 800-171 in the cybersecurity framework by reviewing purchasing systems.
The phrase, “These are critical times for the NATO alliance,” has been used so often it is almost a cliché. But these times are not defined by a cliché, as the alliance faces multiple challenges within and without.
Deliberate discussion has always been the method of determining NATO policy and direction, but the window for that approach is narrowing. NATO must decisively confront several challenges.
Recently, the NATO framework has come under increased scrutiny and stress from friend and foe alike. Russia has made military moves into Georgia and Ukraine, annexing Crimea and intimidating the Baltic states.
Countries that are NATO members have faced continuous pressure and intimidation from Russian influence operations. Key military leaders will readily admit that we are now in Phase III of military operations in the cyber domain.
Senior executives are increasingly interested in objective measurements to determine the robustness of their organizations’ cybersecurity protections.
However, measuring the adequacy of network and data security can be likened to verifying the amount of air in a room: A formula can ascertain how much air the room contains in theory, but does it take into account the leaky windows?
The AFCEA Cyber Committee examined the security metrics topic for two years, during which time it sent two surveys to association member organizations requesting input about the security metrics they use.
The results were surprisingly poor and yielded no useful data, which led committee members to explore if many organizations were struggling to define appropriate measures to assess their security posture.
Last year, the Air Force announced it was moving the 24th Air Force, which specializes in cyber operations, and the service’s Cyber Mission from the Air Force Space Command to the Air Combat Command. This spring, the Air Combat Command is working on the merger of those cyber components with its intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities from the 25th Air Force and integrating cyber into its operations.
The move, which started eight months ago, signifies a shift in the Air Force’s emphasis on putting cyber into everyday operations, said Col. Chad Raduege, USAF, who has been nominated for appointment to brigadier general, director of cyberspace and information dominance, Air Combat Command (ACC).
“There was a realization that we need to get cyber off their plate to allow them to focus on the space realm,” Col. Raduege said.
NATO is taking a comprehensive approach to building a cyber policy that would deter adversaries, defend its member nations and provide key capabilities in multidomain operations. This approach to the alliance’s cyberspace strategy takes into account resilience, counter-cyber activities and operational capabilities in both civilian and military elements.’
Maj. Gen. Wolfgang E. Renner, GEAF, commander, NATO Communications and Information Systems (CIS) Group and deputy chief of staff cyberspace at Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), explains the rationale for this comprehensive approach to the cyber challenge.
“You can’t solve it in the military arena, you can’t solve it in the civilian sector—it really is not just multidimensional. It’s comprehensive.”