>Do the military "cyberwarriors" even have local admin rights on their machines?

We don't, hell I don't even have access to some of the basic tools I need (i.e. version control)

>Hackers don't sign up for active duty military.

They do, I've met the smartest people I know in the military . The hacker types never stay though they either get kicked out because they don't want to put up with the bullshit or separate after their first enlistment and quadruple their salary.

Basically the problem with the military is that they won't (or can't) pay enough to retain any of the talent they have and are unwilling to compensate for the low salary by changing the "culture" they've developed over the last century.

Yap. Dealing with the military as a customer I have definitely have seen red tape that goes beyond reasonable for security and actually downright counter-productive (the steps needed to jump through to "secure" a box, many are wasteful, antiquated, yet some obvious ones are not mentioned.

There are things like "tcpdump must not be installed". So debugging is a pain, so then fine, I'll just use a python wrapper around libpcap then.

Some of the password policies are odd, don't remember exactly but requiring large passwords made of random gibberish instead of long pass phrases just make people write them posted notes and carrying them in their wallets.

Must be nice, last government SOC I worked in, we could only script with powershell 1.0 installed. Sadly, that was just a year ago.

We had tcpdump and Wireshark, but we weren't allowed to capture anything with it.

So how does anybody know there isn't data exfiltration going on?

'So... if they don't intercept network traffic, they were trustworthy and it wouldn't matter. But if they are not trustworthy... they can still sniff the traffic? Are you sure it's fine?'

'Yeah, every modern network is switched so there is nothing to sniff'

These are all problems that are slowly working their way up the policy chains. E.g. RAND has put out a very good study on all this, http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR430.html that discusses the challenges with public sector/military hiring (and retention).

It may yet have to come down to putting the effort heavily on the Reserves though, because for all the other things the military can change, I don't see culture as being one of them. Even the legendarily free-wheeling communities like submarines and fighter aviation deal with red tape and subsuming egos to the team.

It doesn't matter that the problems are working their way up the policy chains if they are only going to die when they get to the top. You yourself admitted that they are unlikely to change the culture, and we both know they aren't about to pay a competitive wage to the military. Unfortunately, that leaves us with things exactly the way they are now.

The military likes to talk about starting to take various issues seriously, yet it is an exceptionally rare occasion when they actually do.

The most "conservative" company would have techies that don't meet any customers come in a suit, and those are almost extinct now.

In a military, depending on where you are and your rank, you could detention / penalties for not being shaved, not having your shoes shined, having a haircut that's too long by a few centimeters. You often can't take a week (or even a day) off without weeks notice unless it's an emergency. You could go to jail for disobeying a higher up.

And most importantly, if you signed up for (say) 3 years, you can't quit before those three years are up. Seriously, if you think corporate red tape is anything remotely like serving in the military - you need to revisit your idea of what the military is.

And re:transferring - that's another thing that's different in the army; The army can transfer you to, say, Iraq, with a couple of days notice, without giving you the ability to refuse. Ever had anything like that happen in your .com days?

If I were to join the military right now wanting to work on computer systems, how long would it take before I'm actually preforming that role, or would they have to "break" me first? Hackers have no desire to do that when they can easily stay in the private sector and earn twice the pay and have a nice cushy office to work out of.

There should be some kind of alternate route to joining the military for officer and specialization roles (in my opinion of course, I am certainly interested to here if anyone has objections). Give me a few tests, an interview, a basic physical, a polygraph, and some IT training to get familiar with the systems and let me go to work. High pay isn't really an issue for me personally as long as I enjoy the work and am constantly learning or teaching.

Having access to that information is a huge responsibility. There have been spies at all ranks that have done large amounts of harm to the US military. It is absolutely necessary to lock down machines and have strict security checks over each other a logging of everything.

The exception is if you have a specialized degree there is officers school for the branches, but basic training is still required, you will still be marching and be broken in, but after that will be more classrooms than physical activities.

Pilots especially must be physically fit. I've heard that leg strength is especially important so that you don't pass out at high g-forces. Drone pilots probably not so much, obviously.

The Reserve forces might be slightly less rigorous, but I'm not positive.

The cyber warfare stuff is mostly Army and Navy though as far as I know.

Agencies like the DHS are the ones that are really struggling to find IT talent. They have a huge amount of responsibility (security all non-military government infrastructure) and have a bad reputation currently (because of airport security staff).

[1] http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_cio_a6/pu...

[0] - http://www.team-crucible.com/

Infantrymen won't have marketable skills, but we are talking about military security analysts. These guys often do have skills equivalent to their civilian counterparts. You seem to be making the same assumption that many others in this thread have: that all Soldiers are infantrymen of less than average intelligence.

My surprise had more to do with learning that cyberwarefare reservists exist, let alone enlisted soldiers. (I'm not familiar with the military.)

[1]: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/R... p.64

I can see how you would be surprised. It seems counter-intuitive, but its actually normal for reservists in technical fields to be better at their jobs than the military. The best example I can think of is the field of aviation. Many reserve pilots are commercial pilots that get to fly 1000s of hours each year. Their full-time military counterparts don't get to fly their fancy fighter jets very often, because its really expensive.

Doctors are officers. This means that they get paid much more than Soldiers, but its still a laughably low amount when you compare it to a civilian doctor's salary.

Pilots are also officers. Their salaries are closer to the civilian world, but they are still probably a little low.

I don't think the Army is about to convert tens of thousands of IT specialists and Intel analysts from enlisted Soldiers to commissioned officers. Even if they did, the majority of them would still be making well below market rate.

Even the officer ranks that pay competitively require 10-20 years of service. At that point you are going to have a salary that's comparable to a civilian security analyst with a couple years' experience.

I think flexibility is the real problem with military hiring, not absolute pay levels.

Its also not a technical job in the traditional sense, 70Ds typically spend 8 years as a 70B (Even though a lot of them will be slotted as 70Ds much earlier than this) which is essentially a management position at a medical facility.

From the description of 70D, it could end up being a technical job depending on the particular assignment, but its more oriented towards healthcare management types.

Its not a bad deal at all if you are looking for a way to pay off your student loans.

The allowances in the Army are for things like jumping out of a plane, scuba diving, foreign languages, combat pay, etc.

The Army still has this attitude that if you aren't outside all day, running around yelling at people, then you must not be doing any work. I'm not sure if that will ever change.

Officer income is higher than Enlisted income, but it still starts at around 34k for a single person. Depending on where you live, its probably going to be about 46k for someone that's married. That's still pretty low for the type of people they are looking for.

My comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8009579 applies again. The 'cyberwar' does not matter, or at least not in a way that threatens the existing power structure. To the extent that there are duelling hackers out there, they're operating in the financial realm, which is very far from the military and extremely resistant to being told what to do.

Besides, conventional war is over between major powers. There's colonial policing, guerilla warfare, secret ops -- and then straight up to nuclear exchanges. NATO's eastern border is Poland; Russia's western border is some way east of Donetsk; in the middle is an ugly unacknowledged skirmish using Ukraine as a buffer zone. The skirmish will continue unescalated because neither side can afford to stop the gas pipelines flowing through Ukraine.

(The Russian missile launcher was tracked by, among other things, geotagged selfies on Instagram posted by one of the operators. Does that count as "cyberwar"?)

Result: "Forget it, let's just hire some contractors."

This isn't entirely true. Unlike the military pay scale, the GS pay scale does have ways to pay certain fields more money. Its not very much in most cases, but its there. IT jobs generally get you 10% more than other fields.

The only GS jobs I know of that get a substantial about of extra money are the Scientific and Medical jobs. There are special codes that allow them to add at least another 50k-100k to their income, depending on the specific type of position that they hold.

And hiring contractors from Booze ma kidney - has worked out so well for them hasn't it.

Federal recruiting can be quite a minefield, which is a significant problem in fast-moving professions. According to this article the NSA don't opt out of the GS scale, but that's not to say they don't offer temporary positions with slightly different criteria: http://work.chron.com/nsa-pay-scale-16399.html

I'm unsure if it's different on the military side but typically that pay / Basic allowance for housing / etc is also clearly defined in advance.

The biggest difference, is that their promotion structure is split into two parts: there is a technical route to promotion and an administrative route. This means that you can either be good at being in charge of people and get promoted (administrative), or just be good at what you do (technical). It leads to interesting situations where a GS12 is put in charge of divisions comprising GS15 veterans of 20 years experience, but all in all it is by far the best government run organization I've worked for.

The UK scientific civil service has similar problems in that for generic management roles they are paid fairly well for high end technical skills not so much.

Even worse once you get into roles for the TLA's - it will end up like the 30's where the only people that the security services could recruit where those with private incomes or ex military on pensions.

Do the military "cyberwarriors" even have local admin rights on their machines? Do they have the education necessary to think about systems and vulnerabilities and the requisite leeway to use that knowledge, or are they (as I would guess) "highly trained," where "trained" means "good at following a set of procedures"?

I'm not knocking that as part of military culture. I want the people in control of weapons and aircraft, etc. to be great at following orders and the procedures they were trained to follow, and do little else. The ICMB fleet is not a place for improvisation.

But computer security is. It's a creativity-driven field that moves quickly, evolves hourly, and requires intellectual agility. I would imagine that from a locked-down, out-of-date OS with a years-long procurement cycle to buy third-rate software from huge, blundering contractors and no leeway to try new things on a whim, it would be impossible to beat a team of educated, unencumbered civilians in a field like this.

Of course, that's just a caricature of military culture that I'm imagining, but can anyone speak to this?

They have argued and lost because the big picture military only cares about PT tests, marksmanship, and hair cuts. No one important enough to change policy understands how computers work.

For years there was debate between the weightlifters and the runners in Air Force leadership over the best way to ensure a fit force. The runners won, which is why a waist measurement is now included in the PT standards.

That does describe what is expected of military members in combat operations, so it isn't like the military shouldn't be able to apply that philosophy to this area.

I would think the issue is that the "cyberwarfare" group is new and so is being run like an ordinary technical unit, which means procedures and process out the ears and limited flexibility. The military could easily free them of that and let the unit run itself like a special operations unit.

Isn't the tactical playbook set On High? Obviously you need to react to a changing situation in combat, but wouldn't the standard responses to various situations be planned/tested/approved and then turned into training material by some central authority? Or is that sort of thing more up to officers in the field?

The Soviet military used that system, including algorithms to determine which tactical approach to apply. Western military's have long focused on small unit initiative and rewarding novel tactics. A wartime military is the ultimate meritocracy.

Even in WWI, which is often stereotyped as stupid generals sending men walking into machine gun fire, there was a huge amount of tactical innovation from the lower levels (by 1917 they had developed the small unit tactics we still use today).

They should be used to gain physical access to hardware and people, for the purpose of applying the xkcd decryption heuristic[1]. Leave the hacking to the experts.

[1] http://xkcd.com/538/

Not all Soldiers are incompetent. Some of the most brilliant people I've met are people that I met while I was in the Army. China has created numerous units that focus on offensive hacking, and they are wildly successful.

Now, to clarify, I'm not saying that we should have troops performing cyber attacks, I'm just saying that it isn't necessarily an endeavor that's doomed to failure. You seem to be making the assumption that people in the military can't be as good at something as a civilian. That's simply not true. There is a lot of talent in the Army, its just that the organization and its rules are making it hard to be effective.

On the other hand, while this is admittedly very anecdotal, one really obvious common thread that I see in the vast majority of great hackers I've met has been a distrust (if not borderline disdain) for authority and seemingly needless process; which I have to imagine (having never served myself) doesn't fly really well in the military.

You are right, and I am one of those people, but there are some brilliant people out there who for some strange reason I cannot comprehend, love every fucking thing about the military. There are also those of us who do feel the way you described, that stay because we foolishly think we might some day be able to make the military a better place.

Where I work now, there are lots of former military members. All of us are happy that we don't have to deal with the bureaucracy, but most of us don't regret the time we did spend in the service.

I specifically said that I wasn't advocating this as a military mission. I was just stating that if it was a military mission, the Soldiers themselves wouldn't be the reason that it fails.

>Grunts wearing camouflage sitting in front of a laptop trying to outbrain someone seems humorously perverse.

A grunt is an infantryman. Not all Soldiers are grunts. The Soldiers that work as security analysts do it as a full time job. They still have to take a couple PT tests each year and qualify once or twice a year with an M16, but they spend most of their time doing their job.

I'm not sure how wearing camofluage affects a person's ability to use a computer? They are people like everyone else.

The biggest downside, I think? As a civilian, it is my right to walk off a job at any time. Sure, there are expectations that I'll give you some notice (and I will) but worst comes to worst? I can always walk, and the worst my employer can do is call me bad names.

In the military, those contracts? they mean something. Yeah, you can ask to be transferred around; hell, I know someone who was able to actually quit the navy half way through basic, but it was a big fucking deal.

I mean, there are advantages to the military, too. I'm not saying it's a bad choice for everyone. I'm just saying that wearing dorky pants doesn't even make the list.

The military, like most government jobs, makes a lot of sense for someone who values stability. There are plenty of skilled people that value stability over the ability to leave; I'm just not one of them.

Amusing side note, the MD5 hash of CYBERCOM's mission statement, "9ec4c12949a4f31474f299058ce2b22a", is to my knowledge the only hash emblazoned on an agency seal.

Also, if you were an officer, how willing would you be to trust a hacker from another agency, if you didn't have someone you trusted to vet their advice?

There'd also be concerns about red tape. If a low ranking officer isn't sure about something, can they put in a tech support ticket to a three letter agency?

I say that flippantly, but I mean that quite seriously. With the amount of resources available to the US military, I see no reason why they should constrain themselves to only a subset of capabilities, especially if the one they're cutting is less capital-intensive.

I absolutely agree that the "$5 wrench algorithm" is a rational choice for the military to pursue: not only is it more available to them than to other organizations, it also aligns more closely with some of their existing core competencies. But that doesn't need to, and shouldn't be, pursued to the exclusion of other approaches.

Can you imagine the difference in reaction if we sent door-kickers on the ground to Natanz and smashed the Iranian centrifuges, rather than using Stuxnet?

The problem here is that there is a fundamental tension between hacking (or "advanced penetration testing" or "ethical hacking" or whatever) and the structure of the military.

The military relies upon rules and procedures to accomplish repeatable tasks at massive scale. Hacking is an individual or small collective endeavor that involves non-linear thinking and creative leaps.

Right now, they're trying to figure out how to work around that tension, and all we're seeing now are the early tests.

The uniformed forces might have hackers, sure. The Coast Guard has heavy machine guns, but the US doesn't rely on them for naval defence - it's also got a whole other force (the Navy) which can do the heavy lifting.

If the Army doesn't have hackers to win cyber wars, it has hackers because it's a huge organisation that needs internal cyber security expertise.

First, you have to find it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_Cyber

That says it all there, written by the navy times. Seems like there is a bit of a culture problem, and the perception of tech people by the regular army/navy/whatever.

Apparently, anyone with deep technical skills in hacking computer systems is either a corporate drone, or a hippie.

Those who wear tie dye and jeans see them as suits and ties.

The specific culture or technical requirements of network technology efficacy will/has end/ed up in a more mixed agency such as the NSA or DIA(redux).

There are a lot of "hackers" in the DOD, as others have said they usually do not stay, but some do. The reason they seem like unicorns is because they usually end up working in the non cat video sector.

I'm curious if reservists deemed to have critical skills would be called upon to act beyond an amount comfortable for them, considering that they typically already have full-time day jobs as mentioned in the article.

Yes, that is certainly possible. The whole "1 weekend a month, 2 week a year" thing died with the World Trade Center. While Reserve units certainly try to maximize flexibility to try from interfering with their reservists work balance, getting called up unexpectedly (even for a period of months) is not that unusual if/when shit hits the fan somewhere.

Do they have a choice in the matter? I'm just curious because here in the U.S. companies are obligated to hold your position for you until you get back.

They have discussed making it mandatory for employers to give paid leave to TA members for annual training.

I know a reservist that got deployed for several months, so it isn't like it isn't heard of.