S. Hrg. 107-366: Improving Our Ability to Fight Cybercrime: Oversight of the National Infrastructure Protection Center: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Seventh Congress, First Session, July 25, 2001 [open pdf - 2MB]
From the opening statement of Dianne Feinstein: "This hearing will be on a GAO report, General Accounting Office report, on the National Infrastructure Protection Center, or NIPC...as it is called for short. NIPC is the leading Government body that combats cyber crime and cyber terrorism. So this Subcommittee hearing will actually cover all three parts of the Subcommittee's name--Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information. NIPC, which was founded only a few years ago, has a broad mission to prevent, to warn against, to analyze, and to respond to cyber attacks. However, many experts, both within and without Government and the private sector, have suggested that NIPC has not fulfilled its mission. Critics have argued that it has done a poor job at analyzing and warning against cyber threats and attacks. Second, while NIPC was intended to be an interagency organization, critics have contended that the FBI has dominated the NIPC and has done a poor job coordinating with other Federal agencies in fighting cyber crime. Third, critics have suggested that NIPC has not done a good at ensuring information sharing between it and private sector and Government entities. [The GAO] report, which is right here, generally confirms problems identified by the critics of NIPC. First, the report finds that, while NIPC has issued many analyses of individual incidents, it hasn't done a good job at developing strategic analysis of threat and vulnerability data. This is because of NIPC's failure to adopt a methodology to analyze strategic cyber threats, lack of adequate staff expertise, and an absence of sufficient industry-specific data on vulnerabilities. The result has been confusion about NIPC's role and responsibilities. The report also finds that the NIPC has not done enough to establish information-sharing and cooperative relationships with the private sector and other Government agencies. The report also concludes that NIPC has generally done good investigative field work. However, it points out they still need additional resources and new procedures to ensure that information flows more efficiently from the field to NIPC." Statements, letters, and material submitted for the record include those of the following: Dianne Feinstein, Charles E. Grassley, Orrin G. Hatch, Jon Kyl, Eugene F. Gorzelink and Taher Elgamal.
S. Hrg. 107-366; Senate Hearing 107-366; Serial No. J-107-22