Advanced search    Help

Clear all search criteria

Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).

• Joint Economic Committee Report on New Security Challenges and Strategies

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  Over the years, the Joint Economic Committee has investigated a wide range of threats to the United States and its economy. The committee has consistently identified emerging issues including radio frequency weapons, bioterrorism, information warfare, espionage, technology transfers, transnational crime, and weapons proliferation. We continued that course in June 2001 with a hearing entitled, "Wired World: Cyber Security and the U.S. Economy." Following this hearing, it became clear that we needed to better understand an increasingly complicated set of diffuse security threats. Senator Bennett volunteered to identify individuals whose perspectives about critical infrastructure protection would be of value to the Congress and compile a study. Computer networks connect and control everything from pipelines to stock exchanges. At a speech given on March 23, 2001, to the Partnership for Critical Infrastructure of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Condoleeza Rice, United States National Security Advisor said, "Today, the cyber economy is the economy. . . . Corrupt those networks and you disrupt this nation." The September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon make it clear that we must be better aware of our vulnerabilities and develop viable strategies to detect, deter, and counter both physical and cyber-based threats to our people and our infrastructures. This compendium represents a range of perspectives on infrastructure protection, from definitions and strategies to business challenges and policy actions. I thank Senator Bennett for his efforts and the authors for sharing their expertise.

  United States. Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office

  2002-05-29
• 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

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  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.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2002
• Critical Infrastructure Protection: Significant Challenges in Developing Analysis, Warning, and Response Capabilities, Statement of Robert F. Dacey, Director, Information Security Issues, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  To better protect the nation's critical computer-dependent infrastructures from computer-based attacks and disruption, the President issued a directive in 1998 that established the National Infrastructure Protection Center as a national focal point for gathering information on threats and facilitating the federal government's response to computer-based incidents. This testimony discusses the center's progress in (1) developing national capabilities for analyzing cyber threat and vulnerability data and issuing warnings, (2) enhancing its capabilities for responding to cyber attacks, and (3) developing outreach and information-sharing initiatives with government and private-sector entities. GAO found that although the center has taken some steps to develop analysis and warning capabilities, the strategic capabilities described in the presidential directive have not been achieved. By coordinating investigations and providing technical assistance the center has provided important support that has improved the Federal Bureau of Investigations' ability to investigate computer crimes. The center has also developed crisis management procedures and drafted an emergency law enforcement sector plan, which is now being reviewed by sector members. The center's information-sharing relationships are still evolving and will probably have limited effectiveness until reporting procedures and thresholds are defined and trust relationships are established. This testimony summarized an April 2001 report (GAO-01-323).

  United States. General Accounting Office

  2001-05-22
• Critical Infrastructure Protection: Significant Challenges in Developing National Capabilities, Report to the Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  To better protect the nation's critical computer-dependent infrastructures from computer-based attacks and disruption, the President issued Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 63 in 1998. The directive established the National Infrastructure Protection Center as a national focal point for gathering information on threats and facilitating the federal government's response to computer-based incidents. This report evaluates the center's progress in (1) developing national capabilities for analyzing cyber threat and vulnerability data and issuing warnings, (2) enhancing its capabilities for responding to cyber attacks, and (3) developing outreach and information-sharing initiatives with government and private-sector entities. GAO found that although the center has taken some steps to develop analysis and warning capabilities, the strategic capabilities described in PDD 63 have not been achieved. The center has provided important support to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's investigations of computer crimes by coordinating investigations and providing technical assistance. The center has also developed crisis management procedures and drafted an emergency law enforcement sector plan, which is now being reviewed by sector members. The center's information-sharing relationships are still evolving and will probably have limited effectiveness until reporting procedures and thresholds are defined and trust relationships are established.

  United States. General Accounting Office

  2001-04-25
• S. Hrg. 106-839: Cyber Attacks: Removing Roadblocks to Investigation and Information Sharing: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Sixth Congress, Second Session on Examining the Incidence of Cyber Attacks on the Nation's Information Systems, Focusing on Removing Roadblocks to Investigation and Information Sharing, March 28, 2000

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the opening statement of Jon Kyl: "Today, we will examine various roadblocks to the protection of our information systems from cyber attack. Using the recent denial of service attacks as a backdrop, we will discuss some of the things that inhibit swift investigation and prosecution of cyber crimes, and the sharing of vulnerability and threat information among the private sector and with organizations affiliated with the Federal Government." Statements, letters, and material submitted for the record include those of the following: Jon Kyl, Dianne Feinstein, Charles E. Schumer, Patrick J. Leahy, Loius J. Freeh, Harris N. Miller, Richard D. Pethia, and Charles E. Schumer.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2001
• Serial No. 106-252: Computer Security: Cyber Attacks-War Without Borders: Hearing before the Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations of the Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives, One Hundred Sixth Congress, Second Session, July 26, 2000

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  Serial No. 106-252: The Opening Statement of Chairman Stephen Horn regarding Computer Security provides an overview on Cyber Attacks: "In the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Departments of Commerce and Defense all have a role in tracking and investigating cyber attacks. Many other agencies and private organizations also track and share this critical information. Other countries also have law enforcement agencies and organizations set up to investigate and share cyber attack information. But among the variety of players, who is coordinating an efficient, effective response to this international problem? Today, we will examine the challenges of coordinating these cyber attack investigations. Our witnesses represent cyber crime investigation units in several countries, including the United States. They will discuss their experiences. There is a great need for a sharing of these experiences daily, weekly and at least monthly. Alliances such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization should work together if we will be able to win these cyber wars." Statements, letters, and materials for the record include those of the following: Roger Molander, John Pescatore, Richard C. Schaeffer, Jr., Mario Balakgie, Jack Brock, John T. Spotila, Michael Vatis, Juris Reksna, Stefan Kronqvist, Juergen Maurer, Elfren L. Meneses, Jr., Ohad Genis, Edgar A. Adamson, Thomas M. Davis, Stephen Horn, Stefan Kronqvist, Elfren L. Meneses, Jr., and Jim Turner.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2001
• Industrial College of the Armed Forces: Industry Studies 2001: Financial Services

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  The US financial services industry is an important contributor to the economic power of the nation. The industry is in excellent health -- well capitalized, dynamic, and innovative. Recent legislative changes have altered the structure of the industry by allowing banks, insurance companies, and securities dealers to consolidate into large "financial holding companies" that cut across industry sectors. US financial services firms are also positioning to compete here and abroad with international firms. Advances in information technology continue to provide opportunities for firms to increase business and customer service, but also create an industry risk in the form of cyber crime. The industry will continue to be competitive, but profitable, and will remain well positioned to support continued US leadership in the global economy.

  Industrial College of the Armed Forces (U.S.)

  2001
• Cyberterrorism and Computer Crimes: Issues Surrounding the Establishment of an International Legal Regime

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  In its broadest sense, information warfare includes such time-honored and accepted practices as deception and misdirection, long recognized as legal ruses under the law of war and surely not the proper subjects of treaty limitation. The international community has long decried terrorism even though that community has been unable to agree on what is encompassed by the term. Domestically, terrorism is defined under two separate statutory sections both requiring violence or the threat to or taking of human life for political ends. Such a definition excludes the vast number of information attacks, otherwise denominated as terroristic, which would only result in large-scale financial losses, electrical power grid shutdowns, or mass chaos caused by the manipulation or destruction of information databases. Even the definition of computer crime has been hard to pin down. The Department of Justice has defined it as broadly as "any violations of criminal law that involve a knowledge of computer technology for their perpetration, investigation or prosecution." But certainly as prosecutors and law enforcement investigative units become increasingly technological, computer technology will be employed in the prosecution and/or investigation of virtually any crime. A new cyber crime treaty could help provide the basis for criminalizing the vast array of cyber offenses that do not cleanly fit within traditional crimes. It would also aid extraditions by overcoming the dual criminality problem. Even more importantly, a new treaty could establish agreed principles of enforcement jurisdiction to enable law enforcement to more quickly, easily, and legally obtain the evidence necessary for the prosecution of cyber crimes and information terrorism.

  USAF Institute for National Security Studies

  Aldrich, Richard W., 1959-

  2000-04
• Cybercrime: Can a Small Business Protect Itself, Forum before the Committee on Small Business, United States Senate, One Hundred Sixth Congress, Second Session, March 9, 2000

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the opening statement of Hon. Christopher S. Bond, "Nine months ago this Committee held a forum on e-Commerce and its potential to allow a small business to compete successfully against its giant competitors. At that forum we outlined some of the obstacles to success in this dynamic market. The goal of this forum is to raise awareness of CyberCrime and to generate a dialogue between law enforcement and the small business community. According to a study by the University of Texas, e-Commerce accounted for the creation of 1.2 million jobs and $300 billion in revenue in 1998 alone. We all recognize what an astonishing growth pattern that is and the pace of it is truly remarkable. What is even more impressive is a recent Forrester Research study concluded that in January 2000 alone there was $2.8 billion in online retail sales, greater than the total $2.4 billion of retail sales for the entire year of 1997. We expect growth in this area to continue with increasingly more business being conducted via the Internet, both through e-retail and through more conventional business-to-business e-Commerce. With such expanded business activity, however, come new threats that we must address. A prime example is computer crime." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Christopher S. Bond, John F. Kerry, Conrad Burns, Paul Conlon, Damon Dozier, Joan Neptune, Mary Riley, Scott Charney, Roger Farnsworth, Mary Ellen Bahret, Richard Barton, Charles H. DeBow, III, Marty Duggan, Jere W. Glover, Vernoica Jacques, Mark Keam, Rick Lane, James Morrison, Matthew Page, Maritza Rivera, Abe Schneier, Anthony R. Wilkinson.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2000
• S. Hrg. 106-486: Cyber Attack: Is the Government Safe? Hearing before the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Sixth Congress, Second Session, March 2, 2000

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the opening statement of Fred Thompson: "The Committee on Governmental Affairs is holding this hearing on the ability of the Federal Government to protect against and respond to potential cyber attacks. This Committee spent considerable time during the last Congress examining the state of Federal Government information systems. Numerous Governmental Affairs Committee hearings and General Accounting Office reports uncovered and identified systemic failures of government information systems, which highlighted our Nation's vulnerability to computer attacks from international and domestic terrorists, to crime rings, to everyday hackers. S. 1993 begins where the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 left off. These laws and the Computer Security Act of 1987 provide the basic framework for managing information security. The proponents of this bill recognize that these are not the only things that need to be done. Some have suggested we provide specific standards in the legislation. Others have recommended we establish a new position of a national chief information officer or even a national security czar. These things should be considered and these issues and more will be brought up during our hearing today." Statements, letters, and material submitted for the record include those of the following: Fred Thompson, Joseph I. Lieberman, Daniel K. Akaka, Susan M. Collins, John Edwards, James Adams, Jack L. Brock, Jr., Roberta L. Gross, Kevin Mitnick, Kenneth Watson, and a copy of S. 1993.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2000
• Information Infrastructure Group Report (1999)

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  Since the last meeting of the President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) in September 1998, the Information Infrastructure Group (IIG) has concentrated its efforts on several issues related to information assurance and infrastructure protection: global information infrastructure (GII), transportation information infrastructure risks, electronic commerce (EC), cyber crime, and Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 63. This report captures the efforts of the IIG through the current cycle. The NSTAC XXII IIG members are listed in Annex A. The IIG's current charge is outlined in this report.

  United States. President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee

  1999-06
• Information Infrastructure Group Report (1997)

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This report presents the findings and recommendations of the following subgroups within the NSTAC: Financial Services Risk Assessment Subgroup, Transportation Risk Assessment Subgroup, Cyber Crime Subgroup, Information Assurance Policy Subgroup, and Information Systems Security Board. Also listed in Annex A are the IIG Members.

  United States. President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee

  1997-12
• Rise of the Mobile State: Organized Crime in the 21st century

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Organized crime is a growth industry both within and outside the U.S. The fragmented global political environment has served to abet its growth. In the U.S. alone, organized crime is said to gross more than $200 billion annually. No nation is immune from its tentacles. Security experts fear that the international crime syndicates are, increasingly, going high-tech. In large part, capitalizing on the implements of the IT revolution." This paper addresses the advances made in cyber-crime by organized crime families.

  National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S.)

  Bequai, August

  1996-10-22
• ABA Cybersecurity Legal Task Force [website]

  Show summary     Open resource [html]     (open full abstract)

  The purpose of this web page is to provide legal insight into cybersecurity issues based on the American Bar Association's [ABA] current resources. The ABA has compiled its cyber-resources into a singular entity now represented by a task force which aims to provide legal and policy aid on issues surrounding cyber policy, crime, and threats. The task force has created a mission statement with clear objectives outlined in the following list: "(1) Facilitate collaboration and information exchange among constituent ABA entities and with relevant public agencies and private organizations; (2) Serve as a clearinghouse among ABA entities regarding cybersecurity activities, policy proposals, advocacy, publications and resources; (3) Study and analyze executive and legislative branch cybersecurity proposals; (4) Identify cyber-related issues for appropriate action by the ABA, including filling gaps in policy, encouraging ABA entities to develop new policy as appropriate, and sharing best practices with members and their law firms; and (5) Advise and assist the ABA Governmental Affairs Office on cybersecurity advocacy and responses to government actions.

  American Bar Association
• Incident Response and Planning Strategies When Notifying Law Enforcement

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "As cyber incidents rapidly spread across the nation's financial and critical infrastructure an effective response requires close coordination from multiple stakeholders affected by the incident. The purpose of this document is to provide insight from the United States Secret Service Electronic Crimes Task Force on law enforcement's response as a stakeholder investigating cyber intrusions. Although there are a number of previously published incident response resources (articles, brochures, manuals and other printed materials, etc.) readily available, we are simply providing steps to consider when notifying law enforcement. A well-defined and organized response to a cyber incident requires a team effort. Getting the right people involved is essential to properly responding, coordinating, mitigating, and investigating your incident. Although law enforcement is just one of several stakeholders needed for a response strategy, our objective is to assist with the prevention, detection, and aggressive investigation of attacks on our nation's financial and critical infrastructures. The following three steps are intended to guide organizations when notifying law enforcement."

  United States. Secret Service
• DoD Cyber Crime Center [website]

  Show summary     Open resource [html]     (open full abstract)

  "The Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center (DC3) sets standards for digital evidence processing, analysis, and diagnostics for any DoD [Department of Defense] investigation that requires computer forensic support to detect, enhance, or recover digital media, including audio and video. The center assists in criminal, counterintelligence, counterterrorism, and fraud investigations of the Defense Criminal Investigative Organizations (DCIOs) and DoD counterintelligence activities. It also supports safety investigations and Inspector General and commander-directed inquiries. DC3 aids in meeting intelligence community document exploitation objectives from a criminal law enforcement forensics and counterintelligence perspective. DC3 provides computer investigation training to forensic examiners, investigators, system administrators, and any other DoD members who must ensure Defense information systems are secure from unauthorized use, criminal and fraudulent activities, and foreign intelligence service exploitation. DC3 remains on the leading edge of computer technologies and techniques through research, development, testing, and evaluation applied to digital evidence processing and computer forensic analysis; and by partnering with governmental, academic, and private industry computer security officials."

  United States. Department of Defense
• Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) [website]

  Show summary     Open resource [html]     (open full abstract)

  "The IC3 [Internet Crime Complaint Center] was established as a partnership between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C) to serve as a means to receive Internet related criminal complaints and to further research, develop, and refer the criminal complaints to federal, state, local, or international law enforcement and/or regulatory agencies for any investigation they deem to be appropriate. The IC3 was intended, and continues to emphasize, serving the broader law enforcement community to include federal, as well as state, local, and international agencies, which are combating Internet crime and, in many cases, participating in Cyber Crime Task Forces."

  Internet Crime Complaint Center (U.S.)
• Incorporating Sextortion into School Emergency Operations Planning

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Document: "Advances in technology such as the growth of the Internet, increased use of mobile devices, and the popularization of mobile applications, have given rise to new types of Internet-based crimes, including child pornography, identity theft, illegal access to data, and libel. As the largest group of Internet users and the segment of the population most likely to use social media (Perrin, 2015), youth are among the vulnerable populations at risk of being victimized by cyber-related crimes. Sextortion, which has been used to define crimes that occur 'when someone threatens to distribute your private and sensitive material if you don't provide them images of a sexual nature, sexual favors, or money,' (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2015) is just one of these emerging crimes. [...] The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have worked in collaboration with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) to investigate how sextortion impacts youth and to promote awareness about this emerging issue."

  Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools Technical Assistance Center (U.S.); United States. Department of Education