Security News > 2011 > January > Re: DISA creates DMZ to boost security on unclassified network
Forwarded from: Richard Forno This is the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Apart from the fact this article reads like a DISA press release, are they really proud of the fact the agency is rolling out a network DMZ as a security design? Is this so groundbreaking in nature, even bt government standards, that it must be spoken of in such awed terms by the quoted DISA representatives? The way they're talking, you'd think they never heard of the DMZ concept in network design until recently and they're thusly excited about the concept. Seriously? I absolutely howled when the article quotes the DISA CIAE: ".... the DMZ concept â which he said will be re-named "Project Lightning" because âDMZ is the worst name possibleâ â emerged from combatant commandersâ need to take mission risks without putting other commands and leaders at risk." Reading that, I have to wonder if they're worried that some analyst somewhere in DOD or the USG will hear panicked and breathless alerts about how "someone is hitting our DMZ!!!" and think that North Korea was invading the South, thereby sounding the alarm and launching us into World War III. Since the primary other term for "DMZ" involves the geography around the 38th Parallel, after reading that quote, one wonders if this really is meant to avoid operational confusion between Cyber Command and the Korean-American Combined Forces Command. Further, DISA also is standing up the DISA Command Center, intended to "provide continuous oversight of DISAâs network and 13 subordinate regional operations centers." One has to wonder why they haven't had such a capability already given THAT IS THEIR MISSION ... but reading on, one gets the impression this 'new' organisation will be a way for DISA to retain some more bodies/positions/budgets/authorities with the closure of the JTF-GNO last year. (I'm open to comment from anyone more knowledgeable than I about the present DISA.) -- rick infowarrior.org On Jan 11, 2011, at 02:54 , InfoSec News wrote: