As one of the nation's premier national security labs and one of three nuclear weapons facilities - and after a series of high-profile security flubs -- one would think they'd go out of their way to get the facility's security act together. Apparently not.
Watchdogs at the Government Accountability Office said today that while the Los Alamos National Lab has indeed bolstered some of its cyber protection, weaknesses remain in protecting the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information on its unclassified network, among other deficiencies. LANL's unclassified network contains sensitive information, such as unclassified controlled nuclear information, export control information, and personally identifiable information about laboratory employees.
Some specifics of the report include:
In addition to it previous recommendation, the GAA said it made an additional 41 recommendations that it did not pubically disseminate.
Layer 8 in a box
Check out these other hot stories:
Researchers look to root out those annoying Wi-Fi dead zones
NASA unleashes rubber ducks to battle global warming
Deficit remains but US exports $214B worth of high-tech goods in 2007
Robot fights set to smack-down in Texas
NASA banging, freezing next generation space telescope into shape
GAO report torches US for dumping electric waste in foreign countries
Layer 8 is Network World's daily home for the not-just-networking news.
Contact Layer 8
Layer 8 archive![]()
The opinions expressed in this Weblog are those of the writer and may not represent the opinions of Network World.
|
|
Security equals IT?
Doesn't really matter which institution or corporate it is, security management has gone very weird! I understand that this is a very limited computer forum but security is much more than just IT or some tools and toys!
Security can never be solved by IT or any other, mostly technology based, function. Security is an abstract, a strategy, blah, blah..
Technology is easy - sorry, fighting it over 35 years, but trying to use some tools and toys, which in itself can help!, can not solve the basic problems.
So - this seems again as a power / political fight in name of security. Seen many of those, none ever solved anything or gave us more "security" (a note - define security) just more complications and, unfortunately often, less security!
Easy to throw rocks, let's see how you stand up to a GAO Audit
I'd love to see anyone actually pass a GAO audit while trying to actually allow scientists to work. As is alluded to with the Nuclear Weapons Laboratory tag, Los Alamos National Laboratory is a Research Laboratory. While many places do research, few are bound to the level of reporting and security that Los Alamos is. It's easy to lock down a computer where all the owner does is run email, office applications, and even standard off-the-shelf applications. Los Alamos could easily crank out this kind of system and pass any audit thrown at them. However, securing a massively parrallel clustered system with over 2000 discrete servers run in-house developed code, much of it and the data it produces is classified, and trying to force that system into a standard Windows security configuration meant for an everyday corporate security plan does not work. Sure it will fail an audit. Additionally, the more controls that are forced on us, the harder it is for the scientists to get their work done. If LANL's goal is to run computers for the sake of running them, security is easy. If, on the other hand, LANL's goal is to produce world-class science, they will need to be able to do things nobody has done before. Things will need to be done that preclude a standard Enterprise security model. It's unfortunate that most of the people making the security rules have no clue what good secure practices would be when applied to an experimental environment.
Post new comment