Talk:United States Cyber Command

Service components

What is Army Forces Cyber Command? Are there any references on it? Rbcwa (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No idea, removed. Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reference on 7th Signal Command or INSCOM being the Army component to USCYBERCOM? Rbcwa (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Both units seem to have a cyber security mission. I have no reference for either, technically you could remove them. While this command is technically active, there is very little information on it yet. Actually, now that I think about it, JTF-GNO could go in the list. I could call NSA and ask, but I am of course reluctant to do so... Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

JTF-GNO is still part of USSTRATCOM and run largely by DISA as far as I can tell. JTF-NW, also a creature of USSTRATCOM, is buried in NSA somewhere. Those two are not really service components, but joint task forces reporting to USSTRATCOM. They are more like ancestors to USCYBERCOM that will be merged into USCYBERCOM at some point.

The key to the Army service component is the OPCON. The Army command that is OPCON to USCYBERCOM is sure to be the Army component. I'm not sure that kind of reporting relationship exists yet. I thought the 9'th Signal Command was going to be it, but that seems to be an interim arrangement at most. If you can dig up some kind of publicly releasable document saying that some Army command is OPCON to USCYBERCOM, that would be it.

I have been keeping my ear to the ground for United States Army Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC) involvement. They were reportedly at the Cyberspace Operations Symposium Oct. 27-30 at Fort Leavenworth. If they were chosen to be the Army major command for the cyber mission and a subordinate cyber command were created or moved under them, that would look a lot like what the Air Force did with Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) and the 24th Air Force. The 24th Air Force appears to be ADCON to AFSPC and OPCON to USCYBERCOM. SMDC already has relationships with USSTRATCOM, so this kind of arrangement in the Army sounds plausible, though unproven. Rbcwa (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have a thread on the goarmy forums. If I find anything, I'll see if I can find some documentation. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope that doesn't happen, US Cyber really needs to be outside of the normal chain of command, as far as I can see, adding commands over it will have an effect on joint exercises, and add unnecessary red tape, IMHO. Sephiroth storm (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If you mean the ADCON, of Army Cyber Forces Command to some Army command, that will surely be there. It's just they way things are done. 10'th Fleet is ADCON to CNO (N2/N6). 24'th Air Force appears to be ADCON to AFSPC. It would be no surprise to me if Army Forces Cyber Command/(9th Signal?) is OPCON to USCYBERCOM and ADCON to SMDC or Army Staff G6. This is all wild speculation on my part. I've seen no reference that verifies any of this. Rbcwa (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the ball has been moved down the court a little bit with the Army. A Lieutenant General is being discussed as the head of the Army cyber component.

Rbcwa, any idea if Naval Network Warfare Command will have any part in CYBERCOM? Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

They will report to 10th Fleet from what I understand. Rbcwa (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, cool. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

DC3

Will CYBERCOM have any effect on DC3? I say this because of the Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force - Analytical Group (NCIJTF-AG). Sephiroth storm (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, accept for sharing technical resources from time to time. DC3 looks very oriented toward cyber crime, while USCYBERCOM is going to be focused on network defense/offense operations. That's my guess. Rbcwa (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Logo must be wrong?

This is the same logo as the United_States_Strategic_Command -- is there some error? Should I remove it?--Asdfg12345 07:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

USCYBERCOM is to be a sub-unified command of USSTRATCOM. It's correct in that sense. To my knowledge, there is no official emblem for the command. I guess the USSTRATCOM emblem was substituted. Rbcwa (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That is correct. It's there until CYBERCOM gets its own DUI or whatnot. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Article class

I have submitted a WP:Requests for feedback on the article. While doing so, I noticed that even as the edit talk page states the article is B class, when I look at the talk page on normal view, it shows Start class under wpmilhist. It also shows start class categories. Any ideas on how to fix this? Sephiroth storm (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue was that although the class parameter in the Milhist banner had been filled out as B, the checklist had a "no" parameter in it for Criteria # 2 (Coverage). The banner is coded so that it only shows B class if all 5 criteria have the "yes" parameter. I've fixed this for you now. Before taking the article to ACR, I have a couple of suggestions. I've made a few WP:MOS tweaks, but other improvements would be to format the References with the {{cite web}} template as that will give it a cleaner a look. Also, could the lead be expanded a little. The Military history project also has a peer review department here: WP:MHPR — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to the RFF. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/Archive/26#United_States_Cyber_Command. Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Command motto

I guess it's no surprise that the U.S. Cyber Command motto is encrypted. We are talking about the NSA after all. I guess the challenge is for somebody to extract the plain text. Any takers?

Well, IMO, it could be a motto or it could be simply part of the logo. When I googled it yesterday I came on this https://isc.sans.edu//tools/reversehash.html, which hasn't been solved yet, and im no cryptologist. Sephiroth storm (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The reverse hash calculator is calling it a md5 hash. An example of a really good password? Rbcwa (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible. It is a 32bit output. Tried several online crackers yesterday, no luck. Some how i'm not surprised. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It's just the md5 hash of their mission statement. fintler (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I just added a note of this and fixed up the problems in the mission statement. fintler (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Verification of emblem hash

To the person who posted a comment in the article that it's not the md5 sum: here's the command I'm using (on mac os x) to generate it:

haven:~ fintler$ echo -n "USCYBERCOM plans, coordinates, integrates, synchronizes and conducts activities to: direct the operations and defense of specified Department of Defense information networks and; prepare to, and when directed, conduct full spectrum military cyberspace operations in order to enable actions in all domains, ensure US/Allied freedom of action in cyberspace and deny the same to our adversaries."|md5
9ec4c12949a4f31474f299058ce2b22a
haven:~ fintler$ 

fintler (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The MD5 summation works on Ubuntu or other versions of Linux, too; substitute "md5sum" for "md5" at the end of the command string.—Quicksilver^{T @} 02:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You can also use openssl. I added an echo of the expected hash for comparison:

echo -n "USCYBERCOM plans, coordinates, integrates, synchronizes and conducts activities to: direct the operations and defense of specified Department of Defense information networks and; prepare to, and when directed, conduct full spectrum military cyberspace operations in order to enable actions in all domains, ensure US/Allied freedom of action in cyberspace and deny the same to our adversaries." | openssl dgst -md5 -hex ;echo "9ec4c12949a4f31474f299058ce2b22a"

Rbcwa (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, in the linked fact sheet the statement differs for a comma after "syncronizes", which leads to a completely different hash: 98e1259d50ef66ddf1c6f443f8a86ec5 --IlMoppe (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Not only a comma, but also a hyphen in "full-spectrum" 193.9.13.135 (talk) 09:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess an oxford alumni must of designed the website. ;-) 98.225.174.197 (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Despite the html comment not to edit the quote, I fixed it after it was broken in 2016. Widefox; talk 19:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Logo code

Embedded in the logo is the code 9ec4c12949a4f31474f299058ce2b22a Wired.com asked its readers to find its meaning. Source : http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/07/solve-the-mystery-code-in-cyber-commands-logo 195.184.159.145 (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It has no "meaning". The hexadecimal string is the MD5 sum or "hash" of the U.S. CYBERCOM mission statement. (See comment by user fintler, in "Verification of emblem hash", above.) MD5 hashing is a one-way process; having the MD5 sum does not enable one to work backwards to recover the data set from which the sum was created. The quoted sources in the Wired article are uninformed and/or misguided.—Quicksilver^{T @} 02:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Your statement is misleading. I know you know what you're talking about, but for anyone who doesn't: While you can't work backwards to recover the data that created a sum, you can crack a sum with rainbow tables which, in layman's terms, use guess and check, working FORWARD toward the MD5 hash rather than backward from it.--98.232.103.12 (talk) 09:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Cyber Command website external link

As https://www.cybercom.mil/ U.S. Cyber Command website is a restricted website so what is it doing in the external links section? As I understand it wikipedia sources are not permitted for websites than require payment or a password joining situation. Need clarification for all this. Perhaps the link better belongs in the article space with a mention that it's under restricted access. Wlmg (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a source, its an External link. However, I will review WP:EL and make appropriate changes if necessary. Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:ELOFFICIAL states that: "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking. For example, although links to websites that require readers to register or pay to view content are normally not acceptable in the External links section, such a link may be included when it is an official website for the subject." it also states that "Official websites may be included in some infoboxes, and by convention are listed first in the External links section." Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Mission / CNA and STO

The only solid public reference I found for Computer Network Attack (CNA) and Special Technical Operations (STO) is CJCSI3141.01D, a JPEC level document which dates from 2008. It appears that USCYBERCOM inherited the CNA/STO tasking from JFCC-NW. Is anyone aware of a public document that cites USCYBERCOM picking it up? I haven't found it yet. Perhaps we should pull the CNA/STO text if it's not verifiable Rbcwa (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't we have a statement that offensive actions fall to INSCOM? While not specifying CNA/STO, it could be reasonably inferred, as well as from the unit mission statement. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

CNA and STO are obviously cyber, and surely under U.S. Cyber Command as a result. It's just that there is little to reference the terminology against. I don't think that mentioning CNA and STO adds much to the article. I think most people will get that cyber actions fall under the command. It seems to me that having CNA/STO might make the article less accessible to non-specialists, though the specialists are rightly proud to know it. Rbcwa (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I have not heard the term STO. Sephiroth storm (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let's wait a few days and see if anyone else comments. Rbcwa (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

GEN Alexander Quote

The article quotes GEN Alexander as saying: "My own view is that the only way to counteract both criminal and espionage activity online is to be proactive. If the U.S. is taking a formal approach to this, then that has to be a good thing. The Chinese are viewed as the source of a great many attacks on western infrastructure and just recently, the U.S. electrical grid. If that is determined to be an organized attack, I would want to go and take down the source of those attacks. The only problem is that the Internet, by its very nature, has no borders and if the U.S. takes on the mantle of the world's police; that might not go down so well."

But, this is unsourced and I have been unable to find any confirmation. It is not in his Senate confirmation, either the written remarks or the transcript. If we can't find a source for this quote, recommend removing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.137.77.191 (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, but the source provided for this quote confirms that the quote is not from him:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8033440.stm

The full quote reads as follows:

Self defence A separate document, from the US Air Force's chief information officer Lt Gen William Shelton, said the US relies heavily on industry efforts to respond to cyber threats which, he says, "does not keep pace with the threat". US Airman and computer control panel The proposed digital warfare force would be based in Maryland Peter Wood, operations chief with First Base Technologies and an expert in cyber-warfare, said that the US were entirely within their rights to protect themselves. "My own view is that the only way to counteract both criminal and espionage activity online is to be proactive. If the US is taking a formal approach to this, then that has to be a good thing. "The Chinese are viewed as the source of a great many attacks on western infrastructure and, just recently, the US national grid. If that is determined to be an organised attack, I would want to go and take down the source of those attacks," he said. "The only problem is that the internet - by its very nature - has no borders and if the US takes on the mantle of the world's police; that might not go down so well."

Clearly, the Alexander's uote did not come from him, but from Peter Wood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.14.122.149 (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Then feel free to remove it or attribute it correctly. Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

stop changing that md5 string

Its the right md5 string dudes i just tried it myself on cain and abel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.115.204 (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

MD5 hash of Mission Statement

The hash in the emblem is clearly 9ec4c12949a4f31474f299058ce2b22a, but in the article it's listed as dbdc00d1ded342868d45012b5164e83e. I notice a discussion point above mine here about it, but it doesn't say which way round he's objecting to it being changed. Can we reach an agreement on what should be in the article? I believe it should be as it is in the emblem (9ec4c12949a4f31474f299058ce2b22a). If CYBERCOM have changed their mission statement, then we ought to make note of that in the article too, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.20.129 (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Concerns section

I am a little concerned that the "Concerns" section is overly long and unfocused. Either it should be subdivided into specific concerns, or the information should be integrated into the rest of the article. --Bejnar (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Organization section

I am distressed that the "Organization" section does not discuss organization, but seems instead to just compile military units on the one hand and MOS's on the other. I have added the subsection on Cyber Teams from the Command's Special Report 0415 on Cyber-Strategy, but I think that overall the section needs to be rethought. --Bejnar (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

off grid cyber base

We need to create an off the grid cyber tech company, if they don't know it exist they (foreign And domestic cyber attackers) can't defend against it. Just a thought. Cyber FADS will be my company name Keep Evolving! God Bless! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B8CA:2A10:C9AF:BF04:DDD7:A61B (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)