WASHINGTON (AP) - The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff looked on as Pentagon cyber-warriors clicked away at their laptops and showed how would-be terrorists could find his son's home address.

Army Gen. Henry Shelton then got a demonstration of how a skilled adversary might combine publicly available biographies and contractor information on military Web sites with a few well-placed phone calls to pin down the dates of highly classified nuclear exercises.

The classified briefing, held in Shelton's Pentagon office, was then given to other generals and admirals as well as senior civilians, generating a momentum that has led the military to order a massive scrub of its vast network of Internet sites.

Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre said military Web sites offered adversaries ``a potent instrument to obtain, correlate and evaluate an unprecedented volume of aggregated information'' that could, when combined with other sources of information, ``endanger Department of Defense personnel and their families.''

Instituted Dec. 7, the policy change has touched off a debate as some critics argue the Pentagon went too far in restricting the information it makes public on the Internet.

In response, defense and national security officials have become more willing to discuss, on condition of not being identified by name, the nature of the risk their detailed review of military Web sites revealed.

``There was information that was potentially tactically useful to an adversary, the kind of thing where if someone really wanted to do harm to your personnel, it could facilitate them in undertaking an attack,'' said one senior defense official working on Internet security issues. Another national security official called the briefings ``eye-openers'' that startled commanders.

The briefings stemmed from work done in 1997 and 1998 by Pentagon ``red teams,'' a term associated with a notional enemy force in war games. Team members tried to learn how much mischief they could do by skillfully scanning military Web sites, without any sophisticated hacking. They showed Shelton, himself a former special operations specialist, how his own biography posted on a military Web site combined with non-military databases could quickly lead a terrorist to the home address of one of his sons living in Florida.

The red teams found detailed maps and aerial photographs of military installations that would help anyone planning a strike or a terrorist action. These were the kinds of pictures, one senior official noted ruefully, that the United States spent billions to get during the Cold War through its spy satellite network. Now the United States was giving such imagery away for free on the Internet.

Senior officers were particularly concerned when one of the red teams was able to combine a variety of data and make highly accurate estimates about the timing of nuclear weapons drills, exercises and readiness checks, according to two senior national security officials familiar with the briefings.

Biographies of individual commanders of units likely to be involved in such operations combined with phone calls to those commanders' bases yielded information about temporary duty assignments in Nevada at installations involved in nuclear weapons handling. Military Web sites containing contractor information, particularly formal requests for bids to supply particular security equipment, helped further hone this detective work, according to the officials.

Cleaning the military Web sites of potentially dangerous information has proved a monumental task. Bill Leonard, a top Pentagon information security official, said the military was unsure initially how many Web sites it had, and even today can only provide an estimate. For a time, the Army completely closed off access to its 1,000 Web sites. Now back on line, the Army's Web sites have been substantially trimmed, as have those of the other services. Entire Internet addresses have been put off limits, with the terse message on the computer screen that information previously available has been removed for security reasons.

Some think the scrub of military Web sites has gone too far.

``This is a wartime information policy,'' said John Pike of the Federation of American Scientists, a Washington-based research group that follows military and intelligence matters. ``All kinds of program information is being withdrawn. Almost anything that discloses what an agency actually does, beyond a brief mission statement, is going away.''

The Federation is pursuing release of some of the deleted information under the Freedom of Information Act. In its filing with the Pentagon's security review office, the Federation said anything released as a result of the complaint should come in electronic form so the Federation can post the information on its Web site.

To date, the Pentagon cannot point to a specific incident where information posted on a military Web site resulted in harm to U.S. national security.

``The menacing scenarios have remained just that - only scenarios,'' according to George Smith, editor of The Crypt Newsletter, an online publication dealing with computer security.

But the Pentagon says it has solid electronic evidence that foreign countries, including some adversaries, are regular visitors to U.S. military Web sites.

Copyright 1999 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

-- Deborah (tired@bed.time), February 16, 1999

Answers

"Team members tried to learn how much mischief they could do by skillfully scanning military Web sites, without any sophisticated hacking."

Last summer while doing research on the DoD's Y2K status, I was amazed at the kind of info available on their websites I searched. Detailed info on personel, with addresses and phone numbers. It struck me as rather irresponsible from them.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 16, 1999.

Hey all,

I posted the preceeding Pentagon snippet because on an earlier thread there was discussion about military issues based upon bits and pieces of information gathered from different sources and subsequently pieced together....

"Senior officers were particularly concerned when one of the red teams was able to combine a variety of data and make highly accurate estimates about the timing of nuclear weapons drills, exercises and readiness checks, according to two senior national security officials familiar with the briefings." Snip

I thought this was interesting as well:

"`This is a wartime information policy,'' said John Pike of the Federation of American Scientists, a Washington-based research group that follows military and intelligence matters. ``All kinds of program information is being withdrawn. Almost anything that discloses what an agency actually does, beyond a brief mission statement, is going away.'' Snip Well, I can understand personal safety issues. Although, I think taking pesonal information off, is a little different than 'anything disclosing what an agency does'.

I must go drink some coffee.

-- Deborah (need@coffee.com), February 16, 1999.

My comment to the DoD ... remember ... BALANCE, in all things, guys. Someone has to watch you from the outside to see when you go over the top. The Texas stuff does it for me! -- Diane

Key article comments: ... a recent exercise focusing on the problem of data aggregation revealed that even nonintelligence professionals could easily glean sensitive information from the large volume of data available on DOD's Web sites. "It was scary how successful [the exercise] was ...

FEBRUARY 11, 1999 . . . 16:47 EST

DOD, intell community study Web access

http://www.fcw.com/pubs/fcw/1999/0208/web-dod-2-11-99.html

BY DANIEL VERTON (dan_verton@fcw.com)

The Defense Department is planning a new round of World Wide Web site security reviews in light of continuing concerns that the large volume of information available to the public on the Internet poses a significant risk to DOD operations, a senior DOD official said today.

According to Maj. Gen. John Campbell, vice director of the Defense Information Systems Agency and commander of the newly established Joint Task Force for Computer Network Defense, a recent exercise focusing on the problem of data aggregation revealed that even nonintelligence professionals could easily glean sensitive information from the large volume of data available on DOD's Web sites. "It was scary how successful [the exercise] was," Campbell said.

Speaking at a luncheon sponsored by the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association, Campbell said additional surveys of DOD Web sites are in the works, and he said recommendations for changes to Web sites will be made available to DOD organizations soon.

Capt. Catherine Burton, staff director for the DOD-wide Information Assurance Program, which provides oversight, coordination and budget guidance for all of DOD's information assurance initiatives, said DOD is working with the intelligence community to formulate recommendations on Web access and security. "We're very seriously looking at the data aggregation problem," Burton said. However, "you still have to balance access with control," she said.

Campbell said DOD's Joint Task Force for Computer Network Defense, which was designed to be DOD's front-line protection against unauthorized network access and cyberattacks, will reach full operational capability in June and then will be transferred to one of the five commanders in chief. In addition, Campbell said the task force this year will stand up a 24-hour-per-day network monitoring watch and will begin work on contingency plans for cyberattacks.

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 16, 1999.

Deborah,

Quick comment. When you post a story, please also include the URL (http://www. code) where you found it, so we can check the source document.

Thanks,

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 16, 1999.

"Well, I can understand personal safety issues. Although, I think taking pesonal information off, is a little different than 'anything disclosing what an agency does'."

I think they mean by that top secret classified documents or documents that should not be easily available outside the USA.

At this time, you can still access unclassified documentation easily.

Defenselink An official DoD webpage and good source of info.

See also the page which gives many links to other DoD agencies.

Remember that before mainstream access to the internet, we had nowhere near the easy access to such information, and top secret documents were still unavailable to us. If anything changed in the past 10 years regarding access to info, it's for the better IMO.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 16, 1999.

I hate when I mess up tags like this.

"My comment to the DoD ... remember ... BALANCE, in all things, guys. Someone has to watch you from the outside to see when you go over the top. "--Diane

Indeed Diane, and remember also that they have your IP address when you enter their site (any server does, not just DoD), and that if you don't have your automatic cookie granting permission feature disabled you're not aware when cookies are set. Cookies give back info from your computer (a guru could explain that better.)

From civilian servers, when they have your IP address, you're protected by your ISP who won't give your name and address to anyone, but they might to the gov.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 16, 1999.

Diane,

Sorry about that, I posted at like 2 a.m., I was REALLY tired. I linked to the AP from the Drudge Report and it was there. Today World Net Daily is also running it.

"My comment to the DoD ... remember ... BALANCE, in all things, guys. Someone has to watch you from the outside to see when you go over the top. The Texas stuff does it for me! -- Diane"

Balance, I agree Diane. That is what I was referring to. They go from carelessly leaving home addresses lying around, to nothing but a vague mission statement. Is there not a middle ground?

Chris,

Thanks for the links. The key phrase would be 'at this time' ;-)

-- Deborah (tired2@day.com), February 16, 1999.

Chris,

I do have the automatic cookie thing turned off.

I also, as a matter of course just assume they track everything I do, e-mail or post, so it doesn't much bother me. Ever see that movie, humm, I think it was something like "Someone To Watch Over Me?"

We all have guardian angels too. I know some by name. But that's another topic.

I stick to the "light" side of the web, and if inadvertently find a "dark" sided one, I leave. They can keep those secrets. The public domain is enough of a goldmine, if you learn how to navigate it.

Diane, Information Navigator

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 16, 1999.

Diane........

I think there's like this unwritten rule that the extreme fundies leave you alone no matter what you write.....

Go to any other newsgroup with a high level of fundies and your phrase "guardian angels" would be pounced upon immediately. In fundie circles that I used to inhabit many moons ago, guardian angels were simply evil demons in disguise.

Cat got your tongues Arlin, Nabi & others. Or does Diane have impunity because she's a woman?

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), February 16, 1999.

"Or does Diane have impunity because she's a woman?"

Good to know that there is a good side to being a woman, with the fundies ;-)

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 16, 1999.

One of the few Chris.

Being "in" to metaphysics 'n all, may have more to do with it Craig. Plus, they know by now, I DO my homework.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 16, 1999.

I guess I qualify in the "& Others" category. In the spirit of Big Dog's proposal, just trying to behave myself. Everyone knows where Diane is coming from. I may disagree with her (as she does with me), but she's a nice lady and is at least consistent in her beliefs. Besides, I'm usually more interested in debunking folks who say that they are Christians (oh, excuse me, "fundies"), but who's words reveal they are not.

So everyone who holds an orthodox view of scripture (i.e. those who disagree with you) are all "fundies" Craig? I'm certain that my Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran, etc. brothers and sisters will be delighted with that label.

-- David (David@BankPacman.com), February 16, 1999.

Diane.....I know you do your homework......I also know that the doctrine of fundamentalists, although acknowledging the possiblity of angels being amongst us, generally classifies those that talk about such things as being 'of the devil' etc.

The whole arena of metaphysics is classified as 'new age' and it's adherents referred to as being deceived by Satan, and heading to a very hot destination. Basically, anything they don't understand is evil in their eyes.

'Knowing your stuff' generally doesn't keep fundamentalists or evangelicals at bay. IMHO, they are only leaving you alone because it's not convenient to pounce on you right now. However, understand that in their belief system, you are only part of the great Satanic deception that is an abomination in their eyes.

If you want an eye opener into what they really think about your beliefs, go into Pastor Chris' forum.......they might even be nice to you for a while as long as they consider you 'convertable'.....however don't turn your back on them!

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), February 16, 1999.

David......define "Orthodox"......the problem with the world is that most of todays churches are not orthodox by the original standard of the early church. The Bible has been corrupted by men for 2 millennia now.

No, don't read it wrong. I certainly do not classify all Christians as 'fundies'. It is a relatively small percentage of the total population actually. As a matter of fact, outside of the USA and Canada, they are extremely rare. I have a good friend who is a Pastor, originally from Scotland, and he informs me that the 'fundamentalist' mindset is predominantly an American thing. In that mindset, God is basically a tall white-skinned right-wing military- loving all-American who thinks all liberals are evil and America is God's nation. Everything on a national level is good and anything global is evil etc.

BTW, when Jesus first walked the earth, he was by no means Orthodox.......

Funny isn't it.......the protestants were by no means Orthodox when they broke away from Rome.....the fundamentalists were by no means Orthodox when they separated from historical protestantism.....but the moment someone disagrees with some of their teachings and breaks away, they start to rant about Orthodoxy.......Go figure!

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), February 16, 1999.

Craig, it may surprise you that we spend little to no time discussing metaphysics or any other non-Christian beliefs. On the contrary, we mostly discuss Y2K from the perspective of our shared Christian beliefs. Sorry if we don't live up to your sinister characterization. Most of us visit both this forum and that one every day. They both serve a purpose.

-- David (David@BankPacman.com), February 16, 1999.

Craig. Are you a bigot? The existence of angels is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic church. There are a billion of us. We just won't go away, will we?

-- Spidey (in@jam.com), February 16, 1999.

David......

So then are you saying that you would not classify the miracles of Jesus as being metaphysical?

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), February 16, 1999.

Craig, obviously you want to pursue these questions further, or more probably you're just in the mood for a debate. As time permits, I'll gladly engage, but not here. It's way off topic and I'm trying to behave myself over here. Why don't you post your topics/questions over on Pastor Chris's? I'm sure you know the way.

-- David (David@BankPacman.com), February 16, 1999.

Spidey......

I don't know how you manage to twist what I say so badly.....

I personally believe in angels........I was not criticizing anyone for believing in angels, rather making a point that talking to angels was generally considered a very bad thing in fundamentalist circles.

My point was this: Although most 'fundamentalists' say they believe in angels, from a practical point of view, when anyone says that they have spoken with angels or heard from angels, they generally assume that these are 'Satanic apparitions' and are in fact inherently evil.

Come on Spidey......even when I'm on you side you want to take a dig at me....Sheesh!

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), February 16, 1999.

WOW! That was SOME "Satanic apparition" that spoke to Mary, huh? Craig, you seem to be contradicting yourself.

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), February 16, 1999.

Gayla....

Are you deliberately twisting what I say or actually trying to be a jerk?

Mary saw an Angel sent by God.

For the very last time.....for those who just don't get it......my point is:

If you were to tell the average fundamentalist that you had been speaking with your guardian angel, the average fundamentalist would tell you that you had been deceived, and were actually in contact with a demonic being posing as an angel of God.

Tell me Gayla, do you think that channelling spirit beings is of God? Do you believe that talking with your guardian angel is a good thing? Other fundamentalists, please feel free to answer.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), February 16, 1999.

This is a topic worth pursuing, but in a different forum. Craig, could you please repost this in Pastor Chris' forum and we can convene there?

-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), February 16, 1999.

Fascinating how we can move from the Pentagon to dark angels, in a New Yourdon minute, isn't it?

Diane *Sigh*

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 16, 1999.

Actually, Diane, you were the one who brought up guardian angels out of the clear blue sky. I don't mean to be critical, because I think your statement was pretty harmless (albeit completely out of left field). I know it was probably totally innocent but it highlights the need for sensitivity to others' religious beliefs from all sides (i.e., it's not just Christians who need to tread lightly if we want to avoid thread drift like this).

-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), February 16, 1999.

I'm trying to be a good boy, just like David, and not discuss religion too much on this forum. But religion is fair game on Pastor Chris' forum, so if anyone wants to get into a good long discussion of angels over there, count me in:-)...

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), February 16, 1999.

The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him, and rescues them.

Psalm 34:7

-- Fundie (knockin@heaven.door), February 16, 1999.

Craig, I'm disappointed that you are unwilling to discuss this off of Yourdon's forum. I think great restraint has been shown by a lot of Christians here. Big Dog made an honest, heart felt request, and most are abiding by it.

The point that I was trying to make to you, is that you can't lump every Christian and every belief into one. Most of the people on this forum INCLUDING a lot of the Christians are VERY frustrated when Y2K is lumped together with the second coming of Christ. A lot of people now see Y2K as some type of "Right-wing wacko religious idea" thanks to certain members of the media.

Yes, I believe in angels- (spirits) clean and unclean- or Godly and ungodly, if you will. And according to the Bible it's very easy to tell which is which. All you have to do is ask the spirit who Jesus Christ is. In I John 4:2 & 3, you can "read all about it."

"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God."

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), February 16, 1999.

Craig,

Pastor Chris' Y2K Forum:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic= Y2K%20Forum

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 16, 1999.