Cybersecurity officials start focusing on the 2020 elections
Federal cybersecurity officials aren’t aware of any voting system compromises by Russia or other foreign agents during the midterm elections. But it’s not entirely clear why — or whether hackers are saving their gun powder for the 2020 presidential showdown. Nevertheless, election security officials are already working to prepare for the next big race. During Tuesday’s midterm voting, 45 states came together to report on potential cyber threats along with federal experts who were weighed in on real time. The head of cybersecurity at the Department of Homeland Security, Chris Krebs, says there was an increase this year in reporting of potential cyber incidents. He attributes that to better communication, not an increase in overall threats. In 2016, federal officials were accused of being too tight-lipped.
Women-owned Huntsville company lands $47M government contract
A women-owned small business (WOSB) headquartered in Huntsville, Ala. has been awarded a $47 million government contract to manage cybersecurity risk operations for the U.S. military’s Defense Health Agency (DHA). Sentar announced they received the contract on Tuesday. They competed against 11 other bidders for the contract in a small business set aside competition. Sentar previously held the contract with DHA, but it ended this month after two years. Work on the new contract will begin immediately within a one-year base period and two, one-year option periods. “Winning repeat business represents proven and enduring customer satisfaction, trust, and confidence from the company’s government customers,” said April Nadeau, VP (DHA, SPAWAR, Navy and Marine Corps). “We are thrilled for the latest re-compete win and look forward to our continued partnership with the Navy and its sponsor organizations.” Sentarwas founded in 1990.
Steven Kurlander: Redefining a political hack: The dangerous obsolescence of the electoral process
Stealing elections, even presidential ones, is an American political tradition dating back to the beginning of our nation. Think about those hanging chads in Florida, or Mayor Daley stuffing the ballot box in Chicago for JFK. But stuffing the ballot box is about to be taken to a new level in the race for the White House — not by Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, but by the Russian government. Our electoral process has failed to keep up and adapt to tremendous technological changes in the last half-century that impact the exchange, storage, and security of voter information and the election process itself. Our political system is not only broken by being obsolete and inefficient, but extremely vulnerable to hacking and disruption to the point where the integrity of the elections can be greatly impacted. “Cybersecurity experts have long warned that computerized voting systems are vulnerable to hacking, and what once seemed like wild prognostication is increasingly coming true,” writes Elias Groll of Foreign Policy. As the presidential election continues, the Russians are penetrating these vulnerabilities to influence who wins the Oval Office by hacking their way into the American political system, some say to swing the election for Donald Trump. The Washington Post termed the hacking campaign by Russia as “a broad covert Russian operation in the United States to sow public distrust in the upcoming presidential election and in U.S. political institutions.” The most obvious example so far this election cycle was the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the release of emails by WikiLeaks showing a bias by DNC officials for Hillary Clinton, which impacted the Democratic convention and the Democratic Party itself. In addition, the FBI issued an alert in mid-August after the Arizona and Illinois voter databases were hacked by what is again to be believed Russian operatives. Disinformation, whether planted by a foreign government or a political adversary, is nothing new to politics, particularly when it can be identified as such by our security apparatus. All those WikiLeaks about the DNC did was embarrass Democratic officials for a day and get Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz fired as chairwoman, which was going to happen anyway. But if the Russians can hack into a Democratic or Republican Party database — or, even worse, the registration lists of various states — how can’t you believe that Putin could not compromise the tabulation of votes on Election Day to swing the election to Trump? In this presidential race, most Americans have already decided who they are not voting for. So they won’t be fooled by the Russians, or anyone else, looking to sway their votes one way or the other or discourage their participation in the electoral process. They are already very displeased with their politicians, and with the choice of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton too. Now we must question whether their votes will really count, or be counted accurately. There’s really no assurance these vulnerabilities are being adequately addressed and that Americans can be confident the final tabulations of the 2016 election will be accurate and correct. Hacking is not simply a matter of simple voter fraud in the traditional sense that should be considered just another aspect of an American election. It’s about a Russian political hack, not American voters, deciding who is our next American president. ___ Steven Kurlander blogs at Kurly’s Kommentary. He is a communications strategist and an attorney in Monticello, New York, writes for Florida Politics and is a former columnist for the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. He can be emailed at kurly@stevenkurlander.com.
Auburn University study finds cyberattacks, regulation among concerns for state’s banks
A recent study by Auburn University’s Raymond J. Harbert College of Business, which looked into Alabama’s banking industry, found that state banks consider “regulatory uncertainty” and the chance of cyberattacks among the biggest threats to their business model. According to the study, 88 percent of Alabama banks listed “regulatory burden” among their chief concerns, with 78 percent calling “political and regulatory uncertainty” a “major impediment” to the way they do business. “We had major regulatory action in 2010 with Dodd-Frank and bankers have been bemoaning that ever since,” said John Jahera, Lowder Professor of Finance and one of the study’s authors. “From the bankers’ point of view, it added a lot of cost in terms of regulatory compliance.” Authors of the study say the industry is still reeling from “a triple whammy: the impacts of the financial crisis on credit, the juggernaut of regulatory reforms and competition in a field that reinvents itself at breathtaking speed.” Further, 73 percent of respondents cited competition from “non-bank” financial firms, which enjoy less regulations, as their chief competitive threat, while 70 percent said the threat of cyberattacks was a “serious concern.” Along with examining the apprehension of Alabama banks, the study also looked into the performance of state banks through the third quarter of 2015 and offered suggestions aimed at helping banks better assist customers. The study found that Alabama banks rank 40th in the nation for “aggregate return-on-assets” with $253 billion in assets. Alabama banks generated $169 billion in individual and business loans as of the third quarter of last year and provided $14 billion in small business loans. The study further states that Alabama’s 386,000 small businesses created more than 24,800 new jobs as of 2012 (the most recent numbers available) and, of the 131 banks with headquarters in the state, all but eight are considered “small” or “community” banks with less than $1 billion in assets. Researchers suggested an overall easing of regulations to assist banks in serving “underbanked or non-banked” consumers via short-term loans at lower rates than those offered by payday lenders and their ilk. Further, it was suggested that the “harmful effects” of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act be examined in view of the realization that regulations have increased costs but not revenues.The study also called for the Department of Banking to look into ways of easing regulatory burden, and the costs associated therein, for state-chartered banks.
