There is already a law on the books called Protected Critical Infrastructure 
Information (PCII).  It has stiff penalties for leaking the information.  The 
reporting critical infrastructure company has to request the information or 
report be protected under PCII.  In most cases the companies also use their own 
NDA as well for added recourse if the info gets leaked.  Also the fusion center 
or DHS could of offered this option up since most companies do not know this 
option/law is on the books.   For a State Fusion center to leverage this law 
they have to get a delegation from DHS or at a minimum bring the executive 
agent in to declare the info PCII since it's a federal law.  

The PCII designator works and has been used in past incidents.  Sensitive but 
unclassified does not work and has widely varying meanings from agency to 
agency.  If it's that sensitive use PCII or classify as SECRET.  

Regarding this incident, I was skeptical from the get go.  The fog of war 
around any incident is usually pretty thick at the initial stage.  This has 
been shown even in national level cyber exercises time and time again.  
FBI/USSS/US-CERT are routinely engaged and investigating cyber incidents and 
nothing new here.  People acted as if that was outside the norm when it was 
not.  

Jerry
je...@jdixon.com


On Nov 26, 2011, at 3:14 PM, Jared Mauch <ja...@puck.nether.net> wrote:

> +1
> 
> This isn't the pentagon papers. 
> 
> Those found leaking should face the legal consequences for sbu information 
> leakage. 
> 
> One can't have every email/memo leaked as it makes it unfeasible to perform 
> ones job. 
> 
> Jared Mauch
> 
> On Nov 26, 2011, at 7:51 AM, "andrew.wallace" <andrew.wall...@rocketmail.com> 
> wrote:
> 
>> My comment about a certain person leaking public-private sector 
>> correspondence to the media still applies then.
>> 
>> https://plus.google.com/114359738470992181937/posts/DSnJfKqrJK1
>> 
>> 
>> Andrew
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> From: Jay Ashworth <j...@baylink.com>
>> To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> 
>> Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 3:14 AM
>> Subject: Water Utility SCADA 'Attack': The, um, washout
>> 
>> Not an attack: an already failing pump, and an employee of a contractor to 
>> the
>> utility who was ... wait for it ...
>> 
>> traveling in Russia on personal business.
>> 
>> WaPo via Lauren @ Privacy:  http://j.mp/rrvMXR
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> -- jra
>> -- 
>> Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                      
>> j...@baylink.com
>> Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 
>> 2100
>> Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com         2000 Land Rover 
>> DII
>> St Petersburg FL USA      http://photo.imageinc.us             +1 727 647 
>> 1274
> 

Reply via email to