Pentagon's cybersecurity plan seeks $23B through 2018
WASHINGTON — A Pentagon cybersecurity budget outline calls for spending almost $23 billion through fiscal 2018, as efforts are expanded on initiatives from protecting computer networks to developing offensive capabilities.
The Defense Department has proposed $4.65 billion for such programs in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, an 18 percent increase from the $3.94 billion budgeted this year. The five-year “cyber expense” budget obtained by Bloomberg News calls for spending to remain elevated from past levels.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel this month cited “the growing threat of cyber intrusions, some of which appear to be tied to the Chinese government and military.” His predecessor, Leon Panetta, said last year that “a cyberattack perpetrated by nation states or violent extremist groups could be as destructive as the terrorist attack of 9/11.”
The budget outline shows “increased investment will be made in protecting critical infrastructures,” cyber-attack capabilities “for use against our adversaries and enhancing overall security of DoD networks and systems,” Harry Raduege, chairman of Deloitte's Center for Cyber Innovation in Washington, said in a statement.
Increased spending on computer security may benefit Defense contractors, including SAIC and Northrop Grumman, in a time when other Pentagon spending is declining, according to data compiled by Bloomberg Government.
The Pentagon plans to request $4.72 billion in fiscal 2015, declining to $4.61 billion in 2016 and $4.45 billion the next year, then rising to $4.53 billion in 2018, according to the budget document.
It calls for requesting $9.3 billion through 2018 for information-assurance systems aimed at blocking hackers and preventing disruptions of information on Pentagon computers, and $8.9 billion for cyberoperations, which include both defensive and offensive capabilities.
Among national security documents disclosed last week, the Britain-based Guardian newspaper reported that President Obama issued a directive in October saying “Offensive Cyber Effects Operations” can provide “unique and unconventional capabilities to advance U.S. national objectives around the world with little or no warning to the adversary or target and with potential effects ranging from subtle to severely damaging.”
Developing and sustaining such offensive capabilities “may require considerable time and effort if access and tools for a specific target do not already exist,” according to the directive. It says the government should identify targets of national importance that “can offer a favorable balance of effectiveness and risk.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Shuster admits to ‘personal relationship’ with airline industry lobbyist
- Cardinal Francis George of Chicago dead at 78
- Federal appeals court appears divided on Obama’s immigrant deportation shield
- Truck carrying 13.7M bees overturns
- Foggy Interstate 70 pileup injures dozen in Colorado
- Accused terror plotter pleads not guilty in Ohio
- Scientists: Oil spill has harmed health of Gulf of Mexico
- Social media makes it difficult for ‘hero’ to stay anonymous
- Federal judge who blocked Obama immigration order painted as unbiased
- Deputy tells ‘Today’ how he mistook pistol for stun gun in shooting death in Oklahoma
- Collection gives insight into Oklahoma City federal building bomber McVeigh