Panetta warns of dire threat of cyberattack on US
October 12, 2012
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta warned Thursday that the United States was facing the possibility of a “cyber-Pearl Harbor” and was increasingly vulnerable to foreign computer hackers who could dismantle the nation’s power grid, transportation system, financial networks and government, The New York Times reports.
He said he was reacting to increasing aggressiveness and technological advances by the nation’s adversaries, which officials identified as China, Russia, Iran and militant groups.
“An aggressor nation or extremist group could use these kinds of cyber tools to gain control of critical switches,” Mr. Panetta said. “They could derail passenger trains, or even more dangerous, derail passenger trains loaded with lethal chemicals. They could contaminate the water supply in major cities, or shut down the power grid across large parts of the country.”
Defense officials insisted that Mr. Panetta’s words were not hyperbole, and that he was responding to a recent wave of cyberattacks on large American financial institutions. He also cited an attack in August on the state oil company Saudi Aramco, which infected and made useless more than 30,000 computers.
Mr. Panetta was also pushing for legislation on Capitol Hill. It would require new standards at critical private-sector infrastructure facilities — like power plants, water treatment facilities and gas pipelines — where a computer breach could cause significant casualties or economic damage.
In August, a cybersecurity bill that had been one of the administration’s national security priorities was blocked by a group of Republicans, led by Senator John McCain of Arizona, who took the side of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and said it would be too burdensome for corporations.
The most destructive possibilities, Mr. Panetta said, involve “cyber-actors launching several attacks on our critical infrastructure at one time, in combination with a physical attack.” He described the collective result as a “cyber-Pearl Harbor that would cause physical destruction and the loss of life, an attack that would paralyze and shock the nation and create a profound new sense of vulnerability.”
Panetta indicated that the United States might redefine defense in cyberspace as requiring the capacity to reach forward over computer networks if an attack was detected or anticipated, and take pre-emptive action. These same offensive measures also could be used in a punishing retaliation for a first-strike cyberattack on an American target, senior officials said.
This is a summary. See The New York Times article for the complete text. — Ed.

Comments (24)
by Rafael
If the war industry, is private, there will always be an external enemy.
A missile manufacturer with shares traded on the stock market, a manufacturer of landmines with shares traded on the stock market, a manufacturer of systems DIGITAL SECURITY traded on the stock exchange … keep it up and soon the manufacturer NUCLEAR warheads with shares traded on the stock exchange will start doing what everyone does. No need to be a genius to understand the logic of the situation.
by Rafael
Bullshit, the world economy is interdependent, destroy the bighest economy of the world, is the same at destroy all economy of the world. The worms want, is suffocating and suck even more taxpayer spending more taxes reverted to “secret” and tax havens. 3 trillion of dollars per year in weapons.300.000 dollars for enemy dead, if they invested this money in schools and exchange programs never need to fire a HELLFIRE on innocents. Pay more and more taxes for worse services at any given moment will be working for food while the government dictatorship and war industry, uses all the money to produce more fear and bloodshed. Wake up! There is no external threat, this is a fantasy created by the war industry, seek information, there are manufacturers of landmines with shares traded on stock exchanges, reflect on it. Look at the numbers. If the war industry, is private, there will always be an external enemy. An enemy, a threat, give me your money and i will denfend you from elves, gnomes, goblins, aliens and unicorns.Give me your money and I will defend you from this fantasy.
by Klaatu
NEW STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE & computer
nets?? Trying to standardize anything privately or in Gov is
where they send ppl who say things lke “Cybet Pearl Harbor”
WITH THE HOPE THAT THE SHEAR IMPOSSIBILITY of doing anything
will put said troublemaker in the hospital for a bypass or
a mental ward. PANETA HAS JUST MADE HIMSELF A CANDIDATE.
Has McCain learned the email yet? And he’s one of the saner RAY-publicans.
by egore
If the government can go one trillion dollars a year in debt, I would think they could come up with a reasonable defense. Or do they want to come up with a reasonable defense? Hope they do not want another Scapegoat.
by Klaatu
Japan is one of the leaders in debt to GDP
way over 100%. They are one of the leading
debter AND creditor nations as it happens.
During crisis Gov needs to spend (Obama)
During growth it needs to pay down debt(Clinton)
2003-8, Chey Bush did the opposite & spent every
dime & 4 the 1st time in US history passed the full
expence of 3 wars into the future
with tax cuts in times of war & also spent more than all
previous administrations put together as did Obama
trying to clean up the impossible mess & the wars.
by Chris P. Kareem
This is just propaganda. Don’t sell your liberty for security.
by Gabriel
Who says liberty and security have to be mutually exclusive? We must, and will, continue to fight for our individual rights and liberty…but the government has a genuine need to be vigil and protect us from legitimate threats, and cyber-attacks that attack our critical assets fall under that description.
We must, as ever, strive for a middle-road in protecting our liberty and privacy, preventing wanton abuse, but also let the government do what they must for our own sake.
by Chris P. Kareem
Well, in this case the government is essentially telling private corporations how to do what they do best. These corporations have the incentive to prevent getting hacked in the first place, or else they risk losses. If a couple of organizations get hacked, it only serves as a reminder to their competition to stay secure. The government will only make things more expensive.
by de Broglie
I agree with Chris. Aren’t huge incentives already present to make sure companies work hard to prevent hacking. In the spirit of Peter Thiel and Elon Musk, we need to keep government out of what private industry does best.
by Gabriel
Please keep something in mind, both of you….my stance is neutral – I wasn’t trying to imply that I actually agree with the bills that Mr.Panetta is talking about…my words were focused more on what Chris said – about liberty and security and that, in my view, they aren’t and shouldn’t be mutually exclusive.
Indeed, we must never ever stop fighting of our civil rights — at the same time, we also must recognize that the government must take actions for our own benefit — if cyber-terrorists attack our powergrid, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.
It’s a never-ending contention of who’s got their priorities straight, the people or the government? but so long as we continue down a middle-road, watching the Watchmen extra-carefully while allowing them to do what is best for us (and not just saying that), everything should be fine. You don’t have to trade Liberty for Security, who says we can’t have both?
by Klaatu
Simplistic black & white with typically no middle road “thinking”
trying to hold on to the “good old days” of yesterdayyear.
by DeBee Corley
Panetta has a trillion dollar budget. He has a task force combing through my porn viewing habits.
I guess if I was smart, I would keep all of the internet viewing separate from my “secret squirrel” stuff.
Never mind, that’s too hard.
by Starheart
Something tells me these hackers could cause much more disruption if they simply brought certain information to light.
by Jim Mooney
Good point. For a free society we have Far too many secrets As for cyberterror, we started it. It’s now commonly acknowledges that we had something to do with cybernetically attacking Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Hard to whine about our glass house when we threw the first stone. But then, Iran was a democracy until our CIA overthrew it at the behest of our friends at BP. We are our own worst enemy which is why all secrets Should be outed. Then we would shoot ourselves in the foot less often.
This is asymmetric warfare at its best. A small nation with some brilliant hackers can do as much damage as a big one. DNA sequencing and Bioweapons are also coming within common reach.
Ergo, we better all start being nicer to each other. Sure, we can all bring down each others grids and flood the earth with bio-agents, but then we’re all screwed.
This is Worse than a zero-sum game; it’s a negative-sum game.
by SpottedMarley
this is gonna be so awesome
by Gabriel
How in the world is this awesome? 0_o
by Gorden Russell
SpottedMarley, are you thinking of the hackers bringing down Goldman Sachs? Yeah. That’s gonna be so awesome.
by de Broglie
What is so bad about Goldman Sachs? Would it be good if a hostile power attacked an important source of financing in the United States? If people didn’t believe all this 99% propaganda, then they wouldn’t be so susceptible to voting demagogues into office that promise things the US cannot afford.
by Bri
You obviously don’t know any stock brokers personally. They break whatever rules they can, and sometimes ones they can’t. I know one who has to do two years in prison, is losing his liscence, and all his money. He was sloppy and got caught. Martha Stewart was a personal vendetta for someone. Inside trading is the least illegal thing they do. You really have no idea how many ways they can scam the system.
by Klaatu
And pay large fines as an expense of
doing biz like Goldman does like Roland Arnall did
with Ameriquest and his other predatory Mort loan companies
Angelo Mozillo was jealous b/c he couldn’t figure out how
Arnall stayed out of jail while hiding 20 points in his
mortgage contracts. A Democratic governor of Georgia
tried to stop Arnall and was thrown out of office.
by Jim Mooney
In the next election we get to vote for the Goldman-Sachs candidate or the Goldman-Sachs candidate ;’)
by de Broglie
Actually, you raise an interesting election topic. The candidate GS supports normally wins the election. That is probably because they support the candidate that is going to win and not that they have very large influence. Last election cycle, GS employees overwhelmingly supported Senator Obama. This election cycle, GS employees overwhelmingly support Governor Romney.
by Gorden Russell
Is it possible for a hacker to breach your Kaspersky anti-virus?
by de Broglie
Kasperky is a Russian company and Kaspersky does work for the Iranian government, so I don’t think Russia would want to mess with Kaspersky. On the other hand, it would be very easy for the Russians.