Category Archives: History

Honoring Steven P. Daugherty

A Cryptologist named Steven P. Daugherty has been eulogized on the National Security Agency site:

One of the most important functions of any “special operations” team is to gather critical intelligence with the aim of discerning future enemy intentions. Daugherty’s role in this important process was to provide timely and effective cryptologic support to his team. By providing and protecting his unit’s most precious communications he not only contributed to coalition success on the battlefield but also saved countless lives.

Two Days after the 231st anniversary of the nation he had sworn to defend Petty Officer Daugherty was returning from a important mission with his team when their vehicle struck an improvised explosive device killing him and two other members of his unit. Daugherty would leave behind a loving family and young son but his efforts would not be in vain. Later it was confirmed that the work he and his team performed earlier that day had played a decisive role in thwarting a dangerous group of insurgents in their efforts to kill coalition forces.

Tragic news. I wonder what his real views on the war were. Some friends in the Air Force told me the other day that although they all disagreed with the war, and thought it obvious as to why, it was not their job to question authority.

The interesting thing about the Daugherty eulogy, however, is the absolutist emphasis on seeking the truth:

The famous philosopher Thomas Hobbes once noted “Hell is truth seen too late.”” Throughout his time in the United States Navy both on the sea and on land Petty Officer Steven Phillip Daugherty devoted his life to determining truth with the aim of defeating the enemies of freedom throughout the world. His work and accomplishments as a Sailor, cryptologist, father and friend will forever stand as testament to his own personal character and his devotion to his country.

John Stewart put forward a question to the biographer of Cheney that was right on target. If Cheney knew in 1994 that a quagmire would result from invasion, and there was risk of great loss of American lives in the chaos, why did he not openly discuss this, plan for it, or even allow others to raise the issue? Was Daugherty truly allowed to assess the truth to defeat enemies of freedom, or penned into a predictable disaster and a casualty of dishonesty.

Will it Work?

Wikipedia reports that Philip Crosby is considered the forefather of the Capability Maturity Model.

I have been using this model extensively for over ten years when consulting on security controls. It is a far better way of documenting and illustrating control status rather than pass/fail, as it shows a continuum of improvement.

In other words, rather than telling a company they “failed” the security test, you can say they have achieved a initial step and only have a couple more to go.

With that in mind, I just ran into a rather funny illustration. It comes from “one of the first publications” by Crosby, meant to help reduce defects in guided missle design and manufacture.

Bendix

The Control Maturity Levels, just for handy reference, are these:

0 Control is not documented

1 Control is documented

2 Control is consistently applied (implemented)

3 Control is working (tested)

4 Control is measured

Companies often mistakenly rest on their laurels after achieving level 1, documentation of controls. This is the equivalent of trust, without verification, and rarely accurate. Meanwhile security firms often look for evidence of level 3. The gap is where the friction of compliance comes from.

Tests quickly prove vulnerabilities exist, but the real challenge is to find management that is able to move a company solidly into level 2 (implementation). In other words, do they have someone who can reliably answer the question “Will it work?”

Eritrea Accused of Proxy War Through Somalia

This is one of those moments when I feel the urge to say “I told you so” or scream in frustration, or something similar.

The UN is trying to point out to those who will listen that Eritrea is believed to be funneling arms into Somalia.

No kidding. That was my main concern last December when the US foolishly pushed Ethiopia back into direct confrontation in the Ogaden region and crushed the Somali peace.

Anyone familiar with the history of conflict in the region could predict that the most recent Ethiopian-led US-backed operation of whacking the bees nest known as the Horn of Africa with a big stick would undermine the nascent government in Somalia and return the region to a hotbed of militarized destablization and bloody terrorism.

Eritrea, of course, denies any involvement in the proliferation of arms:

Eritrean Information Minister Ali Abdu told Associated Press news agency his country had not provided any assistance to the Shabab.

“It is a total fabrication and the intention of the report is to depict it as if there is a proxy war between Eritrea and Ethiopia,” Mr Abdu said.

The Bush administration has been caught lying under oath now so many times, that I imagine it would be hard for them to try and point a finger at any other country and demand accountability. I doubt they could even bring up the term corruption without losing all credibility. But I digress…

It does seem plausable that Eritrea has continued their historic fight with Ethiopia by arming former allies in Somalia. In fact, I was having a hard time understanding why they did not resist the Ethiopian incursion. Now, in retrospect, it makes a lot of sense that they waited for the conventional forces to move in and get bogged down before initiating a protracted resistance movement. That is what they are most famous for and how they defeated Mengistu’s giant Soviet/Chinese/Cuban-backed army over 30 years — the largest standing force in the world at the time.

I think people forget that a tank has become a sign of former security (control) capability, not present or future.

My best guess as to why the Bush administration has been so unbelievably counter-productive in foreign policy in the Horn is that they are still stuck in a fantasy of the Cold War mentality. They think that Reagan won, when in fact it was the other side unilaterally attempting to take a path of greater accountability for a failed and corrupt economic system, as I’ve mentioned before too.

The idea under Reagan was to stop the Communists at any cost. Destablizing a region meant potentially bringing down a group that could fall, or already was, into the “hands of the Reds”. Unfortunately, this strategy in today’s world brings about the opposite effect, leading regions into a harsh anti-establishment highly-distributed position as the discontent of rubble is a power-vacuum more easly filled by “the Fundies” (religious fundamentalists and other extremists) than blue-jeans and Coca Cola.

Saying that the US can send in their heavy forces to reconnect with the outliers once they have had their network plugs pulled is like saying IBM will convince iPhone users that they want to connect to their mainframe. Sadly, the current big-blue thinkers in the White House just don’t get it.