The Pentagon is being criticized for posting the online plans for its new office building in Alexandria, including details on what is needed to blow up the new building. The 424-page Army Corps of Engineers document explains to any web-surfing terrorist how the Mark Center was designed . . . and identifies its vulnerabilities to explosives.
For the 6,400 defense workers who will work in the building, this may be a bit too much transparency.
The site shows how terrorists need to work with more than 220 pounds of TNT-like material if they are placing material outside of Mark Center’s security perimeter, but that only 55 pounds will work at locations inside the perimeter.
Pentagon officials are no doubt working hard to find a way of charging Bradley Manning with the disclosure.
Source: Washington Examiner
DetaiLs, Prof. Turley, detaiLs!
Now tell me again … why is Manning in prison?
Maybe the Pentagon was just hoping that some patriotic citizen would take it upon themselves to do the demolition work that was planned as a gift to the government!
@ James M
I take your point. I wasn’t meaning to compare, but to suggest that simply because the building weakness might “seem” secret, does not mean they are not knowable or ultimately exploitable.
It seems to me a far better scenario to have numerous “expert” eyes critique a design and so long as those creative observations are acted on, the result should be a more secure building.
(Meaning that once a vulnerability is discovered, it can be fixed in software, but you’re unlikely to be able to fix the basic architecture of your building — when the can’t fix the problem, secrecy, however imperfect, is better than nothing.)
Pete,
Nope, the two are not analogous. Hackers have access to your software or hardware and can run tests to their hearts content. Terrorists can’t conduct their own in-depth, behind-the-security-perimeter surveys of buildings. You can also fix software vulnerabilities much easier than rebuilding a building.
Is that supposed to be details?
I just love it….You really have to be kidding me…right?
Then again…the web fingerprints may turn into footprints…in the snow….
Actually, this will perhaps be counter-intuitive, but the more eyes that scan those design documents providing constructive critique, the better.
Anyone involved in IT security will tell you that there is no such thing as security from secrecy. Just because you think people don’t know about vulnerabilities is not protection from their exploitation (as Sony might find they agree with).