Author Topic: Cyber Operator trade Mega Thread  (Read 35165 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 194,635
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,579
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: "Canadian military to relax deployment-readiness rule" ...
« Reply #50 on: June 13, 2017, 08:50:07 »
...Some of the stuff being discussed in the thread is ridiculous.  *Cyber should be able to get a pension sooner than other people* comes to mind first.

:nod:

Everything I hear about cool cyber kids is that they're not the "pension prisoner" type.  Seems a bit incongruous for some to put those two concepts together. :dunno:

Regards
G2G

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 130,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,453
Re: "Canadian military to relax deployment-readiness rule" ...
« Reply #51 on: June 13, 2017, 08:59:51 »
Oldgateboatdriver,

The statement you wish to modify states "to defend Canada, its interests and its values", not advance or enforce our values on others or other countries.  If we strike - defend our own values, then CAF will only defend Canada and our interests and in doing so are you proposing that we should withdraw from most of our international alliances.

Simian: It should never be the CAF's job to defend values. Period. Just look at the whole debate that just took place in the Conservative party because Ms. Leitch wanted to test immigrants for "Canadian values". Nobody could come up with what these values are or should be, not even her. The current PM sees "feminism" as a value. that's fine so long as it is his values, but why should it be imposed on ALL Canadians? It shouldn't is the answer. So which values does the CAF "defend"? and how since values are a personal thing?

And striking the defence of "values" from our mission statement does not require us to leave ANY of our international alliances, because I would certainly hope and expect that we joined these alliances because we found that it was in the national interest to do so.

As for Cyber warfare, IMHO it is appropriate to have a capacity, both defensive (the largest portion) and offensive (a smaller contingent). DND already has an organization within it that does commsec: the Communication Security Establishment. Any further defensive capability should, I believe, come under their umbrella as an extension of mandate. Then, it would be manned by civilians within the defence umbrella, while leaving universality of service intact. On the offensive side, however, which I believe should consist of personnel that can deploy in support of a local operation to disrupt cyberspace locally and deny its use to our opponents wherever we are called upon to fight, I believe it should be a special qualification for some deployable members of the various communication trades organized as units for operational employment.

Offline Neso

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 52
Re: Cyber Operator trade Mega Thread
« Reply #52 on: June 13, 2017, 09:01:22 »
Re: Cyber Ops

I do not think this is a good path for the CAF---Cyber Ops,.... should be delegated to the CSE as he kind of people and disciplines needed are not easily moulded in a military pattern.

Bearpaw

That's nonsense. Take a look at the list of career options in the CAF. It's not all Combat Arms. Doctors, Cooks, Lawyers, Musicians, Clerks, various Scientists and Engineers - how are they any easier to indoctrinate?

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 202,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,344
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Cyber Operator trade Mega Thread
« Reply #53 on: June 13, 2017, 09:08:21 »
That's nonsense. Take a look at the list of career options in the CAF. It's not all Combat Arms. Doctors, Cooks, Lawyers, Musicians, Clerks, various Scientists and Engineers - how are they any easier to indoctrinate?

They communicate with other human being verbally from time to time prior to entering military service?    ;D

I feel the need...the NEED to FEED! - Prop Gun

Offline OldTanker

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Member
  • *
  • 18,970
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 138
Re: "Canadian military to relax deployment-readiness rule" ...
« Reply #54 on: June 13, 2017, 11:15:09 »
Some observations on this subject. I am both disabled (minimally) and retired (totally) and I lack some of the current understanding of staffing issues facing the CF, for example MATA/PATA, etc, that didn't exist when I served. But there are some other observations/questions I would like to make based on 15 years of post-military service in government and business. First, I think the CDS is on track with his concept of cyber-warriors (my term, not his). Why not create a specialized classification/trade for specialists? If this group has no need to deploy and carry weapons and close with the enemy, why make that a requirement? As we are well into the 21st century isn't it time to adapt our forces to the requirement and be flexible where flexibility won't affect the rest of the force? To those who would argue forcefully about universality of service, I would counter that the largest officer classification in the CF (if I am correct) is composed of reserve officers who are commissioned, paid (generally), uniformed, and administered the same as the rest of the CF but only have to meet minimal medical standards (generally be able to breath and walk), are non-deployable and have no requirement to participate in any form of annual physical or war-fighting (again, my term) training or standards. Of course I am referring to the COATS (did I get that right?) classification who are recruited, trained and employed solely to administer the cadet program. From my experience (ex-Deputy Regional Cadet Officer) the majority of them are dedicated, efficient and do a good job at what we want them to do. There are some clangers, and the appearance of some of them sends shivers down my spine, but we have accepted that we need to have this specialized group of people in the CF and accept that there will be differences between them and the regular (and primary reserve) war fighters. Since we have a precedent, why couldn't we apply a similar standard to cyber-warriors (or any other specialized group that realistically would never deploy or directly engage with the enemy and would not have any affect on the war fighter ship-to-shore staffing issue)? On the issue of broken soldiers (and aviators and sailors), why can't we employ them in positions currently held by civilians and contractors? I would argue that any additional administrative burden caused by keeping broken soldiers in the service, and possibly higher rates of pay, would be offset by maintaining the skill sets some of them have and the additional boost to morale that knowing that there is life in the CF after injury or disability. I have seen lots of my disabled colleagues employed both as contractors and civilians in direct support of the CF and see no reason why we couldn't have kept them in uniform. My sense is that the concept of having the public service applying some sort of priority to hiring disable veterans is not particularly successful so lets keep them in uniform. I have no idea what is in the CDS's mind, and to suggest this is all smoke and mirrors to meet the current government's societal objectives is pure conjecture. I think he is facing an issue of how to build an effective CF that can meet current and future requirements and not simply fall back on a philosophy that every CF member has to be an infantryman first (and whatever the Air Force and Navy equivalents are). I will retreat back into my comfortable retiree's box now and let the games begin! 
« Last Edit: June 13, 2017, 11:35:11 by OldTanker »

Offline meni0n

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 20,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 846
  • Soldier of leisure
Re: "Canadian military to relax deployment-readiness rule" ...
« Reply #55 on: June 13, 2017, 12:37:28 »
Why not?  My trade has a VIE 7.  They could decide they're not getting a return on investment and change it to 9.  It  used to be 3, then 5 and now its VIE 7. 

So is flying one of these:  (if you've never been around/beside an A380...they're bloody massive aircraft)



And yup, I had a Skipper who flew for the CAF for a few years and then went across the pond to fly those metal clouds for 6 figures a year and a LOT of side benefits/pampering.

So, basically what you're saying is that Cyber Ops will be the cream of the crop of any/all MOSIDS and boy oh boy, we had better give them the stuff they ask for or else.  Here's a news flash...EVERY trade is the same.  You can't take Joe off the street in my trade and voila, you have a competent sensor operator.  You're looking at 4 to 5 years to get someone off the street to Advanced Category in my trade and then they still are just starting their first gig as a Crew Lead AES Op.  Infantry...how long to make someone a competent Sect 2 I/C or Sect Comdr??  POINT - don't get on the Cyber Op high-horse before the trade is even in existence in some form of operational capability.

I said before, I knew (and worked with) some CRIPT types long before Cyber Op was even on the table.  I get it, but the same can be said for a lot of trades.  There are opportunities for my trade to go civie, work 6 months a year and make 6 figures doing payload operator type jobs.  Cyber isn't the only battlespace and no more special than the kinetic battlespace operators.

Some of the stuff being discussed in the thread is ridiculous.  *Cyber should be able to get a pension sooner than other people* comes to mind first.

So you knew one guy and I am saying that every competent person would be able to get that kind of job. Now try to sustain a whole trade, taking retention and recruiting into account and it is a monumental challenge. Sorry but comparing AESOPs to Cyber is really not realistic. You guys get trained on specific equipment. I got really good knowledge of what will be required of an operator doing offensive cyber and you simply cannot take anyone off the street and train them to do it. As much as you'd like to believe that it can be just like any trade in the CF, it just cannot. 

I think the no-deployment thing is just the beginning and if they don't bump the trade to Spec, there will most likely be some kind of allowance just like for JTF2 in order to deal with the monetary gap.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 205,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,708
Re: "Canadian military to relax deployment-readiness rule" ...
« Reply #56 on: June 13, 2017, 14:16:25 »
Why not create a specialized classification/trade for specialists? If this group has no need to deploy and carry weapons and close with the enemy, why make that a requirement? … Since we have a precedent, why couldn't we apply a similar standard to cyber-warriors (or any other specialized group that realistically would never deploy or directly engage with the enemy and would not have any effect on the war fighter ship-to-shore staffing issue)?
Are you also proposing we pay Cyber the same as COATS, or that we make them a component separate from the Reg F and PRes?  There are some great people amongst the officer cadre for the cadets, but there is also a lot of animosity and condescension (though it may not be deserved) that I have seen come from some Reg F and Pres.  I think you would find it easier to integrate a team if the “cyber tech” were presented as a civilian professional as opposed to a service member who just does not do that profession of arms thing. 

On the issue of broken soldiers (and aviators and sailors), why can't we employ them in positions currently held by civilians and contractors? … I have seen lots of my disabled colleagues employed both as contractors and civilians in direct support of the CF and see no reason why we couldn't have kept them in uniform.
There are a finite number of military positions that we are allowed to fill; the corollary is that every broken service member retained is one fewer fit member that we are able to hire.  We have a system in place that looks at what individuals are able to contribute and where vacancies exist, it then allows a temporary retention so that members can continue to serve while getting transition support.  But eventually they have to go or the whole system becomes constipated.  Priority hiring has to be made to work, because we also cannot start firing civilians to re-allocate work to a broken individual in uniform.   

I have no idea what is in the CDS's mind, and to suggest this is all smoke and mirrors to meet the current government's societal objectives is pure conjecture. I think he is facing an issue of how to build an effective CF that can meet current and future requirements and not simply fall back on a philosophy that every CF member has to be an infantryman first (and whatever the Air Force and Navy equivalents are).
This is certainly a factor.  Recruiting and retention has been a reoccurring (if not enduring) problem for a while now.

Offline Pre-flight

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,835
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 348
Re: Cyber Operator trade Mega Thread
« Reply #57 on: June 13, 2017, 14:26:14 »
Honestly the skillsets for a Cyber trade can be taught. The workforce with the aptitude for this trade are very much out there. Infact in alot of ways I think it will be easier to recruit people with a good aptitude for Cyber Op than it will be for many more conventional trades.

That said the only (very) questionable piece is the CAF's ability to put together a comprehensive, relevant and practical training plan for new cyber operators.

I'm afraid that's going to come from within the Sigs trade and I don't think the knowledge needed exists in any meaningful concentration within the C&E branch right now, nor do I have faith that the branch will be able to select the right people to put them into the key roles to form a strong foundation for the new fledgling trade. The complete fluster cuck that is ACISS has made that clear.

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 406,825
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,526
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Cyber Operator trade Mega Thread
« Reply #58 on: June 13, 2017, 15:27:19 »
Maaaaaaaaaybe a bit more detail from the Minister tomorrow?
Quote
Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan will highlight Canada’s priorities in the space and cyber domain as part of Canada’s new defence policy at 3 Division Support Base Edmonton, on June 14, 2017.

Minister Sajjan will hold a media availability following his remarks.

Event: Media availability with Minister Sajjan

Time: 9:45 a.m.

Date: June 14, 2017

Location: Harvey Building, 3 Canadian Division Support Base Edmonton, 405 Korea Road, Edmonton, Alberta

-30-
Meanwhile, the cyber-bits from the recent review attached - let the highlighting continue!
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 193,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,652
  • Freespeecher
Re: "Canadian military to relax deployment-readiness rule" ...
« Reply #59 on: June 13, 2017, 16:06:43 »
This seems to be missing the point. Unless Cyber and other "new" trades never deploy at all and exist working 24/7 in an armoured bunker hidden in Resolute Bay, any soldier or service member had better be fit and capable of fighting and defending themselves. The idea there are "safe" rear areas has been debunked for decades (indeed if I were fighting this kind of war, I'd be looking for opportunities to find out where the cyber warriors are in Canada and visit with a large truck bomb and a bunch of guys wielding AK-47's).

The alternative would be a vastly expanded Infantry branch with training approximating CP Operators to escort these specialists 24/7 to prevent just that kind of visitation. Do we want a huge bodyguard force just to ensure we can operate in the new modalities of warfare (and what are we willing to give up in exchange?).
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Simian Turner

    is a veteran who enjoys oddities!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 48,575
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,624
  • Do the right thing; do the thing right!
Re: "Canadian military to relax deployment-readiness rule" ...
« Reply #60 on: June 13, 2017, 17:21:22 »
So if it is OK to have "Specialist Cyber warriors" who will never deploy and therefore do not need to meet the U of S guidelines, why can't we have Lawyers, Supply Techs, Logistics Officers, Padres, Specialists/Medical Officers, Dentists, Physician Assistants, Medical Assistants, Dental Technicians that are not required to be deployable or meet U of S so we could retain them and provide continuity in support roles at Bases.  Oh yes, I forgot - "Soldier First" does not apply on a case by case basis.
The grand essentials of happiness: something to do, something to love, something to hope for.  Allan K. Chalmers

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 194,635
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,579
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: "Canadian military to relax deployment-readiness rule" ...
« Reply #61 on: June 13, 2017, 18:20:44 »
Dare one consider a civilian CS2/3 with a special skills bonus for the skills they possess that 95% of their peers don't? Solves the UofS issue and they can still be on the Defence TeamTM.

:dunno:

Regards
G2G

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 156,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,611
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: "Canadian military to relax deployment-readiness rule" ...
« Reply #62 on: June 13, 2017, 19:48:43 »
So if it is OK to have "Specialist Cyber warriors" who will never deploy and therefore do not need to meet the U of S guidelines, why can't we have Lawyers, Supply Techs, Logistics Officers, Padres, Specialists/Medical Officers, Dentists, Physician Assistants, Medical Assistants, Dental Technicians that are not required to be deployable or meet U of S so we could retain them and provide continuity in support roles at Bases.  Oh yes, I forgot - "Soldier First" does not apply on a case by case basis.

A decent chunk of Australian military doctors, dentists and the like are "Specialist Reserve" in that they only request to deploy and aren't posted to a base.  They maintain practices or work in civilian hospitals wherever they are.  Granted, these are more for specialists than GPs. 
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline medicineman

  • Well stuck into my new job and thoroughly enjoying it.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 142,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,085
  • In Arduis Fidelis
    • Fed By The Firehose
Re: "Canadian military to relax deployment-readiness rule" ...
« Reply #63 on: June 13, 2017, 21:18:37 »
There  going to have to be some sort of medical standard for these creatures, especially if their special hideaway is up in Ungabungaluktutuk or they're expected to go somewhere bad...since they'll still have to (literally) carry their weight over hill or dale if something goes boobies up (and since that Irish drunk Murphy has a big nose that's in everyone's business, it will).  Strangely enough, people that are treated like/act like mushrooms tend to be less healthy than those that get good food, sunlight and exercise regularly - if we're going to employ mushrooms, they'll have to be healthy enough to be sent where they might be needed AND not be able to be looked after as well as they would be in a large urban centre.

 :2c:

MM
MM

Remember the basics of Medicine - "Pink is GOOD, Blue is BAD, Air goes in AND out, Blood Goes Round and Round"

I may sound like a pessimist, but I am a realist.

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 406,825
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,526
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Cyber Operator trade Mega Thread
« Reply #64 on: June 14, 2017, 14:21:28 »
And, broad strokes only, via the Info-machine - highlights mine ...
Quote
Strong, Secure, Engaged, Canada’s new defence policy, recognizes that the long-term success of Canada’s military depends on the women and men who make up the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). Our people are our most important asset and they deserve to be equipped with the resources, capabilities and skills required to meet today’s complex and modern challenges.

Today Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, on behalf of Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan, met with leaders from industry and academia at the University of New Brunswick’s Canadian Institute for Cybersecurity to discuss the cybersecurity environment and the implications to Canada’s defence and security.

Cyber threats pose an increasing risk to our national security. Under the new policy Canada will implement measures to ensure that the CAF is ready to respond, whenever threats arise and from wherever they come.

Defence will establish a new Cyber Mission Assurance Program that will incorporate cybersecurity considerations into military procurement; create a new military occupation for Cyber Operators to help focus training initiatives and recruit top talent in the field; and leverage reservists with specialized skillsets to strengthen the military’s capabilities. The CAF will also be provided with the resources necessary to conduct active cyber operations, in support of government-authorized military missions.

The CAF can no longer wait for an attack before taking concrete action. Strong, Secure, Engaged, will provide the CAF with the tools and resources needed to address these threats and help make Canada strong at home, secure in North America, and engaged in the world.

Strong, Secure, Engaged is an ambitious yet realistic plan that outlines Canada’s defence priorities over the next 20 years, and provides stable, predictable, and long-term funding.

Quotes

    “The global security environment is rapidly evolving and threats are constantly emerging. We know this is not something we can control. But what we can control is ensuring that our women and men are prepared to deal with these challenges. This policy is investing in the resources and capabilities we need to get the job done, and done well.”

    Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan

    “Today’s threats are no longer just on the traditional battlefield – they now live in the cyber and space domains. To be effective, we know we can no longer adopt a purely defensive approach. Strong, Secure, Engaged provides the stable and long-term funding needed to modernize our military so that it can better respond to these threats.”

    The Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard

Quick Facts

    Cyber operations will be subject to the same rigour and oversight as every Canadian Armed Forces operation, including:
        Abiding by Canadian and international laws;
        Conducted only in support of government-authorized military missions; and
        Conducted according to proven checks and balances, such as rules of engagement, targeting, and collateral damage.

    The launch of Strong, Secure, Engaged concludes the most comprehensive review process in Canadian defence and security history - a year-long review process that included open and transparent consultations with Canadians, parliamentarians, defence experts, allies, and partners.
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 202,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,344
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: "Canadian military to relax deployment-readiness rule" ...
« Reply #65 on: June 14, 2017, 16:48:28 »
So you knew one guy and I am saying that every competent person would be able to get that kind of job. Now try to sustain a whole trade, taking retention and recruiting into account and it is a monumental challenge. Sorry but comparing AESOPs to Cyber is really not realistic. You guys get trained on specific equipment. I got really good knowledge of what will be required of an operator doing offensive cyber and you simply cannot take anyone off the street and train them to do it. As much as you'd like to believe that it can be just like any trade in the CF, it just cannot. 

I think the no-deployment thing is just the beginning and if they don't bump the trade to Spec, there will most likely be some kind of allowance just like for JTF2 in order to deal with the monetary gap.

I used 1 guy I know who is a Pilot as an example. 

Are you suggesting that Cyber is the most hardcore, hard to train MOSID?  Seriously...you (potential) guys need to get the frig over yourselves before you even get going.  Do you know what CRIPT was/is?  I know them, I shared office space with them.  They are SMEs in what they so, just like a Med Tech is, or a veh tech is.  The trade will be just as special as any other trade is.  FULL STOP.  If I spent the same amount of time training to be Cyber that I have to be an AES Op, I'd be a SME in that, too.  6 months work as a payload operator can equal XXX,XXX salary a year for UAV type, civie side, with the right experience.

You have no idea what my training or knowledge is, actually.  Don't take the term scope dope literally.  I have a friend who has done Red/Blue team stuff that will tell you anyone can be trained in cyber, just like any other trade, and some will be better at it than others...just like any other trade.

 ::)  Cyber should be compensated "just like JTF2".  Holy fuckballs, over.
I feel the need...the NEED to FEED! - Prop Gun

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 264,881
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,283
Re: "Canadian military to relax deployment-readiness rule" ...
« Reply #66 on: June 14, 2017, 17:15:55 »
Quote
I think the no-deployment thing is just the beginning and if they don't bump the trade to Spec, there will most likely be some kind of allowance just like for JTF2 in order to deal with the monetary gap
There's no shortage of computer guys and girls in school. From what I recall most can't find work in their field because of the saturation level.

While milage varies every member of the CAF should be prepared (and capable of) grabbing a rifle, grenades and bayonet and manning a trench on the other side of the world.

The "what about injured members" is a slippery emotional slope.  IMO does a 12 year veteran who can't deploy anymore still have a lot to offer the military? Yes. Does someone with 1 year in and unable to deploy? Not as much.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline meni0n

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 20,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 846
  • Soldier of leisure
Re: "Canadian military to relax deployment-readiness rule" ...
« Reply #67 on: June 14, 2017, 17:32:39 »
I used 1 guy I know who is a Pilot as an example. 

Are you suggesting that Cyber is the most hardcore, hard to train MOSID?  Seriously...you (potential) guys need to get the frig over yourselves before you even get going.  Do you know what CRIPT was/is?  I know them, I shared office space with them.  They are SMEs in what they so, just like a Med Tech is, or a veh tech is.  The trade will be just as special as any other trade is.  FULL STOP.  If I spent the same amount of time training to be Cyber that I have to be an AES Op, I'd be a SME in that, too.  6 months work as a payload operator can equal XXX,XXX salary a year for UAV type, civie side, with the right experience.

You have no idea what my training or knowledge is, actually.  Don't take the term scope dope literally.  I have a friend who has done Red/Blue team stuff that will tell you anyone can be trained in cyber, just like any other trade, and some will be better at it than others...just like any other trade.

 ::)  Cyber should be compensated "just like JTF2".  Holy fuckballs, over.

Just because you can't really accept that a trade will require really smart and competent people with really specialised training, that's not really my problem. If you want to sit there and tell yourself that anyone can be trained for any trade in the CF, go ahead. Being just ok at this is really not an option because it could mean one mistake away from attribution or even a bigger blunder which will cause major issues. No one really wants that. 

I'll give you an example, I'm part of a trade that's supposed to have very technically minded people. But, in reality, there is really a small amount of really IT smart people. And, even if we choose someone to go to all the technical courses we got, they are still no better than when we started, which is why we are having a hard time filling positions that require really good IT technical skills.

Another example, I got a buddy that was chosen to go to CFNOC. He wasn't the most technical guy and sure he went to do all the training, at the end all he was doing is opening some alerts and forwarding them. Basic buttonology without any analysis. And even though he was taught everything he needs to know to be a good analyst, if I open up wireshark and throw some pcaps in there, he'll have a very hard time fully analysing it.

Point I am trying to make is that, just because the traditional military training that you're used to has worked for most of the military trades, doesn't mean that it will work in this instance.

Lastly, no I haven't heard of CRIPT, which leads me to believe that they what they were doing had little to nothing to do with Cyber and the fact that you're naming them means that they weren't working at the classification that was of impact, at least in the sense of cyber that the CF wants to do.

In regards to the JTF2 like allowance, you can patronise me all you want but that's the rumour going around at the moment and like I said if they don't move the trade into a Spec group, will most likely need such an allowance.

Offline Tcm621

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 7,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 659
I get the impression people think these cyber guys will be hardcore hackers like MR. Robot. More than likely they will be computer literate individuals who will use tools provided to them to do the jobs they need to do. They will be military script kiddies. Anyone with an internet connection and a decent understanding of networks and computers who is willing to invest the time to learn can "hack".

The guys making the tools will be civilian contractors most likely working for the NSA or another of our allies. They will be making 6 figures and will likely never leave home (possibly literally).

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 79,570
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,742
Re: "Canadian military to relax deployment-readiness rule" ...
« Reply #69 on: June 14, 2017, 19:03:59 »
EITS,

The difference between an AES Op and a potential cyber trade is the demand of those skills in the private sectors and the number of people that can complete training, can be very good technically and have a level of critical thinking that allows them to operate with little supervision.

Not to diminish the AES Op trade, but the demand of your technical skills in the civilian sector isn't that great and I bet you that most operators are pretty good at what they do, probably because how you operate your equipment doesn't really deviate from the standard procedures established. I imagine that a cyber operator would require a level of critical thinking and problem solving skills beyond what you would require on a daily basis.  Companies hire people with those skills already and with the training and experience brings, they will be sought after.  So yes, there needs to be some measures from which we will retain those skills, training and experience.  And forcing them to stay by signing for x years won't cut it.  We have to make the CAF an attractive employer.  If we need to change some of our policies then so be it.  We need to adapt to today's realities and care for our people.

Making them public serveants could be an option but it becomes difficult to make them conduct offensive operations (without the unlimited liability portion).  IMO, any trade that conducts offensive operations should be uniformed.

And then there is the argument of every soldier should be able to deploy because of terrorism.  Using that logic, every civilian should meet the standards for deployments.  That is non-sense.  We have people that are trained and paid to take up weapons and start shooting when fhit hit the san and that transfers to most current trades. Nothing says cyber operators could have basic weapons quals (like most non-combat trades.  I shoot 9mm once a year and C-7 never).  If they are actually needed here, things really went wrong and an unfit cyber operator or a NDHQ Admin Loggie would stand on equal foot IMO.

Offline meni0n

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 20,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 846
  • Soldier of leisure
I get the impression people think these cyber guys will be hardcore hackers like MR. Robot. More than likely they will be computer literate individuals who will use tools provided to them to do the jobs they need to do. They will be military script kiddies. Anyone with an internet connection and a decent understanding of networks and computers who is willing to invest the time to learn can "hack".

The guys making the tools will be civilian contractors most likely working for the NSA or another of our allies. They will be making 6 figures and will likely never leave home (possibly literally).

Without going too much into specifics but hardcore hackers is more closer to the mark than you think. Having a computer program where you put in a IP address and expect results is not realistic or even possible. There are a lot of factors that need to be taken into consideration and each situation is unique as is each large network out there. There would also need to be many things done before you even come to the stage of going after a target which can only be done by very competent and technical people. I don't even want to touch the attribution aspect.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 202,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,344
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: "Canadian military to relax deployment-readiness rule" ...
« Reply #71 on: June 14, 2017, 19:30:54 »
Just because you can't really accept that a trade will require really smart and competent people with really specialised training, that's not really my problem. If you want to sit there and tell yourself that anyone can be trained for any trade in the CF, go ahead. Being just ok at this is really not an option because it could mean one mistake away from attribution or even a bigger blunder which will cause major issues. No one really wants that.

I completely accept a trade will require really smart and competent people.  Not limited to pilots, Cyber, SOF.  I really hope the Flt Srgn knows their stuff, the pharmacist, the dentist.  My 24 years experience instructing in the CAF tells me that anyone can be trained and some people will have more aptitude and proficiency, including any/all things IT.  Before my remuster, I wore a Jimmy cap badge.  I've been (limited) exposed to the Cyber battlespace by the CAF folks who were doing *cyber* before it was talked about in public (also wearing Jimmy capbadges).  I spent X years working in a HQ G6 environment up to Branch 2 I/C, worked with IT, INFOSEC, COMSEC...I am not pulling an opinion out of my arse here.  I decided that stuff wasn't where I was best suited and moved on.   

Quote
Another example, I got a buddy that was chosen to go to CFNOC. He wasn't the most technical guy and sure he went to do all the training, at the end all he was doing is opening some alerts and forwarding them. Basic buttonology without any analysis. And even though he was taught everything he needs to know to be a good analyst, if I open up wireshark and throw some pcaps in there, he'll have a very hard time fully analysing it.

Your example supports what I said above;  not everyone is going to finish top of the class.  Same will be true in Cyber, flying training, or a Combat Team Commanders course.

Quote
Point I am trying to make is that, just because the traditional military training that you're used to has worked for most of the military trades, doesn't mean that it will work in this instance.

Well, that is easy to assume if you make presumptions about my education, experience or knowledge.  I've been in the CAF since 1989, but only an AES Op since 2010.

Quote
Lastly, no I haven't heard of CRIPT, which leads me to believe that they what they were doing had little to nothing to do with Cyber and the fact that you're naming them means that they weren't working at the classification that was of impact, at least in the sense of cyber that the CF wants to do.

Ok.   ;D  IPT = Information Protection Team.  There was more than one, and they were spread out across the country.  PM your name and I'll put you in touch with a former one who then went to Blue/Red teams and is at the Mothership now.   

Quote
In regards to the JTF2 like allowance, you can patronise me all you want but that's the rumour going around at the moment and like I said if they don't move the trade into a Spec group, will most likely need such an allowance.

I'm saying..if you think Cyber is as hardcore (in the IT kind of way) as JTF2..well.  I think that's stretching it.

Will Cyber require good, solid Ops?  You betcha.  Just like my trade does.  Or Sonar Op.  Because in any of those trades, if people frig up, bad things can happen.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2017, 20:35:34 by Eye In The Sky »
I feel the need...the NEED to FEED! - Prop Gun

Offline Tcm621

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 7,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 659
Without going too much into specifics but hardcore hackers is more closer to the mark than you think. Having a computer program where you put in a IP address and expect results is not realistic or even possible. There are a lot of factors that need to be taken into consideration and each situation is unique as is each large network out there. There would also need to be many things done before you even come to the stage of going after a target which can only be done by very competent and technical people. I don't even want to touch the attribution aspect.
I think it is unlikely they will be opening up a terminal window and coding on the fly. They will likely be using penetrative tools to attack networks. I don't mean to down play it but these are not going to hackers as people commonly think of them. They will be more akin to pen testers as part of an IT security company. These people are very well trained professionals and they are in high demand but there is no reason we can treat them like any other high demand military professional like NDT techs. There are a lot of military trades that can earn you six figures (especially in the energy sector) and we treat them like any other military member.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 202,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,344
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: "Canadian military to relax deployment-readiness rule" ...
« Reply #73 on: June 14, 2017, 20:29:43 »
EITS,

The difference between an AES Op and a potential cyber trade is the demand of those skills in the private sectors and the number of people that can complete training, can be very good technically and have a level of critical thinking that allows them to operate with little supervision.

Aside from the *demand in the private sector* part...honestly, you're also talking about a good A Cat NASO or ASO as well.  Seriously.  I'd even say more so for the ASO side;  I've seen them look like their heads have been hammered after hard box or mission.  Tracking a boomer...well, I'd guess that is pretty challenging too.

Quote
Not to diminish the AES Op trade, but the demand of your technical skills in the civilian sector isn't that great and I bet you that most operators are pretty good at what they do, probably because how you operate your equipment doesn't really deviate from the standard procedures established. I imagine that a cyber operator would require a level of critical thinking and problem solving skills beyond what you would require on a daily basis.  Companies hire people with those skills already and with the training and experience brings, they will be sought after.  So yes, there needs to be some measures from which we will retain those skills, training and experience.  And forcing them to stay by signing for x years won't cut it.  We have to make the CAF an attractive employer.  If we need to change some of our policies then so be it.  We need to adapt to today's realities and care for our people.

I know you, like 99% of the CAF, don't know what my trade really does and to what level we delve into things like tactics.  People think AES Op and they think scope dope, ping monkey, or the guy/gal holding the flag off the end of the hoist cable on a Sea King during a photo op.  That's ok, MH AES Ops who never see the inside of a MPA don't *get* what LRP AES Ops do, and vice versa.  If we don't really get each others jobs between fleets (other than the dual-qual guys), I don't expect the other classifications/trades who don't work with us to understand.  I'll finish the para by simply saying there's more to my job than watching a RADAR turn and button-mashing;  the 2 year upgrade to go from Basic to Advanced Cat isn't centered around crayon drawings and finger painting.  Right?  That's after 1+ year of pre and post Wings training.  Lots of trades take lots of time to train to *OFP and proficiency*.  Like, NET in the Navy, ATIS Techs...the list goes on.

But if you're ever in ZX and doing a RON, let me know and I'll see if we can arrange to get you in a box as a NASO for a ASuW box, or, even better, an ASO for an ASW box.  Get you in the ASO, NASO and Tac seat.   :nod:  Maybe I'll convince you we aren't just self-loading meatbags.   8)

If hiring, and wages are the main concern...do like they have done/are doing with PAs.  Make them all commissioned.  We do this with dental officers (I believe they make a crapload of money compared to even Pilots, who make more than GSOs), legal officers, etc.  Cyber isn't going to be a big trade, right? 

Aside from that, after watching the ACISS melt down from the sidelines...does anyone have faith in the C & E branch to really birth and burp this particular baby the right way??


Quote
Making them public serveants could be an option but it becomes difficult to make them conduct offensive operations (without the unlimited liability portion).  IMO, any trade that conducts offensive operations should be uniformed.

And then there is the argument of every soldier should be able to deploy because of terrorism.  Using that logic, every civilian should meet the standards for deployments.  That is non-sense.  We have people that are trained and paid to take up weapons and start shooting when fhit hit the san and that transfers to most current trades. Nothing says cyber operators could have basic weapons quals (like most non-combat trades.  I shoot 9mm once a year and C-7 never).  If they are actually needed here, things really went wrong and an unfit cyber operator or a NDHQ Admin Loggie would stand on equal foot IMO.

Offensive operations that could cause loss of life, or just loss of service?  To me, there's a difference. 

Question; how are other NATO militaries setting up their Cyber forces?  Are they non-deployable, *who cares about your fitness?* forces or are they another military trade performing to the same minimum standards as the others in uniform?

Yup, we want the right people BUT we also want them to join us for the right reasons.  IMO. 
« Last Edit: June 14, 2017, 20:34:26 by Eye In The Sky »
I feel the need...the NEED to FEED! - Prop Gun

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 202,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,344
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: "Canadian military to relax deployment-readiness rule" ...
« Reply #74 on: June 14, 2017, 20:43:40 »
I'll sum up...I've derailed this enough.

- cyber will need good people and be a challenge, in many ways.  I hope it doesn't go off the rails.

- I think we might be going too far with this whole non-deployable people thing.  As CountDC mentioned, what about burnout for those left to do the OUTCAN work?  Having done 3 CJOC type ROTOs in very short time recently (well less than 24 months) for a sustained OP, plus exercises and training in/outside Canada, and another less-known CJOC op a few times, it sucks to be the person going out the door...again..and again.

- I'll wait to see the CDS vision and intended End State with hopes this one is done right, if it is done.

I feel the need...the NEED to FEED! - Prop Gun