Why are we only playing defense when it comes to cyber threats?

1SG (Join to see) - Prowlers still fly. I work with the Prowler units. We might be shutting down in the next couple years, but my birds are still in the air.

Cpl Justin Goolsby - Then I have an idea for a mission for them. Turn those bad boys to 11.

CPT Arch Nissel
Where do you think all these nations learned about this? They are only doing what we were doing to them. The only funny thing about this is their reason for making it an issue now.

I agree think in terms of stuxnet - by physical nature of infrastructure this often involves jumping air gaps which leads to more clandestine measures. Not to let the Jeanie out of the bottle I would bet however there are many cyber assets in place that could be dialed up to cause all sorts of problems if needed. Iraqi missile defense is just one example that highlights the possibilities.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/03/10/one_printer_one_virus_one/

MSG Brad Sand - That is what I keep asking myself: what would the Russians have to gain? I mean, if I had no knowledge and came at this devoid of the spin I've been hearing for months, my first thought on a culprit would be a disaffected staffer leaking all this email traffic to Assange. Lots of DNC folks were pretty bent at the treatment of Senator Sanders to do such a thing.
Still, consensus in the IC is that it was the Russians, and in an official capacity. That should have consequences.

1SG (Join to see)
I think you are confusing two different narratives...I think as they would like you to do. The question of were we hacked and the question of who released the information to Assange.
Were we hacked? Yes. By whom? Well that is a giant question and one of the, at minimum, 24 actors was located in Russia. So, that was the source of the Wikileaks information dumps? Maybe? No one has even hinted at that from the IC and Assange as out right denied it.
Here is my questions to you, as an intelligent person with some understanding of how this game is played. How valuable is this type of intelligence. actual proof of corruption? How valuable is that information once it is leaked? Would intelligence professionals throw away such valuable information, and if so why?

MSG Brad Sand - As an intelligence official, you never want to disclose information to an adversary. Politicians, on the other hand do so for political advantage. Were it the Russians, I would surmise that Putin's thinking would be that disruption to and weakening of the likely winner of the election (Hillary) would lead to significant paralysis in decision-making and giving them a more free hand to do what they wish in Ukraine, Syria, and maybe the Baltics and elsewhere. I can certainly ascribe a motive to the Russian President.
However, that line of thinking does not work if you figure that Putin preferred Trump over Hillary. That is the part of the narrative that doesn't make sense. Of course, for political reasons the DNC would like to tar Trump with this, and that is what makes the above hypothesis work.
Now, as a thinking man, I think that there are lots of agencies the world over that would like to read this type of information. It would inform how they interact with a prospective President going forward. I have little doubt that multiple foreign intelligence services are actively trying to do just that, including our friends.
What also doesn't figure is that a data dump such as this has an air of a personal vendetta. Putin may not like Hillary, but I don't think that rises to this level.
I think you are on to something when you say evidence of Russian hacking attempts does not equal success, nor data acquisition, nor subsequent release to WikiLeaks. My gut keeps telling me the source is domestic, and close to the HRC team... real close.

I hope someday we find out. But I will wager that it isn't today when the official briefings happen.

Col Joseph Lenertz I hope so Sir.

I suspect that the response has been low key not because of the classified nature of our tools and means (remember the UBL raid? That was as classified as it gets, and it wasn't 24 hours before people were spilling the beans about how we did it), but rather actual cravenness. I think that the political leaders have assessed that we are vulnerable to attack, and don't want to provoke an attack that does real damage on their watch.
In other words, there is not enough Mutually Assured Destruction in order to effectively deter an attack. We need to fix that.
And squash the ISIS and other non-state actors like a bug.

That was because people on the inside of the Obama Admin were all proud of themselves and they decided to spike the football. The folks in the OCO community do not advertise what they do or where they do it. Fortunately for them, the folks in the Obama Admin haven't focused their attention to their capabilities, operations, or successes thus far. Plus, they wouldn't understand it in the first place when you have the likes of Podesta and Clinton in the White House.

Rest assured, more defensive capabilities are coming in significant numbers. The services have each created several new units over the last few years and they're still working out the organize, train, and equip factors. Still, there is very little we can do for examples like the DNC when they were warned over a year ago they're being targeted and they did nothing to harden their defenses. What's worse you had a Sec of State who decided to ignore the rules and build her own server for government business. This essentially took the power from the Defensive Cyber folks hands.

Believe it or not, our defensive cyber capability is actually very good. The problem is, we don't have enough of it to go around (yet) and there are people like Clinton in our government who ignore the importance of what we do.

Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
Of course we do. Who does everyone think the Chinese and Russians learned this from? The funny thing to me in this whole thing is the timing of people screaming 'foul'? Oh, and the fact that everyone seems to be mad that they revealed the truth about corruption within the DNC but they are only mad about who revealed it? No one seems to be concerned about the corruption, only how the pustulous boil was revealed?

Not no one, just those who are mad about Trump winning. I've been repeating the same thing time and time again. It is possible to not like Assange and the Russians right now and still be livid about the DNC at the same time. It's also important to note, before the Russians allegedly interfered, the DNC interfered with their own process during the primaries to ensure Clinton would be the candidate. Pot, meet kettle I say...