I do think that we need a Cyber-equivalent of a Rickover or Mitchell. We need the combination of technical expertise, fanatic commitment to excellence, and hierarchical standing that each of these two disastrous-yet-visionary leaders brought to their communities.

I suspect Rickover might be the better model, because of his devotion to technical excellence. Having a Cyber equivalent of Naval Reactors, where you have thousands of dedicated technical experts continually beating up on things, experimenting with things, and writing the guidelines for how to do things, and most importantly – being the the most respected voice in this domain, seems like a pretty valuable thing to have.

Right now, I think some people might think that Cybercom is that organization, but I think we need something that’s closer to the train, man, and equip side of the military is needed for a Cyber equivalent to Naval Reactors. We need the skills, personnel, and tools to do things – and a consistent framework for this to happen.

Of course, your point about the fact that aviation and nuclear power didn’t have a dedicated, competitive, and extremely talented external constituency is something that means that it can’t be done the same way as Rickover/Mitchell did it. But something like it is needed. Right now we have a vague mush of semi-skilled people all jostling for cyber-stuff to stir into their military planning pots.

So someone in the govmil bureaucracy has to pick up the guidon and lead with the fanatical focus and talent once provided by Rickover and/or Mitchell. Because I don’t think we’re going to make much progress the way we’re doing it right now, with dozens of vaguely similar organizations all trying to pull Cyber in their own direction.

You’ve a good point but the analysis isn’t being done for attribution. They’re reverse engineereing the tool. Totally different goal and end state.