• US Citizen or Permanent Resident
• Graduating with a Bachelor's Degree in Dec. 2013 or later

Meet UMBC’s inaugural batch of NSF Scholarship for Service (SFS) CyberCorps program scholars. These four B.S., M.P.S. and Ph.D. students  will be able to hone their interests in Information Assurance and Cybersecurity through generous full-ride scholarships and opportunities to intern at government organizations. 

Oliver Kubik

Major: B.S. Computer Science '14
Hometown: New Windsor, MD

Oliver Kubik knew that Computer Science was for him starting in the 7^th grade when he played with madlib style programs on his basement computer. Now a Junior working toward his B.S. in Computer Science at UMBC, Oliver has plans to one day pursue a Ph.D.

What Oliver likes about Information Assurance and Cybersecurity  is the problem solving and detective work. “Everything must be analyzed much more in depth than conventional software applications whose bugs typically have minor consequences,” he says. “I think that securing mobile devices will be very important in the future.”

A Meyerhoff Scholar, Oliver is part of UMBC’s Cyber Defense Team and Ultimate Frisbee team. In Summer 2012, he pursued undergraduate research at the University of Connecticut, comparing the strengths of Amazon’s EC2 and Windows’ Azure cloud computing systems. “My results didn’t show a clear superiority of one system over another, but I did learn a lot about academic research, especially in the importance of organizing the data that is collected.”

His Freshman year, Oliver interned at System’s Alliance in Hunt Valley, creating an automated testing framework for their web portal to speed up the logging of bugs. Here he learned about the complexities of web pages and the Selenium web automation tool. That summer he did similar work as an intern at Booz Allen Hamilton.

As part of the SFS program, Oliver hops to intern at the National Security Agency. His plans after graduating in May 2014 are to explore work in the governmental sphere before pursuing a Ph.D. in Cybersecurity.

Brandyn Schult

Major: B.A. Human Ecology, M.P.S. Cybersecurity ‘14

Lured by UMBC’s distinction as a CAE school and its prime location in the “Silicon Valley of Cyber”, Brandyn Schult joined UMBC’s Cybersecurity M.P.S. program in Fall 2012 to broaden his understanding of Cybersecurity. He is now part of UMBC’s Cyber Defense Lab (CDL).

“What I like about Information Assurance and Cybersecurity is that they are not bound by many technical limitations and new practices are constantly being developed,” explains Brandyn, who graduated from the College of the Atlantic, Maine with a B.A. in Human Ecology. “What we have as students is a chance to help shape a new discipline and that is exciting.”

Brandyn speculates that the biggest cyber threat we face today isn’t from outside sources, like viruses or hackers, but from “the legacy infrastructure that the cyber domain is built on and the users’ interaction with it.” He cites IPv4 and SCADA systems at a fundamental problem. “It’s 2012, yet we are still using technology from the 70’s and 80’s as the foundation for the technology today and tomorrow.”

Brendan Masiar

Major: B.A. Philosophy '11, M.P.S. Cybersecurity '13
Hometown: East Islip, NY

After graduating from UMBC a year ago with a Bachelor’s in Philosophy, Brendan Masiar came right back to pursue his passion for Computer Science. He chose UMBC’s graduate program in Cybersecurity because he saw it as “a perfect blend of [his] humanities and technical background.”

“I love that the field is constantly developing and evolving,” says Brendan of Cybersecurity. “There is no definitive end point to cybersecurity, ” he says, “some new attack vector will always be out there.” Brendan thinks cell phones and mobile devices that enable us to do things like online baking, check mail, and other private tasks, are our biggest cyber threat. “The risk for data loss and identity fraud is going to be more and more rampant.”

Right now Brendan is interning at Tresys Technology in Columbia, where he works on testing and developing software. After finishing up school, he will be looking for a job within Maryland’s IT industry. “My dream job is one that will be setting precedents, whether it be through policy or through methods used,” he explains.  His role model is Dr. Steven Yalowitz of UMBC’s Philosophy Department, who got Brendan hooked on the subject. “I hope one day to instill that same curiosity into others.”

Lisa Mathews

Major: M.S. Computer Engineering, Ph.D. Computer Science '15

What is it about Cybersecurity and Information Assurance that appeals to Ph.D. student Lisa Matthews? “They are challenging fields that provide many opportunities to apply one’s knowledge and skill set to tackle various security issues or vulnerabilities,” explains Lisa. “Protecting computers and information from various threats is an important function, especially given the number of security attacks that have happened and are likely to occur.”

Lisa thinks that a new wave of “low-and-slow” attacks—ones that surreptitiously strike in different phases and can spend days, weeks, or even months weakening a system’s defenses–are a big threat. “These are difficult to detect, hard to contain, and can do considerable damage before they are stopped.” In fact, Lisa is working towards a solution to these types of attacks with her thesis research. “My current research is focused on taking a semantic approach to intrusion detection by combining data from various sources, integrating data, and performing additional analysis using a knowledge base that would enable the detection of a threat or attack. This method should prove to be useful in stopping attacks that follow a low-and-sow intrusion pattern.”

After graduating, Lisa hopes to work for one of the Department of Defense agencies. “My dream job is one where I can continue research on the constantly evolving fields of information assurance and cybersecurity,” she says. “This scholarship is providing me a great opportunity to attain this job.”

Ira Glass Lecture

Saturday, October 13, 2012

10:30am

University Center, Ballroom

UMBC ID = $5 (limit 1/ID)

In light of the violent protests in Libya, Egypt, Yemen and other parts of North Africa and the Middle East, some are arguing that the Innocence of Muslims video is far from an innocent exercise of freedom of speech. But others feel that the video itself, however vile it may be, is protected under the first amendment of the Constitution as a form of free speech.

What’s an American to do?

Former Governor Mitt Romney argued that the individuals who created the film “have the right to do that, but it’s not right to do things that are of the nature of what was done by, apparently this film.” In other words, the filmmakers had the right to express their views through the video, but that does not necessarily translate into the action itself being “right” in a moral sense.

On Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the United States government had nothing to do with the video and that she personally found it: “disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage.”  

Clinton also explained that the United States does not limit its citizens’ right to speak freely, no matter how “distasteful” an individual’s opinion may be, but she also acknowledged that other nations may not share this view with regard to allowing such extensive room for self-expression.

This, of course, is an important statement. Perhaps part of the reason why some individuals in other nations are so angry is because they themselves are not accustomed to the democratic principle of free expression and therefore do not fully understand how America can allow anyone to publicly display such a terrible thing.

However, Clinton argues that this lack of full understanding does not condone hostile behavior, as she adds: “there should be no debate about the simple proposition that violence in response to speech is not acceptable…we all must draw the line at violence.”

Google is apparently drawing a line even closer to home. The Internet giant, which owns YouTube, decided of its own accord to temporarily restrict access to the video in Libya and Egypt in an attempt to alleviate some of the tension. But the company also confirmed that the video is within the bounds of YouTube’s guidelines and therefore is still accessible in other countries.

The arguments surrounding the video with respect to free speech persist. Is the video like shouting “fire!” in a movie theatre? Or is this simply the case of a few people with strong opinions expressing their thoughts, however awful they may be, legally under the Constitution?

Whatever side you may take, hopefully everyone can agree that such a film certainly cannot be used as an excuse for the belligerence that came about in reaction to it.

We here at USDemocrazy hope you feel free to express your own views on this issue.

Cercopithecus lomamiensis, courtesy of Scientific American

Scientists have identified a new species of African monkey that lives in the isolated Lomami forest basin of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Cercopithecus Lomamiensis, or “Lesula,” as the monkey is colloquially referred to, is a shy creature with astonishingly human-like expressions.

Unfortunately, the forest in which the Lesula resides faces threats from loggers and bush meat hunters, two groups that reduce the biodiversity of the forest and endanger the lives of many of the organisms within it.

Scientists are working with Congolese authorities to promote preservation of the Lesula’s habitat by establishing a national park.

To read more about the discovery or view photos of the Lesula, you can go here.

1 Kings 22:1-40
For three years there was no war between Aram and Israel. But in the third year Jehoshaphat king of Judah went down to see the king of Israel. The king of Israel had said to his officials, “Don’t you know that Ramoth Gilead belongs to us and yet we are doing nothing to retake it from the king of Aram?”
So he asked Jehoshaphat, “Will you go with me to fight against Ramoth Gilead?”
Jehoshaphat replied to the king of Israel, “I am as you are, my people as your people, my horses as your horses.” But Jehoshaphat also said to the king of Israel, “First seek the counsel of the Lord.”
So the king of Israel brought together the prophets—about four hundred men—and asked them, “Shall I go to war against Ramoth Gilead, or shall I refrain?”
“Go,” they answered, “for the Lord will give it into the king’s hand.”
But Jehoshaphat asked, “Is there no longer a prophet of the Lord here whom we can inquire of?”
The king of Israel answered Jehoshaphat, “There is still one prophet through whom we can inquire of the Lord, but I hate him because he never prophesies anything good about me, but always bad. He is Micaiah son of Imlah.”
“The king should not say such a thing,” Jehoshaphat replied.
So the king of Israel called one of his officials and said, “Bring Micaiah son of Imlah at once.”
Dressed in their royal robes, the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat king of Judah were sitting on their thrones at the threshing floor by the entrance of the gate of Samaria, with all the prophets prophesying before them. Now Zedekiah son of Kenaanah had made iron horns and he declared, “This is what the Lord says: ‘With these you will gore the Arameans until they are destroyed.’”
All the other prophets were prophesying the same thing. “Attack Ramoth Gilead and be victorious,” they said, “for the Lord will give it into the king’s hand.”
The messenger who had gone to summon Micaiah said to him, “Look, the other prophets without exception are predicting success for the king. Let your word agree with theirs, and speak favorably.”
But Micaiah said, “As surely as the Lord lives, I can tell him only what the Lord tells me.”
When he arrived, the king asked him, “Micaiah, shall we go to war against Ramoth Gilead, or not?”
“Attack and be victorious,” he answered, “for the Lord will give it into the king’s hand.”
The king said to him, “How many times must I make you swear to tell me nothing but the truth in the name of the Lord?”
Then Micaiah answered, “I saw all Israel scattered on the hills like sheep without a shepherd, and the Lord said, ‘These people have no master. Let each one go home in peace.’”
The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “Didn’t I tell you that he never prophesies anything good about me, but only bad?”
Micaiah continued, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne with all the multitudes of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. And the Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?’
“One suggested this, and another that. Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’
“‘By what means?’ the Lord asked.
“‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said.
“‘You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the Lord. ‘Go and do it.’
“So now the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The Lord has decreed disaster for you.”
Then Zedekiah son of Kenaanah went up and slapped Micaiah in the face. “Which way did the spirit from the Lord go when he went from me to speak to you?” he asked.
Micaiah replied, “You will find out on the day you go to hide in an inner room.”
The king of Israel then ordered, “Take Micaiah and send him back to Amon the ruler of the city and to Joash the king’s son and say, ‘This is what the king says: Put this fellow in prison and give him nothing but bread and water until I return safely.’”
Micaiah declared, “If you ever return safely, the Lord has not spoken through me.” Then he added, “Mark my words, all you people!”
So the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat king of Judah went up to Ramoth Gilead. The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “I will enter the battle in disguise, but you wear your royal robes.” So the king of Israel disguised himself and went into battle.
Now the king of Aram had ordered his thirty-two chariot commanders, “Do not fight with anyone, small or great, except the king of Israel.” When the chariot commanders saw Jehoshaphat, they thought, “Surely this is the king of Israel.” So they turned to attack him, but when Jehoshaphat cried out, the chariot commanders saw that he was not the king of Israel and stopped pursuing him.
But someone drew his bow at random and hit the king of Israel between the sections of his armor. The king told his chariot driver, “Wheel around and get me out of the fighting. I’ve been wounded.” All day long the battle raged, and the king was propped up in his chariot facing the Arameans. The blood from his wound ran onto the floor of the chariot, and that evening he died. As the sun was setting, a cry spread through the army: “Every man to his town. Every man to his land!”
So the king died and was brought to Samaria, and they buried him there. They washed the chariot at a pool in Samaria (where the prostitutes bathed), and the dogs licked up his blood, as the word of the Lord had declared.
As for the other events of Ahab’s reign, including all he did, the palace he built and adorned with ivory, and the cities he fortified, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel? Ahab rested with his ancestors. And Ahaziah his son succeeded him as king.

Reflection:

This is the story of how Ahab, the King of Israel, was killed in battle at Ramoth Gilead. As prophesied by the prophet Micaiah to Ahab death would be the result of Ahab’s intentions. Micaiah who never prophesied good things about Ahab, even at the threat of his life, spoke exactly what the Lord had told him. But Ahab preferred his own prophets who only spoke of things that he wanted to hear, regardless of any claims of validity. Jehoshaphat on the other hand did want to know what the Lord had to say concerning the plans he and Ahab were scheming. Here we see three people, a king who refused to listen and died, a king who wanted to listen and was saved, and a prophet who did listen and said exactly what he should have. Decisions bear consequences, great and small.

Response:

Sometimes it is difficult to face the truth, especially if it isn’t what we had in mind or what we desire. Falsehood can be more appealing simply because it may feel easier than the painful realities that lie ahead when we have to acknowledge truth. Jehosaphat was one example of someone who did care about what God had to say, and not only for him, but also for his nation. God was merciful to him. But Ahab lived in fantasy instead of the reality of God’s involvement with His people. Living in ‘fantasy’ about life in place of truth and reality that God reveals to us only leads to disappointments and even devastating endings. Let us be open to hear what God says to us, especially about us and about the situations we are in. This is possible because the Spirit of God lives in us. Let’s pray that we will have humble hearts that desire to hear the loving truth the Lord speaks to us.