Comments on: Defining the Cyber Battlespace

By: nonome

nonome — Fri, 15 May 2009 22:48:29 +0000

yes, its an attack if the Russian hack into the Georgian website hosted on US servers. Because the Russians should know what they are hacking into. and if they are hacking into US networks then the country is not safe from foreign invaders and the military should be ready to cybershoot back (if the attack can not be thwarted) but hold until the President gives the order. and when the President gives the order the military will apply and equivalent cybershot as the one that was taken when the US was attacked by the Russian in the scenario in the 1st place. maybe they will hack into russian network and make the russian pressident’s personal computer show nothing but http://spongebob.nick.com/ for a whole hour. yes its an attack shoot back

By: reshtet

reshtet — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 01:06:50 +0000

Anything that doesn’t belong to an id or server that,
isn’t authorized to add itself,is an attack in my
mind..

By: reshtet

reshtet — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:15:46 +0000

aoc gold,are you just trying to disturb someone
with your worthless posts??? I bet you visit teamguynetwork.com…Remember Broadband and security issues…

By: reshtet

reshtet — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:57:27 +0000

Hey cyber so called experts!Why is a DEMOKRAT literally more popular during wartime than a REPUBLIC NAM VET And seems to be the new(lak)
President.…It’s def.. an inside thing right

By: Morgan Knapp

Morgan Knapp — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:45:57 +0000

I think you will have to treat this as an Embassy issue.
You are going to have to cede a legal, embassy classification to that server, so, you will prob have to have a physical, dedicated spot for the server.
This gives it legal standing as a foreign diplomatic agent. so attacking a sponsered server, would equate to attacking a legal attache.
That would make the host country unable to read, change, or even unplug the server.
Kinda changes the meaning of a diplomatic packet !

By: James

James — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:26:13 +0000

Buried in the bowels of todays News…
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/20/tech/main4368749.shtml

By: Dr. Curiosity

Dr. Curiosity — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 05:50:19 +0000

I suspect it depends a lot on how much “collateral” damage to your assets and infrastructure the attack causes as to whether it should be considered an attack on your assets and infrastructure. If an attack is of such a magnitude that it significantly impacts on the backbone carrier’s ability to operate, and that carrier is providing civic or commercially-significant services that are compromised, degraded or removed, then I’d say we have an aggressive act.
Of course, the key word here is “significant”, and that extent can change depending on how critical and/or costly the disruption of service is.
Then of course comes the problem of proving it. If you’re going to go to war — “cyber” or otherwise — with another power, then you need to have your casus belli worked up to a point of high plausibility. That kind of thing could be relatively difficult to prove in a decentralised environment, unless someone’s being quite blatant about things.
It’s certanly a call for improving security across the board, and providing extra insulation for trusted infrastructure, in any case.

By: avi to dvd creator for mac

avi to dvd creator for mac — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 03:20:13 +0000

Honestly, US companies need to know the danger to which they may expose themselves and the responsibilities that they are undertaking when they agree to host a website that may come under attack by a foreign power.

By: Nickname

Nickname — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:19:57 +0000

Actually is you thnk it realisticly. If the attac is harming USA websites too or compromises their cesurity its attac against us. If it destroys some USA sites defenses on the same server its initial attack agaisnt US. If it only concentrates on the site blocking and overloading ect. that server can limit away by removing the site its never an attack against us as te site is part of separate conflickt. If the attack damages the server or surrounding system physically its a critical attack against USA infrasctruckture. Basically all attacks are bad attacks but in war some attacks have to be accepted if they do not expand the war. Under the freedom of information however all attacks by anyone against enemies public propaganda is illegal and destrucktive to humanity itself. Blaaaah. –how do you take this. Its an attack agains EVERYBODY.

By: Alec

Alec — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:00:07 +0000

Maybe this will sound insane, but my best guess at the moment is that the only way to establish a solid definition of cyber-warfare is to do this through complete legislation of the cyber-space, a **census** of all websites, country by country, and the establishment of an individual status for websites and server, similar to the idea of “legal person” used for companies. Once we give “rights” to websites as legal entities, we eliminate most of the questions and we’re able to think in a much clearer way.
Of course, having a census made for every single website is impossible. BUT. Is it really possible anyway to have a census made of every single person in, let’s say, New York City? There would always be some homeless people left out of the database. Same thing here; we would know, through the census, about every single registered website and would be able to establish a series of rights for them.
We can then establish solid legislation concerning the creation of new websites, including mandatory registration of the website at the legal level. You give birth to a new child, you get him/her to exist in the system or else the kid won’t actually have any “right”, legally speaking. Same with websites.
From there, we can very well work our way through. If anything, internet would be a much more orderly place.