Comments on: Find the Cyberweapons Complex

By: angel

angel — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 06:22:50 +0000

By: rigma

rigma — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 01:47:48 +0000

Why are you using the word “conventional”,with cyber warfare? It really isn’t conventional…
Conventional isn’t really a way anymore!

By: Ptsfp

Ptsfp — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 16:39:42 +0000

CNN news had an article today named “Homeland Security seeks cyber counterattack system“
Very interesting, the current version “Einstein 2.0″ looks like it is only an IDS on steroids, but the next version, 3.0, may have the ability to fight back. Kind of like the modern shot detection systems that can pinpoint where a round comes from and return fire.
The current Einstein 2.0 uses signature based detection. It sounds like it may have the same problem as virus scanner programs. Those who write viruses know that the detectors are looking for a specific file name or data pattern, so they change it. The virus scanners then need to be updated to include the new patterns. This becomes an endless game.
But I think the next version will be more active in discerning actual attack patterns and not just specific signatures.
More info on Einstein 2 is at:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_einstein2.pdf

By: Ptsfp

Ptsfp — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:37:59 +0000

oops, the link didn’t work for “Nato creates cyber defense center“
it should have pointed to:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/14/europe/EU-GEN-NATO-Cyber-Defenses.php

By: Ptsfp

Ptsfp — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:35:21 +0000

The biggest advantage compared to conventional warfare is the ease of deployment and the anonymity.
For example, it may be a lot easier to take down a government with hacking than sending in strike fighters. As Kevin stated, Cyberwar can be done on the cheap, where a physical invasion could cost millions or more. Just like IED’s, Cyber attacks are inexpensive and very disruptive.
And because of the ability to mask the origin of attack by bouncing through other countries, decifering the source group or groups can be very difficult. Especially if the countries involved are not friendly to the US. I am sure for example, Iran would bend over backwards to help the US track down a hacker who used Iranian machines as a proxy. Yeah right…
The other twist is the attack could be originated by a foreign government or it could just be a bunch of 16 year old kids trying to gain prestige in the hacking world.
It is imperative that the allied nations come together and decide how to deal with this hi-tech threat, and they are, Nato creates cyber defense center.

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 05:15:28 +0000

All of this just sounds soooooooo scary,thank God for the Army Sea Smurf(CCMF) unit domestically deployed to protect us from those terrorist bogeymen that we can’t see & who look just like.……US!!!!!!! La,La.…..La,La,La,La.

By: ohwilleke

ohwilleke — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:31:08 +0000

Also, the cyber attack link in the article appears to be a bad link. Guided artillery has no obvious connection to cyber warfare.

By: ohwilleke

ohwilleke — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:27:27 +0000

Sounds shrill. There is lots of hype but no meet. Really, what the hell is a “cyber weapons manufacturing facility.” Using the language of war, as opposed to IT security, is singularly unhelpful.
One disaggregate internet security risks to give any meaning to this blather. Are we talking about spam? Denial of service? Spying? Destructive viruses? Remote control of friendly computer operations? Disinformation campaigns? Communication of terrorist or espionage activities?
Different threats entail different regimes of defense, and different risks. Frequently, the ability to go “offline” can be a very functional plan B.
Almost all conceivable cyber threats are dual purpose — used as much by commercially interested parties and plain old criminals as sovereign or paramilitary adversaries.
Without details it is very hard to take the cyber war community seriously.

By: stephen russell

stephen russell — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 01:23:17 +0000

Scary, very scary since no “emissions”.
How to find Code source to find Physical source.
Very 1984.

By: stephen russell

stephen russell — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 01:22:56 +0000

Scary, very scary since no “emissions”.
How to find Code source to find Physical source.
Very 1984.