DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Cyber-warfare » US Ignored Warnings of Cyber Attack

US Ignored Warnings of Cyber Attack

DPRK-propoganda2.jpg

Advance infor­ma­tion did not prompt a response.

The U.S. Government now admits they did not prop­erly han­dle the sit­u­a­tion. Sources have revealed that the South Korean gov­ern­ment knew in advance that the dis­trib­uted denial of ser­vice (DDoS) attacks that hit mul­ti­ple web sites of major insti­tu­tions in South Korea had begun ear­lier in the United States.

Late last week South Korea’s intel­li­gence agency briefed its law­mak­ers on cir­cum­stan­tial and tech­ni­cal evi­dence behind their belief that North Korea was behind the recent cyber attacks. Other intel­li­gence sources went as far as to state that Kim Chong Un, the third son of North Korean dic­ta­tor Kim Jong Il, was the mas­ter­mind of the cyber attacks that have hit gov­ern­ment com­put­ers in the United States, South Korea and other some 14 other countries.

Foreign intel­li­gence sources have also reported that the North Korean gov­ern­ment sent a cyber con­tin­gent of approx­i­mately a dozen peo­ple across the north­ern bor­der into China to con­duct some of the oper­a­tions and that Kim Chong Un actu­ally was in com­manded of that unit. Also sources have spec­u­lated that North Korean Research and Development Unit (110 or 101) and Cyber Warfare Unit 121 were the pri­mary mil­i­tary units involved in the plan­ning and exe­cu­tion of the DDoS style cyber attack. At least one Republican law­maker urged President Obama to take retal­ia­tory action (cyber attacks) against North Korea for the cyber attacks launched last week.

Given the extremely lim­ited telecom­mu­ni­ca­tion infra­struc­ture (esti­mated 1.18 mil­lion phone lines) and the lim­ited Internet con­nec­tiv­ity (given the less than 80,000 broad­band con­nec­tions) a cyber attack would be next to use­less. After study­ing and research­ing the cyber attacks the fol­low­ing obser­va­tions are offered.

1. The cur­rent U.S. defenses against cyber attack are woe­fully inad­e­quate against even mod­er­ate level attacks as we have just experienced.

2. The fact that these attacks were well-​​coordinated, lasted as long as they did and were able to bring down a num­ber of sites says more about the state of our defenses than the mod­er­ate rated offen­sive cyber capa­bil­i­ties of North Korea.

3. This clearly shows the need for the inter­na­tional agree­ment for cyber attack inves­ti­ga­tion coop­er­a­tion that has been called for by many cyber war­fare experts includ­ing me. These attacks were routed/​launched through com­pro­mised com­put­ers in 16 countries.

4. Reports that the Department of Defense was not alerted to the attacks and found out through the media indi­cate that bet­ter coor­di­na­tion between DOD, DHS, DOJ and other gov­ern­ment orga­ni­za­tions as well as the pri­vate sec­tor is crit­i­cal in times of cyber attack and there­fore must be improved and maintained.

5. There are uncon­firmed reports for typ­i­cally reli­able sources that a South Korean intel­li­gence agency has obtained doc­u­ments order­ing North Korean army units to start the cyber attack. If true, this could be the smok­ing gun! Once ver­i­fied, that would open the way for retal­ia­tory action.

– Kevin Coleman

Share |

July 13th, 2009 | Cyber-warfare | 457320 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2009/07/13/us-ignored-warnings-of-cyber-attack/US+Ignored+Warnings+of+Cyber+Attack2009-07-13+12%3A44%3A12Ward You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Sunday — Fire for Effect | WHAT! The CIA Was Trying to Kill bin Laden? » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Ptsfp says:
    July 13, 2009 at 10:26 am

    North Korea is an inter­est­ing crea­ture. It has learned that when it wants/​ needs aid, it just has to threaten to restart its nuclear reac­tors.
    The inter­na­tional com­mu­nity has given into them time and again, so they have learned that blus­ter­ing works. To Obama’s credit, NK is not get­ting the response they want, so they are tak­ing it up a notch. The mul­ti­ple mis­sile launches, the cyber attacks, etc…
    Now, the US response is very impor­tant. If the NK gov­ern­ment can be ver­i­fied as the source of the cyber attack, could this be con­sid­ered as an act of war? Just as if one of the mis­siles that they launched struck a com­mu­ni­ca­tions build­ing in Hawaii and caused down­time. Or, will the US respond as if an espi­onage assault was car­ried out on US turf and respond covertly?
    Also, what would be the appro­pri­ate level of response? If China was involved do we respond against them also?
    Cyberwar can become very con­vo­luted in a heart­beat. National and International poli­cies need to be defined and enforced. Our defense must be cut­ting edge and our response swift.

    Reply
  2. TB says:
    July 13, 2009 at 10:33 am

    Regarding point num­ber 5: North Korean launches ille­gal mis­siles and nuclear bombs with­out con­se­quence. Do you really think we’re going to “retal­i­ate” for them geek­ing out?
    You said it your­self, they don’t have squat for ins­fras­truc­ture for us to attack, so what could we do?

    Reply
  3. AMMO says:
    July 13, 2009 at 10:47 am

    North Korea is a coun­try that thrives on war and total­i­tar­ian con­trol. We could destroy the entire pop­u­la­tion, and still there’d be hun­dreds of casu­al­ties just try­ing to get past their auto­mated, “revenge” defenses. Cyber war­fare is just another way to piss off the rest of us.

    Reply
  4. Dale says:
    July 13, 2009 at 11:26 am

    DDoS is not ‘cyber-​​war’. It is an annoy­ance taken from the play book of 1990’s era teenagers. This event once again under­scores our offi­cial mis-​​understanding of the tech­nol­ogy and ‘attack’ at hand. Thank god NSA ‘gets it’, cause con­gress doesn’t.

    Reply
  5. Ptsfp says:
    July 13, 2009 at 11:50 am

    DDoS played an inter­est­ing role in the cur­rent affairs of Iran.
    A DDoS attack was cre­ated through some­what non-​​technical means, but was used very effec­tively in shut­ting down Iranian gov­ern­ment sys­tems.
    I would have to say that was more than just an iri­ta­tion to Ahmadinejad and com­pany. It was a pow­er­ful polit­i­cal state­ment in a nation that could be mak­ing a change of lead­er­ship.
    If a for­eign nation pur­posely uses tech­nol­ogy of any kind to inhibit any com­mu­ni­ca­tion in the United States, it should be con­sid­ered an act of aggres­sion, if not war, and should be dealt with accordingly.

    Reply
  6. JOhn Moore says:
    July 13, 2009 at 1:29 pm

    I saw good on NK, at least they are show­ing us all just how weak Obama is.
    Elect some­one who is has no mil­i­tary BG and this is what you get. The most pow­er­ful coun­try ever doing SQUAT!
    They want a cyber war give them one! No deaths required.

    Reply
  7. ohwilleke says:
    July 13, 2009 at 2:13 pm

    Is it a bad thing that warn­ings were ignored?
    The down­side was that a few web­sites were down for a cou­ple of days, max, and in many cases just a few hours. The harm was not com­pa­ra­ble to ignor­ing warn­ings of 9–11, or Pearl Harbor, or some such.
    The upside was that the got a real world test of the effec­tive­ness of our cyber secu­rity mea­sures against real hack­ers along with data about their meth­ods. We also avoided the money involved in heed­ing via a government-​​wide panic over gillions of equally plau­si­ble false alarms.

    Reply
  8. flying fart prodly joyned says:
    July 13, 2009 at 3:23 pm

    @JOhn Moore
    what kind of trol-​​shit ar you smok­ing again?

    Reply
  9. flying fart prodly joyned says:
    July 13, 2009 at 3:26 pm

    North Korean launches ille­gal mis­siles and nuclear bombs with­out con­se­quence.–
    North Korean launches ille­gal mis­siles..–
    –..launches ille­gal mis­siles..–
    –..ille­gal mis­siles..–
    WHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.. dude you save my day!

    Reply
  10. Karl says:
    July 13, 2009 at 3:51 pm

    I wish we could have a fil­ter for the brain­less com­ments that add NO value and their posters that do not have the capac­ity to pro­fes­sion­ally debate the crit­i­cal issue that this blog brings up!
    By the way there is a typo
    It says fly­ing fart and should be brain­less fart!

    Reply
  11. Chris says:
    July 13, 2009 at 9:25 pm

    These attacks are asso­ci­ated with war, as we have seen when Russia used them, along with a con­ven­tional mil­i­tary cam­paign, against Georgia.
    However, I won­der how much dis­in­for­ma­tion the gov­ern­men­tal bod­ies use with these attacks. After all, wouldn’t show­ing our full capa­bil­ity in a rel­a­tively minor attack by N. Korea be a bad move? Doing so would allow them to plan a bet­ter attack when a large con­flict erupted.

    Reply
  12. rick says:
    July 14, 2009 at 9:36 am

    Considering how far the US is behind in sci­ence, tech and math this should not sur­prise any­one. We need to make it a pri­or­ity that we have skilled thinkers in this coun­try. If some nation decides to take down key net­works we are in a world of hurt. For exam­ple all of our Nuke Plants are mon­i­tored by one key office in Atlanta. What if you attack that loca­tion and cre­ate a false warning.

    Reply
  13. JKL says:
    July 15, 2009 at 12:10 am

    Turns out it orig­i­nated in the UK, not North Korea:
    http://​www​.guardian​.co​.uk/​t​e​c​h​n​o​l​o​g​y​/​2​0​0​9​/​j​u​l​/​1​5​/​h​a​c​k​i​n​g​-​usa
    Short Link:
    http://​tinyurl​.com/​m​x​8​gqy

    Reply
  14. Spy Guy says:
    July 16, 2009 at 11:38 am

    The

    Reply
  15. piliy says:
    July 17, 2009 at 12:48 pm

    Haa,I’m glad I have no con­fi­dence in GOV info!

    Reply
  16. piliy says:
    July 17, 2009 at 12:51 pm

    Have you seen:Wordpress before? They have lit­eral ping back choices etc.…And my https,from them never works???? I’m smelling a worm then.

    Reply
  17. Lally says:
    July 21, 2009 at 3:15 pm

    Ok, this is get­ting to me.
    If none of the com­bat­ants are part robot/​human, then it’s not a cyber attack. Same for cyber­crime or cyber­space. Cyberspace is fic­tion, used in appro­pri­ately 10 years ago when reporters didn’t know bet­ter.
    Instead, we have The Internet. Internet attack is a sim­ple, straight­for­ward term. Same as “Air Attack” or “Sea Attack.”

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      I've seen them to. Believe me, I hate those 19 just as much as...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      You are funny.
      Zandor
    • Adapting Women to Subs
      Wow after reading these varied comments, I am surprised and educated. I...
      John
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      No one is saying that christains never do violent things we do all faiths...
      Valcan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Hey look its zandor trying to make people think this is a hate site or...
      Valcan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      It is sort of puzzeling that a room filled with highly trained US Army...
      Zandor
    • Keep it Simple
      Dear Big Daddy; Your last post is a laugh. You carried 100 lbs for 20 miles?...
      Zandor
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      All the Muslims in the USA should be immediately rounded up and shot. We...
      Zandor
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
      Yeah, and every president since Reagan has proposed a Mars...
      jmatt
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
      Awesome. Now to be a *real* military contract we have to spend $40...
      jmatt
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage