Slashdot Mirror

Reader Lisandro writes: The F-35 Fighter jet can't seem to catch a break. An advanced AN/APG-81 AESA F35 radar system has been found riddled with a software bug that causes it to degrade and stop working. The solution? Rebooting the system while in the air.

Major General Jeffrey Harrigian, director of the Air Force's F-35 integration office at the Pentagon, was quoted as saying "radar stability - the radar's ability to stay up and running. [...] What would happen is they'd get a signal that says either a radar degrade or a radar fail - "something that would force us to restart the radar." The issue was spotted in late 2015, and thankfully, it was caught during the testing period. The software version "3i" is affected. An update aimed to resolve the bug is expected to be delivered to the US Air Force by the end of March.

gentryx writes "Newly found evidence supports earlier claims that Gustave Whitehead (a German immigrant, born Gustav Weißkopf, with Whitehead being the literal translation of Weißkopf) performed the first powered, controlled, heavier-than-air flight as early as 1901-08-14 — more than two years before the Wrights took off. A reconstructed image shows him mid-flight. A detailed analysis of said photo can be found here. Apparently the results are convincing enough that even Jane's chimes in. His plane is also better looking than the Wright Flyer I." (And when it comes to displacing the Wright brothers, don't forget Alberto Santos Dumont.)

The Importance of writes "Tech columnist (for the San Jose Mercury News) Dan Gillmor is a journalist who gets it. You may not always agree with every detail of his reporting, but he clearly has a deep understanding of what is important and what is not in the technology world. And, because he is a trained writer, he knows how to explain it well. Of course, he'll probably end up most famous for what he doesn't know, as in his self-proclaimed mantra: "the readers know more than I do." In large part, his new book, We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People, is about what happens to journalism when technology reveals the truth of Gillmor's mantra." We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People author Dan Gillmor pages 299 publisher O'Reilly rating 9 reviewer The Importance Of ISBN 0596007337 summary The revolution in media and what it means for journalism.

The main focus of We the Media is the ongoing revolution in journalism, but it is much broader than that. It is about media and communication in general. It is a report in mid-2004 on many of the predictions that Marshall McLuhan made in the 1960s and 70s about how technology will change the way we communicate for good and ill.

It's actually somewhat difficult to write, precisely, what the book is about. Gillmor has taken a diverse range of subjects from technology, to politics, and law, from blogging to broadcast and spread spectrum, and combined them into a compelling and provocative narrative. The ideas come fast and furious, but Gillmor's writing talent keeps the reader on track. In fact, there are so many concepts discussed that there really is not enough room to summarize them all in this review.

Instead, it is probably easier to talk about who the book is for. Gillmor sets it out in his introduction: journalists, newsmakers and the people formerly known as "the audience."

Journalists

Very simply, We the Media should be required reading in journalism schools for students and professors. I'm serious. If you're a publisher, editor, or an actual breathing reporter, and you want to get up to speed on what is happening to your profession, you need to read this book.

Revolutionary shifts don't usually happen overnight, and the one in journalism that Gillmor describes didn't either. He briefly sketches a progression of changes from revolutionary era newspapers and pamphleteers to the increasing centralization of corporate media behemoths in the 20th century. However, there is a day he can point to when the latest shift became pretty obvious. That day was Sept 11, 2001. That was the day that personal media, through email lists and websites, became an important way for the story to get out.

Personally, I was at a public television conference in Wisconsin. Many of the attendees were journalists for local PBS affiliates. Connected to the net in the conference room, I was getting news through Slashdot because most of the major media websites were down, and the broadcast news was simply playing video of the attacks over and over. Soon, many of the other attendees were also checking Slashdot for links to and mirrors of the news gathered by Slashdot's readers. That may not seem like a big deal, but as Gillmor relates, similar things were taking place in many other net forums. The importance of these alternate news sites has continued (you're reading this aren't you?).

Because the whole book is about journalism, it is a bit hard to pick out more highlights, but Gillmor does begin his chapter on "Professional Journalists Joining the Conversation" with a Slashdot anecdote concerning Jane's Intelligence Review thanking the Slashdot community for pointing out the flaws in a proposed article on cyberterrorism back in 1999. Actually, much of what Gillmor is talking about is basically how journalists can be more like Jane's - working with and taking advantage of the fact that the audience knows more than the publication.

Newsmakers

If you are a politician, CEO or advisor to similar, you should probably read this book as well. In many ways, journalists are middlemen, connecting those making news with those who want to learn the news. One of the things technology is enabling is the ability of newsmakers to connect directly with their audience in many ways. Of course, as Gillmor documents, many businessmen and politicians don't really understand how to communicate through this new medium properly. Nevertheless, there are lessons that can be learned from the mistakes as well as some positive examples of those who've used new technologies successfully.

The People Formerly Known as "The Audience"

Basically, everybody who comments down below this review is participating in it. You're not simply an audience; you're co-authors of this review. What I'm writing here is only a starting point for the conversation. If you're interested in becoming a more active participant, in learning more about the role the once-passive, now-proactive audience is playing in creating, editing and filtering media, then you probably want to read this book too. We're all journalists now.

Free As in Speech (and Beer)

The book has an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Creative Commons license. The digital text isn't available on the web yet, but should be very soon. Expect a profusion of formats, audio versions, translations, and wikis to follow. One thought of mine is that classes of journalism students should be regularly given an assignment to keep the book up-to-date.

We the Media also has a weblog, which will be a good place to keep track of the book as it develops. Just because a book has been published doesn't mean it has finished changing.

You can purchase We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews. To see your own review here, carefully read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

Slashback tonight with a larger passel than usual of updates, corrections, clarifications, etc. -- among them, Boeing's reaction to anti-gravity hype, the sad truth about one man's powerline data-delivery claims, and the steady climb of the Blender Fund's money meter.

Next they'll tell us they're not involved with Areas 51-63! Louis_Wu writes: "Space.com says that Boeing isn't really working on Anti-Gravity, regardless of previous news from the the BBC or Jane's Defence. It seems that the rumors spread because some people in Boeing were thinking of developing a relationship with the Russian scientist who did anti-grav research a few years ago, Dr. Evgeny Podkletnov.

Boeing spokesman:

'The recent report that we are [involved in anti-grav research] is based on a misinterpretation of information. For instance, GRASP is not a codename for a current project but rather an acronym for a presentation entitled "Gravity Research for Advanced Space Propulsion," in which a Boeing engineer explains Podkletnov's theory and proposes that we should continue to monitor this work and perhaps even conduct some low-cost experiments to further assess its plausibility. No steps have been taken beyond this point by Boeing.'

Jane's also mentions theorized weapons 'capable of producing a beam of "gravity-like" energy that can exert an instantaneous force of 1,000g [1000 Gravities, not grams] on any object -- enough, in principle, to vaporise it, especially if the object is moving at high speed.'

Don't tell Einstein. :)"

And here's the part where I skip town. Planetes writes "The Florida Times Union (Jacksonville, FL) has an interesting article about a lab testing company that has discounted his claims about some technology previously discussed on /.

Personal favorite paragraph:

'Lawyers for the company, Intertek Testing Services, discounted almost every aspect of a three-page letter that appears to validate an invention that sends high-speed data over electrical power lines. The letter is addressed to Madison Priest, a St. Augustine man whose disputed communications technologies were the subject of a sweeping Times-Union investigation this year.'"

Not at all what he said. knorthern knight writes: "Crow tastes icky, but here goes. Since I submitted the original citing about the story in The Register, ISPAI have sent a polite note to me. Here it is ...

Subject: ISPAI Reaction on HT News Item dated 27th July '02

Dear Sir,

This is in reference to the front page news article by the Hindustan Times dtd: 27/07/02. Mr Amitabh Singhal, Secretary, ISPAI has denied having made any statements favoring blocking of sites by Indian ISPs.

In reply to Mr. Singhal's letter to Hindustan Times,(copy enclosed) the HT has released the following news clipping at today's news paper http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/printedition/01 0802/detECO07.shtml

This is for your informaton and necessary action please.

With regards,

Puneet Tiwari Sr. Executive -ISPAI"

Behind every horde of enemy attackers are the people who thought them up. Anonymous Coward writes "I've finally posted the game binaries and source code to the Indie Game Jam games. The Indie Game Jam is a yearly game design and programming event designed to encourage experimentation and innovation in the game industry. 14 professional game developers created 12 experimental and innovative games in 4 days! The source to the engine and all the game code is GPLed on SourceForge, so enjoy. Remember, they're experimental and a bit rough, not commercial quality games."

One Blender you can buy for forever. kabir writes "The Blender Fund is up around 65K Euro right now... so close, yet still so far! This would be a great time for anyone who was on the fence about donating (wondering if the fund would make it, etc.) to pitch in and help put us over the top." Here's our previous story about this effort to liberate the Blender source. Does anyone have a business which might see a donation here as a good long-term investment?

Further news of the events going on around the world following the attacks earlier today on New York and Washington. To follow things even more closely, you are encouraged to join realtime CNN coverage in channel #cnn_newsfeed on irc.idlenet.org. (Doubtless there are other similar IRC and IM feeds going on -- please post them in comments.) In addition to the news below, note that CNN has reported that multiple suspects were arrested with a van loaded with explosives in the vicinity of New York's George Washington Bridge. Update: 09/12 04:29 AM GMT by T : Many readers have reported that the van in question was found not to contain explosives, though its occupants were held for questioning. And Giacomo DiGrigoli, international product manager at PayPal.com, wrote with word of a donation fund on the PayPal website where folks can make donations to the American Red Cross.

Contradicting earlier reports, reader Adam Brookman writes: "I can guarantee that no car bomb went off in front of the State Dept. in DC. My father is part of the critical personel at State dept. When I read that I called him. He said he heard the same thing and he also heard that the building was hit by a plane, but neither were true."

Worth reading is this analysis of the motives and some possible suspects in today's violence, at Jane's International Security News. They've picked three plausible attackers. Motive aside, Jack Bryar has a convincing take on who is really most hurt by the attacks today.

babyruth writes: "amazon.com has a Red Cross Relief fund set up on their homepage, where you can contribute online. Only several hundred have contributed so far, let the power of /. help!" Iridium provides a link straight to the donations page, noting that "All standard fees are waived -- all proceeds go directly to the Red Cross." Of course, the Red Cross is -still- in desperate need of blood. If you can donate, please call 1-800-HELP-NOW to find the donation center nearest to you.

iggyflashbulb writes: "CNN reports some oddball group not associated with bin Laden is attacking Kabul at night. Are they taking advantage of the NY situation or did they create it?"

An anonymous reader writes: "Following the sad (and outrageous) mess of these terrorist attacks, results are already starting to impact the country. When a RSM failed on one of our 5500 Ciscos, we recieved the following notice

'Due to a national emergency completion of your case, delivery of your parts or engineer will be delayed until further notice. Several areas of the country have restricted transportation and currently no air traffic is available. Cisco will notify you as soon a we are able to dispatch your order.'

There doesn't seem to any information on Cisco's site."

CERT is in action as well: SilentTone writes: "Ween Hall at Carnegie-Mellon University was evacuated today so the the Computer Emergency Response Team could go into action."

Many readers have been assembling mirrors for the overloaded news sites of the world. Jon Anhold writes: "I've compiled more photos and what not, mirrored many of the sites around to help the load. They're available here: http://ziggy.dreamland.net/wtc/"

Owen Bossola writes: "This is a simple webpage I put up with shots I took all day of the World Trade Center. I go to school across the river at Stevens Institute of Technology and I watched the whole thing from campus. It is absolutely nuts, I'm looking out my window and for the first time, downtown NYC is dark, and there aren't two large buildings gleaming back at me."

rhyder writes: "I was last in the World Trade Center and the attached World Financial Center on Saturday evening. Many people I know work in those buildings, even more live and work in the shadow of those 2 towers.

From the Port Authority of NY and NJ:

1. The Port Authority
   
2. Trade Center Concourse Level Map
   
3. Trade Center Plaza Level Map
   
4. Trade Center Complex Overview
   
5. Area Map showing southern tip of Manhattan and the Trade Center location."

An Anonymous Coward seeks more information about an interview that Washington area readers may be able to provide: He writes: "Fox News channel 5 (local around 6:30ish E.S.T) this evening had an interview with a witness about what he saw at the Pentagon the moment of impact. His interview was the basic 'I was in my car looked to my side..blah blah' but then he said something totally unexpected. He observed a second airplane immediately swing behind the first in a follow like manner and swoop down on the Pentagon only to pull up at the last second, out of the smoke cloud, and fly away. His description of the plane was pretty detailed, saying it was propeller-driven ... He stated everyone around him who were also outside their cars saw the SECOND Airplane following the first and it was also going in."

Anyone else able to confirm this rumor?

Jon Bishop asks: "Why Today? Why did this attack happen on September 11, 2001. Here is a guess. I played with the date commonly used for programming. YYYYMMDD returns 20010911. 911...in 2001. Is this play on numbers intentional or coincidence?" It may be significant that the anniversary of a Congressional resolution "favoring a Jewish homeland in Palestine" falls on this date. Then again, if you go back a century or two, you may find a lot of anniversaries that seem just as significant.

Carl Merritt writes: "Since many sites seem to be creaking under the load today I've dumped every relevant picture and video I can find onto my server, please feel free to suck up some of my unused bandwidth with downloads or links: http://www.binaryvista.com/WTC/ I'll probably leave it up for a couple weeks, or until CNN asks me to remove their pictures ;-)."

An Anonymous Coward writes "I just want to remind everyone that there is still active air cover over at least Chicago. A tanker is orbiting O'Hare and at least what appear to be two F-15s are making the rounds. If you would like more information including frequencies I suggest subscribing to the CARMA mailing list at QTH.net for up to date monitoring information."

Disheartening news from Egypt: soulflakes points to this story of some Egyptians celebrating the attacks today. Here's a BBC piece which indicates the feeling is shared in some other African countries. This doesn't mean that all or most people in any country feel the same way.

yoda389 writes: "I'm getting reports from friends that gas prices are jumping to as much as $5.00 a gallon. There are huge lines at all gas stations here in my hometown someplace in Wisconsin." And ikohl1 writes: "A friend just informed me of how gas prices were raised to $3.50 in a town near where i live. I didn't believe him at first but I found this article on Yahoo."

Gas prices may fluctuate in the short term, but in the long haul, effects on exports of goods physical and abstract may be affected just as drastically: elliotj writes: "MSNBC has a Steven Levy opinion piece on the possible implications of today's attack on America and governmental policy on encryption export restrictions. Personally, I think we need to determine exactly what happened before blaming physical or electronic security measures for a role in the tragedy. I heard the planes were hi-jacked with knives ... that doesn't sound very high-tech or a sign of significant security failings to me. It is the act itself that is so shocking and sickening."

An AC sent in a link to a Jane's article about unmanned fighter aircraft, including some designed for carrier operations. (See older story.) Funny, everyone always thought it would be the tanks that were unmanned.

kalamazoo904 writes "This free article at Jane's Defence Weekly reports that Boeing's Phantom Works is seriously considering a plasma gun for fighter planes. The basic idea appears to be using the air plasma that builds up above Mach 1 on a plane's forward surfaces as the power source. I can't tell whether the actual plasma 'bullets' are formed from the air plasma, or are metal bullets melted and accelerated by the air plasma. The aspect of this story that I find scary is that the plasma gun is apparently already under classified development."

kalamazoo904 writes "This free article at Jane's Defence Weekly reports that Boeing's Phantom Works is seriously considering a plasma gun for fighter planes. The basic idea appears to be using the air plasma that builds up above Mach 1 on a plane's forward surfaces as the power source. I can't tell whether the actual plasma 'bullets' are formed from the air plasma, or are metal bullets melted and accelerated by the air plasma. The aspect of this story that I find scary is that the plasma gun is apparently already under classified development."

kastaverious writes: "I found this on Scientific American. It talks about developments in all optical switching and the growth in capacity of optical fiber. The article has some interesting graphs of bandwidth demand and the growth in bandwidth availabilty. There is also a good explanation of some of the technical issues involved in increasing switching capacity, and efforts underway to overcome these problems." The article also has lots of good SciAm-style graphics. This short article at Janes also sheds some light on the world on undersea cable laying, which also recalls the article Neal Stephenson wrote for Wired a few years ago.

James McP writes "Guess what gang, we're published! The cyberterrorism article we all helped with a while back is now available at Jane's Intelligence Review. It's targeted for PC laymen but still does a decent job of getting the idea across. To be honest, it sounds like a Slashdot article. :)" If you are quoted, please e-mail me to arrange payment as promised here. It'll only be a token thing, I'm sure, but it's still kind of cool.

Last week the editors of the internationally respected magazine, Jane's Intelligence Review, asked Slashdot readers to preview an article on Cyberterrorism they had planned to run. But so many of you said (rightfully) that the article was lame, and so many of you had intelligent things to say on the subject, that the Jane's editors decided to trash the original piece and write a whole new one based entirely on your comments! And, in an unprecedented act of generosity, Jane's is going to *pay* those of you whose words make it into the final story, which is being written by Deputy Editor Johan J Ingles-le Nobel. Please click on the "Read More" link below to get the whole scoop directly from Jane's - including info on how to collect your money if you are one of the folks Jane's decides to quote.

Open source meets open source

What happens when you throw together open source intelligence (intelligence from non-classified sources) and the online open source movement? Jane's Intelligence Review (JIR), a leading specialist security analysis did just this, and the results were an eye-opener for all parties concerned. Writes Johan J Ingles-le Nobel, JIR Deputy Editor:

When you're confronted with a prospective article about cyberterrorism, as a journalist you know this is a massive emerging topic and that it will make a great story. After all, you've got to be both blind and deaf to have missed the unprecedented emergence of this thing known as the Internet, and that the day will come when, like anything else, it comes to be seen as a tool in the armoury of those that seek to harm and terrorise. Yet the very nature and vocabulary of the subject precludes a thorough understanding unless you're a programmer in the first place. Buffer overflows, denial of service, CGI, 128 bit encryption - such words are all anathma to the layman, yet crucial to a good article on the issue.

"JIR's choice at this point, upon receiving the article, was tough. It's great to get copy from someone you know to be very good on terrorism on this subject, but upon reading the article left me with more questions than answers - and questions that only qualified people could answer properly. I'm not referring to shallow 'such and so defaced a website' type of answers, but thoughtful responses metered with specialist knowledge. So what better way to find answers than to go online, to seek out expertise on the subject?

Unfortunately, finding good information online is not nearly as easy as it should be. Thankfully, months earlier I'd noticed a link to Slashdot posted on a web-hosting service owned by a friend of mine, and having followed the link, bookmarked it a long time ago. Thus, upon receiving the article and personally researching cyberterrorism to find out a bit more on the subject and having been alerted to the fact that a) Linux is the best 'programmer's' o/s environment, b) many webservers use Linux and c) you're looking at expertise in both these areas for sensible answers, there was really no choice but to ask the guys that actually do this stuff for advice.

In retrospect, I'm delighted that I did. 250+ comments and 35 emails from psychologists to network analysts, and from Sun engineers to Cambridge Dons later, The responses have been insightful and knowledgable, with many excellent points made. I've even had a lot of 'thank-you' type letters from computer security professionals for trying this approach. Of course, when you ask for feedback you get feedback - and since roughly 99% of the posters slammed the article, even saying things like 'we'd expect better from Jane's', I've informed the author that we're not going to run with it. Instead I'm going to cull your comments together and make a better, sharper feature out of it - I'll be getting in touch with several of you for more specific details or for more clarification. The article will thus go into December issue (published middle of November), I'll arrange to have it put onto the free section of the Jane's Intelligence Review website (yes, you do all get to see it, of course), and if you find your comments included, contact me at johan.ingles@janes.co.uk for payment at our usual lineage rates (yes, of course you get paid - after all, we are gentlemen).

In summary: wherever you may be and whatever you may do, a big 'thanks, guys' comes your way from just south of London, England.

Johan J Ingles-le Nobel,
Johan.ingles@janes.co.uk,
Jane's Intelligence Review.

Last week the editors of the internationally respected magazine, Jane's Intelligence Review, asked Slashdot readers to preview an article on Cyberterrorism they had planned to run. But so many of you said (rightfully) that the article was lame, and so many of you had intelligent things to say on the subject, that the Jane's editors decided to trash the original piece and write a whole new one based entirely on your comments! And, in an unprecedented act of generosity, Jane's is going to *pay* those of you whose words make it into the final story, which is being written by Deputy Editor Johan J Ingles-le Nobel. Please click on the "Read More" link below to get the whole scoop directly from Jane's - including info on how to collect your money if you are one of the folks Jane's decides to quote.

Open source meets open source

What happens when you throw together open source intelligence (intelligence from non-classified sources) and the online open source movement? Jane's Intelligence Review (JIR), a leading specialist security analysis did just this, and the results were an eye-opener for all parties concerned. Writes Johan J Ingles-le Nobel, JIR Deputy Editor:

When you're confronted with a prospective article about cyberterrorism, as a journalist you know this is a massive emerging topic and that it will make a great story. After all, you've got to be both blind and deaf to have missed the unprecedented emergence of this thing known as the Internet, and that the day will come when, like anything else, it comes to be seen as a tool in the armoury of those that seek to harm and terrorise. Yet the very nature and vocabulary of the subject precludes a thorough understanding unless you're a programmer in the first place. Buffer overflows, denial of service, CGI, 128 bit encryption - such words are all anathma to the layman, yet crucial to a good article on the issue.

"JIR's choice at this point, upon receiving the article, was tough. It's great to get copy from someone you know to be very good on terrorism on this subject, but upon reading the article left me with more questions than answers - and questions that only qualified people could answer properly. I'm not referring to shallow 'such and so defaced a website' type of answers, but thoughtful responses metered with specialist knowledge. So what better way to find answers than to go online, to seek out expertise on the subject?

Unfortunately, finding good information online is not nearly as easy as it should be. Thankfully, months earlier I'd noticed a link to Slashdot posted on a web-hosting service owned by a friend of mine, and having followed the link, bookmarked it a long time ago. Thus, upon receiving the article and personally researching cyberterrorism to find out a bit more on the subject and having been alerted to the fact that a) Linux is the best 'programmer's' o/s environment, b) many webservers use Linux and c) you're looking at expertise in both these areas for sensible answers, there was really no choice but to ask the guys that actually do this stuff for advice.

In retrospect, I'm delighted that I did. 250+ comments and 35 emails from psychologists to network analysts, and from Sun engineers to Cambridge Dons later, The responses have been insightful and knowledgable, with many excellent points made. I've even had a lot of 'thank-you' type letters from computer security professionals for trying this approach. Of course, when you ask for feedback you get feedback - and since roughly 99% of the posters slammed the article, even saying things like 'we'd expect better from Jane's', I've informed the author that we're not going to run with it. Instead I'm going to cull your comments together and make a better, sharper feature out of it - I'll be getting in touch with several of you for more specific details or for more clarification. The article will thus go into December issue (published middle of November), I'll arrange to have it put onto the free section of the Jane's Intelligence Review website (yes, you do all get to see it, of course), and if you find your comments included, contact me at johan.ingles@janes.co.uk for payment at our usual lineage rates (yes, of course you get paid - after all, we are gentlemen).

In summary: wherever you may be and whatever you may do, a big 'thanks, guys' comes your way from just south of London, England.

Johan J Ingles-le Nobel,
Johan.ingles@janes.co.uk,
Jane's Intelligence Review.

Jane's Intelligence Review, a famous "in group" publication read by political, military and intelligence honchos the world over, has an article on Cyberterrorism scheduled to run in its next issue. But Jane's editor Johan J Ingles-le Nobel believes Slashdot readers may (ahem) actually know more about potential Cyberterrorism tactics than the article's author, and would like you to comment on his work - for publication. The article is up on a private preview page. Please read it, then post your comments. Johan will read them, here on Slashdot, and will select some of them for publication in Jane's alongside the original article. Before you post, please read a message from the Jane's editor (below).

These are the specific questions Jane's wants answered:

• Using CT, how easy or otherwise is it to bring down or attack vital systems?
• What sort of skills would be needed to do so, and are they common/teachable?
• Commercial-off-the-shelf software: can it really do CT?
• Which systems are actually attackable?
• Can a recovery be made from such attacks?
• Is it likely to improve/get worse?
• What sort of preventitive work would you recommend them to carry out?

For our part, we'll make an article based on your replies. Please try to give examples and evidence, keep it clean and stay objective - this is not a 'military-bashing' exercise. When we publish the article (17 November), if you'd like to be contactable on this issue use your real email address and we'll attribute your comments, otherwise use 'anonymous coward' .

Many thanks,
Johan J Ingles-le Nobel,
London, England.
johan.ingles@janes.co.uk

Jane's Intelligence Review, a famous "in group" publication read by political, military and intelligence honchos the world over, has an article on Cyberterrorism scheduled to run in its next issue. But Jane's editor Johan J Ingles-le Nobel believes Slashdot readers may (ahem) actually know more about potential Cyberterrorism tactics than the article's author, and would like you to comment on his work - for publication. The article is up on a private preview page. Please read it, then post your comments. Johan will read them, here on Slashdot, and will select some of them for publication in Jane's alongside the original article. Before you post, please read a message from the Jane's editor (below).

These are the specific questions Jane's wants answered:

• Using CT, how easy or otherwise is it to bring down or attack vital systems?
• What sort of skills would be needed to do so, and are they common/teachable?
• Commercial-off-the-shelf software: can it really do CT?
• Which systems are actually attackable?
• Can a recovery be made from such attacks?
• Is it likely to improve/get worse?
• What sort of preventitive work would you recommend them to carry out?

For our part, we'll make an article based on your replies. Please try to give examples and evidence, keep it clean and stay objective - this is not a 'military-bashing' exercise. When we publish the article (17 November), if you'd like to be contactable on this issue use your real email address and we'll attribute your comments, otherwise use 'anonymous coward' .

Many thanks,
Johan J Ingles-le Nobel,
London, England.
johan.ingles@janes.co.uk

Slashdot has received a number of submissions about FIDNET, so-called cyberwarfare, etc., since our first article about it two months ago. Here's a grab bag of more news about it -- Pro-, Neutral, and Anti-. Click below to read more.

Neutral: Foxxz writes "Shortly after the article ran on Slashdot about the FBI computer monitoring program called FIDNET, I wrote to my congressman. Finally I have received a response from him concerning FIDNET. Its not a very pretty picture for the internet; allowing email captures and the monitoring of remote logins. I took the time to type up the letter and post it. I hope to get the document scanned early this week." It's just a form letter, firmly in the middle of the road, but interesting anyway.

Pro: Effect sends this article from a legal publication. "The article is a little old, but a new example of how are tax dollars are spent is here. The rundown is on a new $1.5 billion dollar program to gauge the threat of cyberterrorism and looking for security breaches in critical networks like banks, telecoms and government nets. Any one else want the govenment poking their noses into their files looking for problems? Bear in mind that this is just a proposed start up cost, and the actual program will run much higher."

Anti: George Smith, of the Crypt Newsletter, has been debunking this for some years now. His articles include Electronic Pearl Harbor: A slogan for U.S. Info-warriors, An Electronic Pearl Harbor? Not Likely, a tale about how the FBI finds new computer threats (in April Fool's jokes about computer viruses), and a recent piece written for CyberWire Digest. Smith says, ""Clinton" [a fake virus] was an April Fool's joke published in a PC mag along with a number of similar tales, it was republished in an FBI paper on computer crime in 1996. While it's amusing that the FBI would be taken in by an April Fool's joke, it's rather confounding to realize that this was passed off as serious research. It's a great lesson in why it pays to be skeptical of our leaders when they talk of "cyberterror.""

Future: Johan writes "Jane's Intelligence Review is running an article about cyberwarfare for its next issue, which I'm editing at the moment. It has a number of broad assertions, including:

"For terrorists, CBRN/Cyber weapons provide the opportunity to cause death and disruption at unprecedented levels--resulting in thousands of casualties and billions of dollars in damages to critical infrastructure nodes."

"Acquiring a CBRN/Cyber capability requires extensive funding, an overt or covert acquisition capability, a technological research and development program to produce, weaponize and stockpile CBRN materiel (or the capability to purchase or steal ready-made weapons), and a level of technical expertise and logistical infrastructure that is appropriate to launch successful CBRN attacks..."

"Commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) software products can easily be obtained to conduct cyberterrorism, making CB/Cyber attacks much more feasible to launch than heretofore..."

Although 'cyberwarfare' is a bit of a cliche, given the IT-related nature of many of your readers, I wondered if any of them would like to comment on this, ie, is all this stuff really so?"

The floor is open. -- michael