Slashdot Mirror
Bush Orders Guidelines for Cyber-Warfare
Jeremiah writes "The pending Iraqi war promises to deliver quite the display of modern, smart technology well beyond what we saw in '91. President Bush recently ordered the development of rules for cyber engagement by the military. Beyond the numerous special forces on the ground like in Afganistan, the US will use soldiers in office chairs to disrupt Iraqi infrastructure."
Civilian involvement? Letters of marque and reprisal have been banned by international treaty, but those traditionally apply to physical battle. Will the script kiddies rain on Iraq?
SIG: HUP
Why stop at just having the military conducting these attacks? I am sure there are vast numbers of us on the Internet that would be perfectly willing to sacrifice our time and bandwidth on DDoS attacks against every box in Iraq. There are certainly plenty of us that would be more than happy to hack into Saddam's computer networks. As Americans, we should all be allowed to do our part.
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
that this "Elite Hacker Force" will be shut down after Bush is done with his war.
But somehow I can't believe that. After all it's quite a useful "tool" for making a point when talking with Ambassadors from foreign countries...
See my blog for my free opinions.
Well, it's probably not goint to be distributed, but it'd be great if there were international sanctions placed on cyber-warfare methods. Somehow, though, I doubt our government will be that effective, and that Iraq will have enough connected systems to really do any good.
Read jack phelps dot net
... they're prepared to engage in one mother of an immoral battle, and have said their prayers, kissed their girls, and balanced their books. War in Iraq is *not* going to be pretty for you guys.
...
The US is now what Germany was in the 30's... off to fight its merry war with 'justifiable cause'.
Don't you Americans realize that the UN was *made* to prevent countries like yours from abusing their power?
That this war is now being trivialized into some sort of 'happy meme' worthy of idle discussion by tech nerds in the context of some sci-fi-turned-reality 'cyberwar' is really disturbing.
If globalization, McDonalds, Britney and all the other wonderful machinations of The American Way didn't turn me off your crappy country, then the robotic nature of its citizens kowtowing to the propaganda machine being operated by King George Bush II definitely is
I don't care if there are guidelines for 'cyberwar against Iraq' being published... This war is NONSENSE!!
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
The only countries this will work against are those that are like the US, and sorry, but despite our ethnocentric view of the world, most countries are not us except Canada and the UK (didn't turning on one's allies work for Hitler?).
This idea is not new. When the military staged a wargame where they tried this very same thing, they got their arse handed to them in a brown paper sack:
Yeah, right.
Not trolling, just worried.
how is Taco going to feel when he reads about a Chinook full of young Americans that got shot down from a SAM battery that could not be hacked and disabled because Achmed reads Slashdot,
Right. The Iraq government can afford to run a net connection to every SAM battery, and is stupid enough to leave it open to the Internet. Even societies that can afford to network their military, don't connect the Internet to internal systems - it's just stupid. The most secure connection is none at all, and everyone knows that.
I'm sure it's an unpopular view amongst the freedom of IP at all costs crowd that's common here, but maybe for the duration of the Iraqi conflict, we can stop posting exploit and bug notifications, at least until the US has installed a nascent capitalist, western ideologued democracy in Iraq.
I didn't realize we were planning on slaughtering all the Iraqs and colonizing the country. That, of course, is about the only way we're going to get a "western ideologued" society in Iraq. What do you think the odds are that we can even get some sort of stable democracy going - historically, "our son of a bitch" governments have been common - and it's questionable whether you can just stick a democracy in a country that has no concept of one and have it thrive.
One of the tools a cracker uses is social engineering. And unless he can speak fluent, unaccented Arabic, he won't be able to directly use that tool.
Of course, there could be a separate team for that. But I suspect a strict government like Iraq has paperwork for everything. And inquisitions for those who forget their paperwork.
What's this Submit thingy do?
I'm sure it's an unpopular view amongst the freedom of IP at all costs crowd that's common here, but maybe for the duration of the Iraqi conflict, we can stop posting exploit and bug notifications, at least until the US has installed a nascent capitalist, western ideologued democracy in Iraq.
Flip the issue around and see if your suggestion makes any sense:
For the duration of the war, let's refrain from posting notices of vulnerabilities and exploits so that sysadmins in places other than Iraq can't keep their systems properly defended from cyber-terrorists who are sympathetic to the Iraqi cause (or are simply anti-American).
Makes no sense, right? Withholding vulnerability information is far more likely to adversely affect civilian and public service networks in the US and supporting nations than the Iraqi military/industrial complex.
However, there are other questions this brings up:
Food for thought.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
IF he is, the gov't wouldn't tell us... you think they're mature enough to swallow their pride and say, 'oh, you know that 'bad for america' thing we spouted for a while? well, now he is good for america...'
however, his spirit is definitely in those chairs... I am sure No Such Agency has recruited a small army of hackers/crackers/deviant engineers that all have learned from or been inspired by Kevin, 2600 and all the organizations that the gov't watches regularly...
so, if his physical being is not there, I am sure many of his tools and his soul are partially there...
-Kelt
My intelligence insults itself.
While Bush and his cronies who probably have VCRs flashing twelve make rules about how the military will use high tech whizbangs, our enemies plot how to take advantage of how dependent we are on those high tech whizbangs. They can use something as simple as a box cutter, or dynamite strapped to a donkey.
How ya like dat?
Most countries have electronic switching systems and microwave links for the phone service. Those were targets that NATO hit in Serbia several years ago, and in Iraq in 1991. Even Afghanistan had some. Russia uses microwave links. China also. Actually, it's probably only countries like Somalia, which have almost no communications infrastructure, that wouldn't be vulnerable.
Best Slashdot Co
Is it just me, or does anyone else see a pattern in US strategic thinking along the lines of "We have bigger and better technology/supply lines/bombs, and that will make final victory inevitable." I don't intend to argue that logistics are not an essential part of military planning, nor that technological advantages don't give an edge. But there seems to be a wide spread feeling in the US government that because they are the biggest guy on the block, they will inevitably win.
With the greatest respect, cod's wallop!
The American high command seems to be infected with this attitude as well. It seems to me that much (if not most or all) of the talk from the US about how the US will win is posited on the massive technological/logistical superiority of America. But far more important is strategy and tactics. (See Wellington's Peninsular campaign to see an example of how superior strategy and tactics can defeat a much larger army.)
There is some evidence that much of the US military is still unwilling to be flexible in its tactical/strategic thinking. See this article in The Guardian for a insightful analysis of a recent, huge US military exercis - in which the American side *lost* and the "Red" (read Iraqi) side won.
I'm a Canadian and the reek of hubris from across the 49th parallel is stunning!
1. We (the Bush administration) can do anything we want to anyone else.
2. Noone can not do anything at all to us (the Bush administration).
3. Americans, including American companies, can do anything they want to any foreign country, company or person.
4. No foreign country, company or person can do anything to any american person or company.
There, that sounds about right.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
The primary one being that cyberwar automatically equals, and is limited to, the internet. Many systems are networked, and/or acessible from outside, without being on the internet.
Best Slashdot Co
Here's how Powell should have produced his evidence:
"We're absolutely sure Saddam has weapons of mass destruction because WE SOLD THEM TO HIM! And I have the receipts RIGHT HERE!" (Powell holds up receipts)
That would remove all doubt, wouldn't it. But I guess we'll never see that.
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
Let me remind you of the origins of the atom bomb, and of Einstein's later remark that he wished he had cut off the hand that signed a letter to Roosevelt endorsing it. The scientists who knocked themselves out to build it were working to stop Hitler, but once the knowledge was out there, it was beyond their control.
A government-sponsored development of hacking has enormously destructive potential for all of us who use the internet. Today Iraq is the target. Tomorrow, the target could be domestic dissent. Isn't Ann Coulter already calling the Democrats who didn't cheer Bush's SOU traitors?
Bad, bad, bad idea
Making trouble today for a better tomorrow...
The pending Iraqi war promises to deliver...quite a display
It seem to have escaped you that there are humans getting killed by this "firework". They have family, brothers, sisters, friends. Ever wondered, how one becomes a terrorist?
"It's really not a number I'm terribly interested in." --General Colin Powell [When asked about the number of Iraqi people who were slaughtered by Americans in the 1991 "Desert Storm" terror campaign (200,000 people!)]
Me too, and for pretty much the same points as you, though I'll put a lot of other similar motivations in on the Bush side.
As for Hussein, IMHO he's a thug - a fairly bright thug, but still a thug. He's nowhere near a Hitler-Class Evil Genius.
Also IMHO, we now have a case of two wrongs, and it's almost impossible to figure out how to do the right thing. It's entirely possible that war with Iraq is necessary, but there has been so doggone much smoke cast about by now that it's impossible to see clearly. The pro-war camp may well be right, but I suspect for the wrong reasons. The anti-war camp probably has the right reasons, but I suspect that they're probably wrong.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Bush seems to have an "at all costs" attitude which even includes freedom.
#> disable power.output !hospitals
telnet radar
#> redirect to root@army.mil
telnet allbiologicalweapons
#> detonate
I'm sure these things will just be conventiently plugged in to the internet.
Saddam is _not_ going to disarm peacefully.
Agreed. That's not my question. My question is: So what? Why is this a reason to start a war?
Some claim that if an "appropriate authority" have made a "solid legal demand" for information and action, and that demand is ignored or rebuffed, then it is an appropriate excuse to "immediately remove by force" the person who failed to obey orders (with "UN", "Disarm Iraq" and "War" being the three example fillers). I happen to believe that there should be some more levels of negotiation in between failure to comply and ALL OUT WAR. However, if you like that attitude, how about if we reword that with "appropriate authority" being "US Congress" and "solid legal demand" being a request for VP DC to turn over information about his energy policy meetings, and HE OUTRIGHT REFUSED! Is that a sufficient reason to "immediately remove by force" Mr. DC? Apparently not. Hypocracy is so ugly.
Bush talks like Iraq is ready to jump out and take over the world unless we stop him. Go look at what really happened. Iraq attacked in 1990. UN responded. Iraq Defeated. Iraq withdraws. Iraq hasn't peeped outside their borders since 1991. CIA rates Iraq as non-threat unless attacked first. So what does Bush do? He makes a lot of noise. He claims Iraq is about to attack everyone. He says he's going to attack them first. He CREATES the threat situation where there was none before. Sure, Iraq wasn't disarming, but they weren't trying to start a war either. Of all the tin-pot dictators in the world, Saddam knows from personal experience exactly what will happen to him if he does. He may be a mad man, but he isn't stupid. He wants weapons to maintain power inside Iraq, not outside.
Now because of Bush's "Heroic, No non-since, Take control, Total domination threats", we have North Korea, a REAL international threat, breathing down our necks. What is "our hero" George doing about them? NOTHING! I guess he wanted an easy target for his "Pet Project" war, not a "real enemy" that he might actually have to negotiate with. You can't look all powerfull and right if you have to negotiate. Bad for the "Hero" image.
I can't say what the appropriate action is from now forward. Maybe war is the only out. Bush is claiming he can't back down now. It would look weak. But I think it was REALLY BAD to intentionally put us into this situation in the first place. WAR KILLS PEOPLE. The best way to save American lives is NOT TO GO TO WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE. Why was Bush so desperate to start one where it wasn't necessary? Obviously not to save lives. Probably it was to distract us from all the bad economic news, or maybe to avenge Daddy's image. Great idea. Economy in a slump, severe deficit. So lets make it worse by inventing an expensive war, runnin up the deficit even more and strangling the economy to death.
Forking Stupid Arrogant Idiot.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
You know, we have a president, who is smart enough to know that he doesn't know everything, and therefore has surrounded himself with specialists he trusts to not lie to him, and to give him advice on subjects of importance. So, it would be logical to guess that those drafting (vs those signing/championing) the guidelines would know the tech.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
The issue is that as much as people bitch and complain, the US is turning out fewer and fewer college grads with engineering degrees every year. This was true even during the .com bubble when any clown who could correctly spell Java was given multiple offers.
Further, I was unemployed and I DO support him. I may not agree with everything he does, but he has taken decisive action to stop terrorism and attempt to get this economy going. Has he been successful? Yes and no, we haven't had any more attacks and tax cuts (for whomever) is becoming one of the ONLY ways we're going to get the economy going again. Greenspan can only drop the interest rates so low...
Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
I don't know who else has heard this but the Department of Defense recently contracted United Devices to work on smallpox reasearch, also called the patriot grid. Since there are about 2 million machines running the UD client, this would put a massive amount of machines at the DOD's disposal.
The UD client is closed source so there's no way of knowing if the software the the DOD wrote is totaly dedicated to testing smallpox drugs or launching a cyber attack.
Massive DDOS attack anyone?
Blaze a trail to the New World
Not my intention to be troll here, but i quote:
"the Pentagon has stepped up development of cyber-weapons, envisioning a day when electrons might substitute for bombs and allow for more rapid and less bloody attacks on enemy targets."
Hacking to shut down radars and power from thousands of miles away can have no other cause than to support an aerial assault, and aerial assaults are never bloodless. They just want to cripple people so they cannot strike back. Maybe we should redefine the terms "blood" and "human beings" to fit the United States wardance more correctly. Schools and hospitals without power can only turn people more against US.
Fighting for peace is like fuxxing for virginity.
You cant fight in here, its a war room!
This is the first I've heard of this, and it does raise some troubling questions. The Iraqi leadership has always been painted as fundamentally uncaring about their people--and yet, they've taken the time to develop a system specifically to make sure that everyone is fed, something we can't even do here?
At the very least, it explains why the people support Saddam Hussein--if we come in and take over, I somehow doubt we're going to be nearly as concerned with making sure that people have food and other basic necessities.
This comment wasn't insightful at all...
The previous poster complained about Bush. He said nothing to support the Democrats, yet you accuse him of this. Being anti-Bush does not automatically make someone a Democrat lover. I've heard of many people who are Republicans but are very unhappy with Bush; would you call them Democrat lovers too?
As for college grads with engineering degrees, there's a good reason for that. Kids have been growing up seeing what a crappy profession engineering is, with long, hard hours, pointy-haired bosses, mediocre pay, and worst of all a very short career span (and getting shorter), and realizing that contrary to all the big companies' efforts to brainwash them into taking this career path, it's not a smart move. So they're going into other fields. Why spend 5+ years, go $50k into debt, and not have any time at all to enjoy college when you're there, just to get out, work 80-hour weeks, and get laid off as soon as the economy turns sour or the company decides to open a development center in Bangalore?
As far as I'm concerned, American companies shouldn't be allowed to hire H1B's, and shouldn't be allowed to open development centers in 3rd world countries (or else they should be treated as foreign companies and heavily tariffed). If that means they go down the tubes, too bad; they made their beds, now they should sleep in them.
Tax cuts for the rich aren't going to get the economy going. Rich people don't spend their money, especially when the economy is poor.
So here we have the most dramatic possible action a government can take (declaring war) and you believe we have no right to see the justification for this? "Don't question the government - they have their reasons"? Are we not supposed to live in a democracy? Or has that changed somewhow?
Our government has a history of lying to the public to sucker people into fighting wars. The cult of government secrecy has long distorted our public policy.
If someone expects me to die for them, they better give me a damn good reason, not "trust me. I know some secrets that I can't tell you."
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
Democrat comment? Fine, whatever. NOBODY has tried to curtail H1Bs. For the very reason I stated.
Tax cuts for the rich aren't going to get the economy going. Rich people don't spend their money, especially when the economy is poor
The rich pay the VAST majority of taxes. Increasing disposable income will help stimulate the economy. This is econ 101 stuff, you have nothing to back your statements about "rich people don't spend their money". That is totally absurd. How do they buy those oversized houses and expensive cars? Magic?
Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
I never cease to be amazed at how people in US firmly believe in the propaganda from official media outlets. They don't have immunity for it and they will learn it in the hard way as we did. Anyway.
Forget human rights crap. US never cared about them when it was against their interests.
Proven amounts of oil are shrinking everywhere in the world except Iraq and Saudi and these countries will account for 50% of world oil reserves during nearest decades. It's well-known fact, but you ignore obvious facts.
- First, US worked hard to lure Iraq into attacking Kuwait. Note that everything started when Kuwait started draining neighbor Iraq fields and US signalled that Iraq can handle that situation (they were loosing serious money) with military force. The rest is known, but note that previously independed Kuwait is now US colony after war. If you want to force them to do something, you can order US troops who can swiftly deal with stubborn official and his loyal forces. Today we ignore that fact that US occupied Kuwait, turned it into the colony that can't have its own will and now Kuwait is under almost direct US rule. If things get tough Kuwaits oil will go directly to US at no cost except troops upkeep.
- But at that time it was impossible to invade Iraq because UN won't allow it. Now they are used to US driving its forces arond the globe, kurds are prepared for rebellion and US can split Iraq, taking oil fields and leave everything else to afghan-like chaos.
- Then comes Saudi. Remember that most terrorists at 9/11 were Saudis? It will take some heavy propaganda, but their country will be invaded by US soon -- may be 10 or 20 years.
- Then... as oil production becomes too energy consuming to be profitable humanity will have to find alternative energy source. The only one alternative viable power source is nuclear and US can't allow other countries rely on it because once it becomes common energy source you won't be able to control ALL reactors and other countries will start getting nuclear arms and thus immune to things that are going in Iraq (some lousy rockets without much brains but with simple nuclear charges will wipe all your carriers and bases and no sane neighbor country will allow you to build bases anymore on their territory and let carriers visit their waters). Thus whole world crisis is needed where other countries will suffer enough to be unable to build nuclear plants. Remaining plants could be bombed as Israeli did with Iraq plant, that's why such huge money are dumped into stealth bombers.
- When oil supply start going down humanity will have "methane pause", there are a lot of methane available (but not much), and currently about 93% of methane fields are in Russia. That's why I will go and vote even for communists or facists if they support upkeeping serious amounts of nuclear weapons able to wipe US. It's the only way to keep US at the bay, because as soon as they feel able to shoot down most our missiles and withstand nuclear blasts from these who come through new missle shield they WILL attack. Eh? You start saying something about human rights? Well, when Khasavurt accord established slavery regime in Chechnya with US help HALF OF MILLION russians were expelled, many thousands were killed. This fact got ZERO attention in US. Compare that with chechen refugees who got featured everywhere. Compare that with expelled Albanians (most of whom were in Kosovo because they sneaked there some decades before) -- they were useful. That's why I will support government that cares about MY nation and not abstract "human rights" which get bent at US will.
We as human race have to assemble and disarm US before they bring down civilisation.Well, I exaggregated a little. But this is where real interests lie. Governments may be different, be it "democracy", dictatorship, republic or something else, but geopolitical interests remains the same, no matter who acts as face of the country. It even doesn't matter what he says. Look who gets the profit.
A centralized, computerized system that controls food distribution also can control who *doesn't* get fed. It's a dictatorship and every facet of daily life is one more lever to control the populace.
On a dollar basis, the rich will end up paying a higher percentage of taxes paid with the Bush plan than with the current system. The benefit will be that they'll end up with so much benefit from the extra economic growth that their after tax income will go up.
The fact is that double taxation of dividends leads to bad business decisions that screw over employees in all sorts of ways, not least of which is taking that retained cash and buying up other firms, throwing out 'redundant' workers in the process. If it were equally profitable to give the shareholders back their money instead of management empire building, I'm sure that a lot of shareholders would insist on dividends which many would plow right back into investing in other ventures.
The best job security is 3% unemployment and we're only going to get there by freeing up capital to create more and more jobs.
es, they send their money back home, minus the 30-50% that gets taken out in taxes plus
whatever small pittance they spend on food, clothing, and shelter. You also have to remember
that these people aren't going to be collecting the social security taxes they pay in for, nor
medicare, nor benefit from most social assistance programs.
Okay, you feel sorry for them. H1B's being proper because they are charitable is not good enough a reason to leave American citizens unemployed.
They're generally a net contributor
to govt. revenues and enlarge the number of people who have good opinions of the US.
Americans holding the same positions would contribute to this society far better than of these spurrious "general net contributions".
Is having large numbers of Americans unemployed during a potential economic disaster worth "enlarging good opinions of the US"?
As for the idea that this is about oil, well it is but not in the way you make it out to be. We
pressure everybody and their grandmother to create a rule of law society with equal rights for
all and democracy for the people. We don't do it in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the OPEC
nations because we are hostage to our need for oil. This plays into the hands of the terrorists
who play up our good relations with opec repressive govts, show us smiling with their local
tyrants as we shake hands and never point out our gritted teeth as we do it from necessity.
You acknowledge it's about the oil, and that the oil is going to private individuals and then claim this the whole matter is an exercise in expanding rule of law? Do you really think the rule of law is in effect even here within the United States?
*guffaw*
Taking Iraq will let us, for the first time in half a century, give us the ability to clean out the cesspools of arab repression and tyranny which breed people like Osama bin Laden. Until those
cesspools are cleaned, we can have a war on terror as long as we like and it won't matter worth a damn.
You sound like you really believe. The world doesn't work like that. When politicians are smiling, crying, and waving flags, they do so to pull your strings. You're just regurgitating what what they're saying on television. Appealing to patriotism, the heroics of spreading high morals, making the world a better place. Have you ever heard of focus groups?
I'm sorry but I think the gap is sufficiently far that I cannot reach you. You are lost and if you ever want to find your way out, you'll have to learn to start forming your own thoughts. You are obviously not doing this right now. Good luck.