Slashdot Mirror
Is the Cyberterror Threat Credible?
Scott Pinzon writes "Is the idea that cyber terrorists might take down US networks or utilities realistic, or over-hyped? One of the authors of the Patriot Act and several Black Hat 2005 speakers debated the issue informally at WatchGuard's "Security and Beer Roundtable." Participants include Dan Kaminsky, Johnny "Google Hacker" Long, Tim Mullen, Sensepost penetration testers, a guy from Microsoft's ISA team, and others."
Who cares if the power company's website is defaced or their web server brought down? That won't lead to the lights going out.
The question is not whether the threat from cyberterrorism (what a stupid term) is credible, but who in their right mind sees it necessary to put critical systems online?
If you want to take out half the internet, you don't need hackers. A backhoe works just fine. So why in the world would anyone put such important things on a network that is easily disabled?
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
Personally, I don't feel in any way threatened by any word, phrase, or sentence with the prefix "cyber" in it. Cyber*, to me, means a way for non-geeks to explain something that they don't in any way understand.
The Bush administration has been warning of a digital Pearl Harbor for years.
However, their desire to collect and to centralize information on government computers for 'homeland security' purposes makes such a threat more dangerous, not less dangerous.
If their proposals for government-accessible backdoors for all encryption were actually to become reality, then a single successful hacker could compromise millions of secure computers and documents in a single attack.
The best solution is to go back to the policies of Clinton's presidency. Let us, the people, take care of our own security without government intrusion, as is our natural right and privilege.
The broader question: is the treat of terrorism credible? Considering that politicians made up the whole concept of "the terror network" from disinformation planted in european newspapers and then failed to listen to the CIA when they told them the Soviet Union was not funding terrorist groups and in-fact it was the CIA that was planting the propaganda, how can we possibly believe that terrorism is capable of any more than the few isolated incidents that have befallen the world in the last dozen years? We're talking about a total number of deaths less than a year of ordinary people driving cars on the national highways. The chances of becoming a victim of terrorism are less than the chances of being hit by falling space debris.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Maybe. But probably not. If terrorists use a computer to do something that kills people, its regular terrorism. If somebody screws with my computer, that person is not a "cyber-terrorist," he is just a regular criminal (and also, likely, a douchebag.)
So maybe what I mean is... no, it isn't remotely credible.
Who did what now?
There's something a little strange about spending hundreds of billions to create a missile shield on the off chance the terrorists are smart enough to build a viable nuclear weapon AND deliver it on target via ICBM from thousands of miles away... but too dumb to figure out how to trigger a cascading failure with a DDOS attack.
Truth is, if the raids on strongholds in Iraq are any indication, they can barely figure out how to upgrade to Windows 98. I'd be more worried about my government bankrupting me than anything the evil terrorists could pull off.
I'm not sure that's really what you want. IIRC, the attempts to make key escrow mandatory with Clipper were on Clinton's watch. The sooner we quit believing that one party or another is interested in freedom, the sooner we have a chance to preserve the dwindling amount of it we have left.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
Fear is a fantastic way to control people and get big dollars into big lobbiests pockets. It is also a good way to divert focus from real issues.
Unfortunately these measures only give a false sense of security. All the aircraft carriers can't stop a few punks with box cutters from hijacking a plane or whatever.
Huge security measures in the internat will be equivalent to airport security. Pain in the ass (in more ways than one), queues, loss of service etc for Joe Average and ineffective.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I disagree with that statement. How many times has the "If but one death could be prevented..." mantra been passed around? Too many people expect EVERYTHING to be risk free, and often propose and avdvocate extreme measures to gain that certainty. No matter how absurd the measure might be for the majority of the people. And if CHILDREN are involved? Oh my god.
Look at all the handwaving currently going on regarding video game violence, dispite the fact that teen violence levels are at the lowest they've been in decades. But no, SOMETHING caused Columbine, and that something must be eliminated.
And if it can't be eliminated one way, they'll try another. A "defective" product? Sue the company. An unforeseen drug interaction? It's class action time. Some kid jumps off a bridge because a character in a game did so? Obviously, it's time to ban all games.
We demand perfection, every time, all the time. And if it's not perfect, then someone, obviously, is to blame.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.