US Prepares for Eventual Cyberwar

The New York Times is reporting on preparations in the works by the US government to prep for a 'cyberwar'. Precautionary measures are being taken to guard against concerted attacks by politically-minded (or well-paid) hackers looking to cause havoc. Though they outline scenarios where mass damage is the desired outcome (such as remotely opening a dam's gates to flood cities), most expect such conflicts to be more subtle. Parts of the internet, for example, may be unreachable or unreliable for certain countries. Regardless, the article suggests we've already seen our first low-level cyberwar in Estonia: "The cyberattacks in Estonia were apparently sparked by tensions over the country's plan to remove Soviet-era war memorials. Estonian officials initially blamed Russia for the attacks, suggesting that its state-run computer networks blocked online access to banks and government offices. The Kremlin denied the accusations. And Estonian officials ultimately accepted the idea that perhaps this attack was the work of tech-savvy activists, or 'hactivists,' who have been mounting similar attacks against just about everyone for several years."

Comments

Isn't this blown out of proportion, again?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean who the FUCK would be stupid enough to have the controls for a Dam connected to the internet?

Obvious safeguard

[maharg]

don't connect the dam floodgate controller to the internet ?

The Need for an Enemy

[segedunum]

Well, everyone needs a credible enemy to keep themselves in a job. I mean, what would all those government agencies do with their time? The whole thing is just playing peoples worst fears, and the scenarios they've got there are straight out of Die Hard......or that film Sandra Bullock was in, and of course the all have no basis in reality.

Bring back the Cold War, that's what I say, and it looks as though they are. This whole terrorism thing just isn't working out ;-).

always a war

[had3z]

Why is it that america is always preparing for a war? a war on 'terrer', a cyberwar, a war on drugs, a war on immigrants, a war on pirates, a war on guns. When is the last time america made peace?
I guess big budgets need big reasons

Re:always a war

[GooberToo]

Why is it that america is always preparing for a war?

Um...perhaps because it's the smart thing to do? Only an idiot wouldn't prepare.

You see, any country that has two nickles to rub together makes preparations to keep their two nickles. The reason is simple. Someone with only one nickle or maybe someone with two nickles that would like to have four, may decide to come take your two nickles. So you have a choice. One, give your two nickles up tomorrow (it will happen), or be in a position where it will cost someone three nickles to take your two.

Perhaps you've heard, "Hope for the best. Plan for the worst." Only an idiot running a country wouldn't do that.

Re:Newspaper ad

[suv4x4]

How does it feel to reply to your own post?

Makes me feel Slashdot had an edit post button, so I wouldn't have to ammend myself in an entire new post.

Mind yo businez

[ancientt]

That's right, because we all know that bullies only beat up other bullies. </sarcasm>>

I love that people assume that the US is a target because of it's actions. I wonder if these are the same people that assume that Microsoft gets hacked because it is an 'evil' company. Let me say it plainly: The US is a target because the US has a lot of money and influence. Microsoft is a target because they have a large number of users. There may be thousands of other reasons, but that is the real reason there is such a disparity in attacks against the two. I am not saying that MS shouldn't be a moral business or that the US shouldn't improve it's interactions in the world, I'm just saying that doing either one will not make a significant difference in the number of attacks.

Both have a need to do the same thing too, actually. They need to improve security and do it in such a way that it doesn't harm their base.

Born to Lose

[Doc Ruby]

Every US "Cybersecurity Czar" has quit in disgust. The Homeland Security agency can't even find someone to run the office, because it's a total joke.

Meanwhile, the US has already been under siege by China in a full-blown cyberwar for several years.

It's cheap to attack the US tech infrastructure, and expensive to defend against it. That's what asymmetric warfare, like terrorism, is all about. So 6 years into Bush's Terror War, and the government is still preparing to get started, while our enemies just surge around us.

SECURE THE PROTOCOLS!!!

[Spy der Mann]

Just fix the darn protocols, dammit. It's been a year since Blue Security was taken down by PharmaMaster and NOBODY has done ANYTHING to prevent any subsequent DNS amplification attacks from happening.

If ISPs at least blocked forged-ip packets from exiting them, then THAT would be a nice start.

Re:It's not just the Internet

[djmcmath]

OP is right, and he's optimistic about our defenses. Even the military practices "network security" at only a childish level. Most users have no clue how security works, and our military's network security training is horribly remiss.

And of course, the OP only outlined a few attacks that can be conducted from the safety of an office somewhere remotely. We face an enemy who isn't at all afraid to blow stuff up, even if it means the explosives are personally delivered. Anyone take a look at the physical security on a dam recently? Storage sites for nuclear waste? Ferries, busses, trains?

We are ripe for attack from a small team of well-funded and determined enemies, and we're not doing enough to prepare for it.