Slashdot Mirror
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."
Not all that unusual. I was visiting a water treatment/chlorination plant in the UK a few years ago (for complex reasons related to archaeology rather than anything particularly on-topic, so it is likely that we got the Cliff Notes version). They pointed to the computer that controls the water chlorination and said 'we control this via this modem right here'. Presumably there are all sorts of security controls around actually accessing via said modem, given that we are talking about a PC controlling the quality of the drinking water supplied to maybe 20,000 people.
This doesn't matter very much anyway. TFA seems to have confused 'you can connect to it remotely via some mechanism or another' and 'anyone connected to the internet can just ssh right in/DDOS it'. FUD.
Back in the late '90s I was infected by my first virus. I had never connected to the internet, I had just used the library and school computers. Somehow, I still managed to get a virus on my floppy diskette.
I don't think it is unlikely that there are people who hook their laptops up to their work network, and I suspect it is even more likely that people plug in a floppy/thumbdrive/cdrom from home. I don't doubt that it would be safer to stay disconnected from the Internet, but a handcrafted virus would be far more likely to avoid detection by most antivirus and probably accomplish just as much in a hacker war. It would have to be a targeted program, but that is really the point isn't it, that hackers could be targeting networks that are supposed to be secured. Of course, it probably doesn't help security that they probably assume their network is safe.
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
***Isn't this blown out of proportion, again?***
Probably not out of proportion. The military has separate secure communications, but civil society doesn't. And many of our key networks aren't exactly robust. We've had incidents in the past of phone networks going down because of bad software upgrades to switches. And of power distribution networks going down for no very good reason and taking many hours to get back up. And satellites going out.
So what happens when a technically savvy bunch of folks with a point to make starts off by hijacking Microsoft Update to zombiate millions of PCs, uses other update services to brick all sorts of devices, then simultaneously goes after the DNS servers; North American power grid controls; and every satellite link they have previously found a vulnerability in? What if they can take down major parts of the cell phone network? Probably they can DOS the financial service network providers if they can't hack into them -- No functioning ATMs and likely no functioning banks and likely few functioning stores of any kind. And they reprogram a lot of the nation's traffic signals to turn all lights green permanently. They do the same for the railroads. And they turn off the natural gas distribution system -- in January. And they shut down the aquaduct pumping stations feeding Southern California. ... etc, etc, etc. And finally, they shut down as much of the phone system as they can get to.
A serious attack by a technically savvy attacker with significant resources and a good plan can very likely do most of those things and a great many more.
If an attacker can do even a quarter of that, it'd take any industrial country a week to get back up after a fashion, and months to really get things back under control. So, no, it's probably not blown out of proportion.
***I mean who the FUCK would be stupid enough to have the controls for a Dam connected to the internet?***
What is the cheapest and most cost effective way to control a remote power facility? And who says cyber attacks are limited to the Internet? If your dam is 300 miles away, you're going to need remote access -- at least for monitoring and quite likely for command and control. Seems to me like most, maybe all, of the technologies to do that -- internet, phone network, satellite, radio links, etc--are open to interception and attack. Even if you can't break into the control link, you likely can deny service in one way or another.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey