Government-Sponsored Cyberattacks on the Rise

jbrodkin writes "A new McAfee report finds that 120 countries, notably the United States and China, are regularly launching Web-based espionage campaigns. Government-sponsored cyber attacks against enemy countries are becoming more common, targeting critical systems including electricity, air traffic control, financial markets and government computer networks. This year, Russia allegedly attacked Estonian government news and bank servers, while China was accused of hacking into the Pentagon. A McAfee researcher says this trend will accelerate, noting 'it's easier to attack government X's database than it is to nuke their troops.'"

Comments

Not just that...

[AltGrendel]

...noting 'it's easier to attack government X's database than it is to nuke their troops.'

But it's easier on the environment, too!!

which is better?

[pak9rabid]

What do people here think is better...a physical attack (with guns, bombs, etc) where live are being lost, or cyber attacks where lives are not being lost (to the best of my knowledge..please correct me if I'm overlooking something).

Re:Governments Engage in Cyber Warfare!

[link-error]

    Yeah, thats great, who cares, until your Social Security check doesn't come or your bank account drops to zero.

My biggest concern

[Enlarged to Show Tex]

I think it's quite likely that the threat of these sorts of attacks will be used as justification by the governments of more and more countries to try to wall off their part of the internet, the erection of things like the Great Firewall of China, and so forth.

Gotta stop those so-called terrorists, after all.

No

[Yvanhoe]

Sorry to be nitpicking, but it *IS* easier to drop a nuke than to attack a correctly set-up network.

Hollywood managed to persuade everyone that with a few million dollars and a rock-star hacker it is possible to break into the most secure systems. The fact is that when sysadmins have been doing their jobs, it is easier to conduct a physical attack than a networked one. Do you think that electronic money could exist otherwise ?

Re:No

[Vanden]

Given your assumptions of "correctly set-up network" and "sysadmins have been doing their jobs", I would agree.

However, most of us know that many networks are vulnerable to attack because they're neither correctly set-up nor are their admins doing their jobs. In these cases, even a no-talent script kiddie could break in easier than a government could launch a nuclear attack.

Finally, a bad analogy on slashdot!

[QuantumFTL]

What did your mother teach you about everyone jumping off a bridge, anyway?

This isn't like jumping off of a bridge. There's a breal, tangible benefit here, and if the situation is assymetric, our country would be best off if it were asymmetric in our favor.

Part of our "evil" plan to control the entire world involves us performing acts of espionage against just about every other country.

Every country does it, because that's how a country survives. If there was no such thing as war and terrorism (whatever the cause) maybe that would not be the case. But as long as other countries threaten our position, our livelihood, and even our very existence (and in the nuclear age, yes they do) we're gonna have to collect information through just about every available means. It may not be "nice" but it is a smart move.

RTFR!

[cfulmer]

Argh. The report (possible sign-in required) DOES NOT say that the US is conduction cyber-espionage activities. (Note: the linked-to article in the parent points to the 2005 report) It does say that there are an "estimated 120 countries working on their cyberattack commands," which is quite different from actually being involved in espionage.

(Note that I'm not asserting that the US is not conducting electronic espionage. I would hope that we are. Heck, we did electronic espionage long before the internet; why should we stop now?)

Indeed, this is not new...

[rickb928]

And it's not even very much a secret now.

Estonia got hammered, probably by Russia. That Russia contracted a stormbot net merely qualifies it as a mercenary attack. Think Bay of Pigs, with a lot more deniability.

China-based machines have been spotted trying all sorts of hijinks against targets worldwide. Not that China-based machines are alone in this, but they seem to be pretty aggressive.

When I was younger, I dreamt up interesting warfare. Why use Anthrax when a decent influenza mutant gave you deniability and a very debilitating attack. Use something like Salmonella, and give the population diarreah. A cleanup of fairly massive proportions. As part of the strategy, hit Atlanta with the Salmonella, and Phoenix, and watch the water problems escalate. Influenza would be best used in metropolitan areas, since it would be indistiguishable from a genuine pandemic.

Cyberwar offers states deniability, subterfuge, and targeted attacks at economic and industrial resources. Wonderful way to cripple your opponent on their own soil, and then run circles around them snarfing up territory, influence, or just plain good press while the losers suffer in every other way.

Once upon a time, you knew who your enemy was - they were slashing, shooting, or bombing you. then it got harder to figure out where they were. Then it got harder to figure out WHO they were.

From now on, it will be harder to figure out if you're really under attack, until it's too late.

I suspect our military will be taking more and more systems off-Net, to completely prevent attacks. Then our adversaries will go after the softest parts of the military systems: Communications - satellites for instance. Logistics - civilian systems the military depends on. Political Systems - including the media, elections.

We are close to fighting an invisble enemy, with uncertain targets, in a neverending low-grade conflict that saps our resources and diverts our attention from greater threats and opportunities.

Time to start giving tax breaks to onshore manufacturers again. We cannot continue to import most of our critical technology from our avowed and hostile enemies.

Re:Indeed, this is not new...

[NeutronCowboy]

I agree with pretty much your entire post, except for the last paragraph. If you do not even know who your enemy is and whether anyone is attacking you, the only way to ensure your safety is to tie everyone's well-being to yours. This requires deep economic and social ties between individuals and corporations in the different countries. If cutting into American GDP by releasing various pandemics on its soil backfires because people in your country don't have jobs anymore, you're gonna think twice about doing that.

Low-grade, untraceable and deniable attacks are a fact of life with electronic communications. We can either make sure that everyone has a stake in the overall health of the world economy, or we can start a wonderful cycle of isolationism, paranoia and "us vs them" attitude. Personally, I know which way I tend.

Re:Not exactly surprising!

[cumin]

I think this is exactly the point I haven't seen anybody making, but that we're all feeling. If governments are actively engaging in hacking, assuming they find competent hackers, what is to stop somebody from using the tools to hit innocent civilians? Of course they could, of course they might, and maybe planting a little evidence? How would you prove it?

It goes toward that mentality of finding evidence, then getting a warrant. If you think John Citizen might be doing something wrong, you simply use the official tool, "classified cracker" and log into his computer and watch him off and on for a couple days. Maybe you get your evidence, maybe not. If you do, then you know where to look for evidence you can use to get a warrant, and if not, nobody is the wiser.

Of course it would be a huge invasion of privacy, but if it's not possible to prove it, and not submitted as primary evidence, then it can be ends justifying means. John Citizen suffers, maybe never knowing his expectation of privacy has been shredded.