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.

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.

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.