Governments Prepare for Cyber Cold War

superglaze writes "ZDNet UK has an analysis piece on the growing threat of a "cyber cold war". It's got some interesting examples and it seems everyone is up to something. "...attacks are not limited to any particular countries, or by alliances between countries, according to cyberwarfare watchers. In the McAfee report, Johannes Ullrich, chief technology officer for research organization the Sans Internet Storm Center, said that most countries hack each other regardless of any supposed allegiances. Alan Paller, director of research at security training organization the Sans Institute, concurred. "All nations are doing it to each other. I don't know of any country not doing it," he said. "If it's not for normal espionage, it's for economic espionage. It's a very broad set of countries [involved].""

Comments

war ...

[thrillseeker]

is the continuation of politics.

Not so Cold

[explosivejared]

Apparently it's not so cold after all. Maybe insane paranoia we will reap some benefits from increasing tech R&D. All it takes is one congressman talking about "an decryption gap" to get about 10^588484 billion dollars for this stuff.
 
  Last time the Soviet's spent themselves into exinction, so let's just hope it's not us this time.

It's not a bad thing in itself.

[Bragador]

Of course it can make people angry to get their own information stolen by other governments but on the other hand this happens only when the playing field is not leveled.

When all governments have similar technologies and ressources it forces the market to compete more and get new ideas on the market as soon as possible. Also, when military technologies are similar amongst nations, it forces them to negociate and talk instead of bullying the weaker ones.

Having a small advantage is all right but when some nations get to be much more advanced than others it gets problematic. It's all about having to listen to each other instead of simply using force. It's all about the human race advancing together instead of exploiting each other.

Firewalls?

[Burlynerd]

OK, so how long will it take for them to start building national firewalls? BN

Re:Firewalls?

[calebt3]

There is no reason in my mind for a "national" firewall. Maybe one to shelter the entire government's systems, but there is no reason to extend this to civilians, except for the fact that a local botnet will be able to DDoS more effectively than a distant one.

Re:Firewalls?

[farkus888]

This is a very very good point in a humorous tone some might miss. there is a lot of discussion about the privacy/access to knowledge aspects of the great firewall of China. no one seems to be drawing the correlation that much of this "cyber cold war" traffic is coming from or going to China, makes one wonder if those aspects of this firewall are really strawmen to keep people from talking about it really being a defense from other governments trying to track and retaliate against Chinas outgoing "cyber cold war" attacks.

I know it's part of what they do

[techpawn]

But I always take Security warning from software vendors with a grain of salt. It's like the wolf telling you about the fox watching your chickens.

War kill, maims and physically destroys cities.

[shis-ka-bob]

This doesn't happen with 'hacking' by government agents. This is not war, this is espionage. Especially in the US, we must avoid labeling anything 'serious' as a war. There is a bright line distinction between the widespread killing that accompanies a war and the economic losses that could be inflicted by espionage over the internet or the chaos that could follow a deliberate 'cyber attack'. Espionage is also a continuation of politics, but that doesn't make it war.

Re:War kill, maims and physically destroys cities.

[Elemenope]

Right, because economic jamming is ultimately just about money. Nobody has ever been killed for just money.

Please. In the 21st century, economic hegemony is shaping up to be much, much more important than simple military dominance, as military actions follow from economic imperatives, not the other way around. From the United Fruit Company to the Iraq Wars, blood runs when money stops flowing.

The bright line you describe doesn't exist; economic warfare, whatever the form, has real human cost in actual human lives. The person who dies of Cholera in Bolivia because their water supply is privatized (and devastated as a result) after heavy foreign pressure is just as dead as the Iraqi killed by an American bullet. At least one has a prayer of getting on the evening news.

Incidentally, while I generally agree that calling something a "war" does not make it so, if you are referring to the US War on Drugs, it resembles a war in every legitimate sense of the term. People in Putumayo and neighboring Columbian states see at the center of Cocaine traffic a fully militarized operation, while here in the US we have armed our local police offices with semi-automatic weapons, no-knock warrants, and a healthy disrespect for human life. (If on the other hand you were talking about the 'War on terror' or the 'War on poverty', you might be on to something. ;)

Re:War kill, maims and physically destroys cities.

[blahplusplus]

War kill, maims and physically destroys cities.

"Thus those skilled in war subdue the enemy's army without battle .... They conquer by strategy."--Sun Tzu

No Duh

[MM_LONEWOLF]

Alliances aren't being followed? Next thing you know, they're going to tell us that there were spies operating in Russia during the real cold war.

Not a Cold War

[Doc Ruby]

That scenario isn't a "Cold War". It's just the normal state of international relations, which has always been based on political and economic espionage, as well as "sustainable sabotage", for thousands of years among all nations. Even during every "hot war" (shooting involved), this is the norm. Even among allies, looking for advantage and testing for weakness that makes the entire alliance vulnerable.

People really ought to go check into one of these actual wars once in a while. The ones where states work to destroy each other, where lots of people are killed, where entire ideologies, religions, cities, landscapes get trashed and owned. People who think this kind of thing is a "war" really have it soft, and lose the proper respect for real war.

OMG they don't bother to hide any more?

[hellfire]

I'm not disputing the accuracy one way or another, but c'mon. Not only does the article clearly reference McAfee as the author of the report, a corporation with a vested interest in scaring governments into buying more software, so does the summary! The moment a corporation starts posting fearmongering, I'm immediately skeptical. The immediate aim I see is to get the government to be scared and buy more software from McAfee. Maybe I'm wrong but I doubt it.

Government and corporations have been in bed for years, but my god it's gotten so bad that it's practically a daily public porn show where they don't care what you see any more.

Wars On Abstract Concepts

[EgoWumpus]

Any war on an {insert your chosen abstract concept here} is ridiculous. The War on Drugs resembles a war, and perhaps even is a war, but it's not a war 'on drugs'. It's a war against particular drug cartels. It may even be several separate wars. But by calling it an abstract war, you confuse yourself. Note that the Allies declared war on the Axis countries in World War II, not on Invaders. Fighting Invaders might be a good idea. Having a War on Invaders, on the other hand, is a really bad idea, because your objectives are entirely unclear.

It just goes to show you should never confuse people with concepts. You'll be way off.

Re:Staggering incompetence

[jdjbuffalo]

Being part of the IT organization in the DoC means he should have at least been aware of the generic problems that plague almost everyones computers--namely spyware, keyloggers and viruses. These things, especially keyloggers, could lead a hacker to gain access to his sensitive information on the computer and access to any place he logs into.

Even though I don't have a wife and kids yet, when I do you better believe everyone is going to have separate computers (especially if I use one of them for work). The kids will have their own. The wife will her own. And, I'll have several, although at least one that is separate from everyone else's.

If you don't at least understand the basics of security, especially if you are working from home with sensitive information, then you don't deserve a position in the IT organization.

Re:Staggering incompetence

[ceoyoyo]

The chief information security officer should be well aware that his work computer with sensitive data on it and a direct line into the department of commerce should be both physically secured and completely separate from the computer his kids (or he) check their myspace accounts on. Not only that, he's in charge of initiating and enforcing that requirement for everyone else.