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

Re:War kill, maims and physically destroys cities.

[rucs_hack]

I met a spy once. Well a guy who'd been a spy in the second world war, fascinating stuff.
Alas he was bcoming senile, hence why I met him, he was a client of mine (used to be a nurse you see).

What was really funny is all through the war, and right up till the mid nineties, his wife had beleved he was a truck driver with some very long postings abroad on convoy duty or somesuch. Once she thought he was up in scotland for six months when he was actually in Africa. He only talked when he started to realise his mind was going.

Great stuff I thought.

Staggering incompetence

[QuickFox]

Apparently the incompetence reaches staggering proportions. FTA:

According to a source close to the situation, the chief information security officer of the US Department of Commerce learned this summer that his home computer was being used to send data to computers in China. He found his family had been the victim of a spear-phishing attack, in which his child had been encouraged by an email to unwittingly download malware onto the family's home computer. Once it was compromised, the attackers used the security officer's personal computer as a tunnel into the Department of Commerce's systems. The family of the chief information security officer of the Department of Commerce can't afford to have one computer for the family and another for high-security work? And the nation can't afford a separate computer for this apparently impoverished officer?

No way. It can't be lack of funds. It can only be staggering, incredible incompetence. And it's not the local burger flipper. It's the chief information security officer. The top boss in charge of keeping information safe.

Amazing.

Re:Wars On Abstract Concepts

[Elemenope]

An interesting point. I disagree, only because the "War on Drugs" has had a relatively coherent approach and consistent goals for a while now. That the militarization of the conflict has led to an unmitigated loss, and placed the "war goals", so to speak, almost completely out of reach, does not make it any less legitimate. Lost wars are still wars. The war was never against "Colombia" or "Mexico", but in the DEA office they had real targets (complete with red 'x's through the pictures of the targets that were eliminated or neutralized) and quantifiable goals.

Likewise, a "War on Invaders" seems to be eminently reasonable, if stupidly duplicative. The Westphalian system makes every country de facto at war against any territorial invader anyway, so "War on Invaders" is more of a standing international policy than it is a war on an idea.

The problem I have with using the rhetoric of 'War', whether it is associated with an actual military conflict that approaches the reality of warfare or not, is that it destroys the succinct and specific legal meaning that the word "War" had. That same international system of sovereign states depends a great deal upon the notion that only sovereign entities may declare war on sovereign entities, that such a declaration meant specific responses and held specific expectations of the parties involved, and that at least in the US it required a legislature to legitimate by vote in order to execute. Blurring the textbook definition of "War" between sovereign states with "War" that states only a goal, whether it be concrete or ephemeral one, and not a sovereign state, damages the integrity of the system that is designed to moderate the use of force internationally.