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

Maybe It's Time for a Cyber-Treaty

[Apple Acolyte]

It can be signed using an EULA!

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.

I am Cyber Special Forces

[Anonymous Coward]

I probably shouldn't be posting this, but I'm Cyber Special Forces, a US Cyber Seal. We have a motto - "the only easy day was yesterday". People think it's glamorous, but I'm out there risking my life every single day.

Here's something you might not have heard before - Freedom isn't Free.

If not me, then who?

Re:I am Cyber Special Forces

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

If not me, then who?

Some outsourcing guys in China! ...oh wait.

Worst Article Ever.

[moogied]

A cyber cold war? How is this going to work? Are we building servers right now that spam "STFU NUB, AMERICA #1 B1A+CH"?

Firewalls?

[Burlynerd]

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

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.

[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.

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. ;)

Attention Cyber Cold War Armies:

[morgan_greywolf]

1 h4v3 A /-r4d u83r m41nf4@m3 th4tz R1P3 4 4tt4c/! pwn d1s n u w1ll pwn d4 w0r|d! H3r3 i5 th3 s3cr3t 1p 4ddr3ss:

127.0.0.1

thx!

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.

Cyber War

[MM_LONEWOLF]

I've got an idea. If two countries are arguing, each cultivates their best cyber warriors for 1 year. After one year, they have a giant multiplayer team death match in a mutually chosen FPS. At the end of the day, winner takes all. The only problem is that Japan and/or China will become the new super-powers.

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: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.

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: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.