Slashdot Mirror
USAF Considers Creation of Military Botnet
sowjetarschbajazzo writes "Air Force Col. Charles W. Williamson III believes that the United States military should maintain its own botnet, both as a deterrent towards those who would attempt to DDoS government networks, and an offensive weapon to be used against the networks of unfriendly nations, criminal groups, or terrorist organizations.
"Some people would fear the possibility of botnet attacks on innocent parties. If the botnet is used in a strictly offensive manner, civilian computers may be attacked, but only if the enemy compels us. The U.S. will perform the same target preparation as for traditional targets and respect the law of armed conflict as Defense Department policy requires by analyzing necessity, proportionality and distinction among military, dual-use or civilian targets. But neither the law of armed conflict nor common sense would allow belligerents to hide behind the skirts of its civilians. If the enemy is using civilian computers in his country so as to cause us harm, then we may attack them." What does Slashdot think of this proposal?"
I'm Surprised that they are not doing this already. That begs the question, who's computers would host the bots? Patriotic Americans who allow the govt to install software on their machine to attack the enemy is all well and good but what happens when the alphabet soup figures out that the govt has software on most of America's PC's?
Sounds like the Geneva convention needs to be updated to include technological attacks.
30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
Score:5, Troll
Somebody needs to correct this! It's even the Air Force, just like in movies.
..is that creating a botnet is a fundamentally offensive tactic. If you're compromising computers to use for "defensive purposes", then you're launching a preemptive attack, which would make the US the aggressor. Unless you think somehow you're going to convince me to put your crappy malware on my machine, in which case you're sadly mistaken.
So.. Ummm... Does this mean that Microsoft has retroactively become a military "equipment" provider?
:)
Ahhh.. That felt good. Mod away
if China or Iran or some other enemy country wants to attack the USA and the US government wants to start a botnet let me know i have 2 PCs on 24/7/365 on cable broadband, i will volunteer my PCs to work for the US Government as part of a botnet, Bush may not be my favorite president but i am still an American and know what side my bread is buttered on (just make a Linux version too)...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
... the government decides to turn this botnet against the civilian population in some way?
I mean, at some point (if I recall correctly, I am not American, I am Canadian), there were laws created saying that Americans have the right to arm themselves in case their government turns against them. Does that include the case of computer warfare?
What would happen in the case of other countries that this botnet could be used against? Would that be considered an act of war?
Green's Law of Debate: Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about.
I was just thinking of something like that. It would be interesting to see someone use a Third Amendment defense against this...
We could build a voluntary enrollment bot net that could be loaned to the government in time of crisis. Other times we could use it for basic research or rent it out for LEGAL super computer use.
It might also come in handy for keeping our own government under our control in case some over zealous patriot gets their hands on the military's control equipment.
It seems like the author wants to run a legal botnot from military computers around the world, as a way to respond to attacks. That's fine, but since criminal botnets are distributed among computers around the world, some of the attacking computers will be from allied countries. Heck, some of them may be the very same military computers that are part of our botnet. The author writes about attackers spoofing IPs to appear to come from friendlies, but what if the computer is actually a friendly that has been zombied? That's where other "intelligence" sources comes in, I suppose, but I am skeptical that the attacker could be accurately identified quickly enough.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
The next thing you know its going to be the Nato-net and the Comu-net.
If the U.S. government starts targeting botnet clients within U.S. borders, I say it's a good use of my tax dollars.
....Please, buy your pharmaceuticals from a pharmacy, not junk email.
Even better if they can provide educational public service announcements about computer security.
Remember: Only you can prevent firewire.
This is your computer. This is your computer in a botnet.
Got v146rA?
But - and this is the important part - it is extremely unclear as to who the "they" are. The US Government is big, different departments have different policies and philosophies, what holds true for some branch A may not hold true for some other branch B, and so on. For example, I can't really imagine the regular US Army or Navy using a botnet. That's not, as a whole, their style. Remember, the US Navy is looking at semi-robotic next-generation Ironclads/Battleships with hundreds of missile launchers on each side. There is nothing subtle or stealthy about the Navy. Their sneers and jeers at Sweeden examining stealth ships is further evidence that these guys are about as subtle as a rocket-propelled 2x4.
Now, what about other departments? We already know that there are departments that indulge in signals intelligence, electronic and cyber warfare, covert operations, and so on. By definition, we do not know what those departments are involved in, and by definition they would be unable to tell us honestly if they were - or if they weren't. That makes it easy to be paranoid, as there is no way of testing any speculation as to what they are doing. We might know in 50 years time, some secrets may be held back for 100, some secrets may never be known (documents lost or destroyed, for example, as happened in the My Lai warcrimes investigations). Paranoia is the antitheses of rational thought, and in matters in which limited (or zero) information exist, rational thought should be of paramount importance. Insanity helps nobody, least of all yourself.
The evidence is slender, but is strongly suggestive one department already has backdoors on vulnerable boxes. After cyber-attacks elsewhere in the world, protective measures by the US will have increased, not decreased. Ethics aside, at least one military botnet under US control probably exists, as it probably does for Russia, China and probably other nations. I imagine, given the advanced education and the perceived need (it may also be a real need, but nobody acts on real needs they don't perceive as such) by Israel and India that they also have botnets. Britain's brain-drain has probably deprived it of too much talent at this point, but GCHQ and the various clandestine intelligence departments (we don't even know what departments there are - only two officially even exist, but at least one other has been officially mentioned) might have such a system in place, but more likely for intelligence purposes than for attack.
But what about the ethical standpoint? Well, ethics covers a multitude of sins, and most people have different ethics, making any kind of rational ethical argument difficult. I will stick to one point alone, then, and it's not the obvious one concerning those running the botnets. It's the ethical consideration of running an insecure machine. If you are a patriot, is it not your duty to secure your computer? If you do not, then any (and possibly every) hostile power could - and probably eventually will - run a node of the botnet on your machine. If you are a sympathizer of a foreign power, is it not your duty to secure your computer? If you do not, then your country could - and probably eventually will - run a node of a defensive botnet on your machine. If you are apolitical, then is it not your moral duty to secure your machine, so that nobody can abuse your facilities for their political purposes? If you're an anarchist, isn't it politically unacceptable to allow a government to maintain/impose order through you?
In short, it is unethical to leave your machine insecure, no matter what your political stance. No matter w
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I imagine this as a large box, labeled 'Pandora', with a huge red 'open me' button on it...
To date, warfare is warfare. We have guns and bombs, planes and ship and tanks, etc, to fend off similar threats. But that's essentially the limit. We do not, as far as I am aware, have any non-military weapons in the hands of the military.
This proposal seems to insinuate that the military should be welcome to consider non-gun, non-bomb, non-traditional methods of securing American interests.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm fairly certain there's no Constitutional provision for this... Likewise, if there WERE such a creature, wouldn't if fall into the hands of the executive branch, rather than the military? CIA seems a more likely candidate for such a program, were it designed for attack - a pure-defensive option would be within the hands of DHS, via the FBI, or some such.
Since we're entering new realms of thought here, what OTHER types of attacks are acceptable additions to our military's arsenal? In fact, are there any that are off-limits at all?
Economic weapons? Would it be permissible for the US military to buy out enough of 'X' to cause the economy of an enemy to fail?
Cultural? Carpet-bombing bibles, blue jeans, and Britney Spears?
Agricultural? Secretly infect the fields with weeds rendering crops far more difficult to grow? Or perhaps poison the gene pool of whatever the enemy is producing?
These are SILLY examples, I'll admit, but to me the notion of the military being the stewards of the internet is equally as silly...
I wish we were a better nation. I wish we'd turn the other cheek on stuff like this, all the while keeping up international pressure for others to do likewise. Sure, sure, China, Russia, blah blah blah. No amount of what the neighbor is doing makes this acceptable to me.
In my humble opinion, some things should be hands-off to the military, just as their planes, tanks, and ships are hands-off to the rest of us...
The Revolutionary War had clear aims and objectives (self-government and independence) and tried using normal negotiations first (Olive Branch Petition). Americans were not running into Britain to blow things up, they were not using random people as human shields, they were not kidnapping British civilians, and they were not using a radical religion as justification (most of the Founding Fathers were Deists).
The basis of the American Revolution was "no taxation without representation". The basis of the whatever-you-call-it the Muslims are doing is "Jews are dogs and America is the Great Satan".
The government can't save you.
Its funny that you have left out many of the facts in your rant on the evils of the USA. You know the country that allows people to speak and publish their thoughts without fear of retribution even if it twisted and jaded. You know, the right that the fore fathers wrote as the 1st amendment to our Constitution. You speak of the Boston Tea party, you know the one that resulted from the British implementation of the Stamp Act of 1765, the Townshend Acts of 1767 and finally the Tea Act; all without representation. The one where no one died because of the act. Yes, the Revolutionaries used guerrilla tactics to great effect. You know the war were the combatants didn't use women and children as shields. The war where the revolutionaries didn't massacre the innocent. Too bad we aren't allowed to use the same tactics now, since we were so good at it. Of course then you would have the defeatist (like Mr. Davidson) crying that we aren't fighting a fair. Boo hoo!! I would rather have the USA write the history without having to fight with one arm tied behind its back by those who wish its defeat.
--DD
"All it takes for evil to triumph in the world is for good men to do nothing." Edmond Burke
Although agreed it's funny, the question that pop's up for me is.
Where is the oversight? Who's to stop it for being used for political reasons?
No answer? No botnet.
Then why does Israel continue to give the Palestinians water and fuel?
:
Because they're Jews. The basic doctrine that makes them do this goes something like this (I'm no Jew, don't shoot me if I get the details wrong) :
The Jews work to be the best of the people in God's image, and one way to do this is to care for all living things within the provisions set in the Torah. All humans are to be cared for, including their worst enemies, and it is utterly irrelevant how much of the help is used to attack Jews.
That's why they provide the fuel that gets converted into kassem rockets and fired into Jewish schools. Because a lot of that fuel also goes into keeping kids alive on cold nights (despite the general opinion, it gets quite cold in Gaza, certainly as cold as in, oh, say Denmark, so you really, really need the heating operational).
That's why they provide hospitals for Gazans to give birth to the very babies that will be indoctrinated with Jew hatred in every mosque and every school in Gaza and the west bank. That's why they treat even terrorists who blow themselves up making explosives.
The same goes for plants in Israel : if at all possible, the irrigation systems are extended to sustain both agrarian crops and trees and whatever that grows nearby (please don't interpret this as that I say gazans and plants are the same, people *are* more important in Jewish/Christian doctrine than plants).
This attitude is the reason Israel looks like the south of France (every last tree in Israel is irrigated), and Gaza and the west bank look like the sahara, despite being about 10km apart.
Obviously you won't find this on CNN or the BBC.
Can we not afford our own fuel?
No. Gaza has an economy that AS A WHOLE makes less money than 1 average american.
Water we have nowhere from where to get
Have you noticed the mediteranean sea ? Israel also has to get it's water, except for portions of the Golan, out of the sea.
Yes you have to create power plants to desalinize the water. But so does Israel.
but fuel we can buy. So why does Israel keep us dependent on them?
Israel is not preventing anyone in Gaza from buying fuel across the Egyptian border. How could they ?
Hamas has blown up that border twice in the last year, which is obviously not helpful. But Mubarak decided to forgive and forget.
I want Hamas to stop buying Qwsam rockets and to start buying fuel. So does everybody else.
They claim a certain prophet does not want this. Here's the way Hamas puts it in their charter
First, why they think the way they think :
"Article One: The Ideological Aspects
The Islamic Resistance Movement draws its guidelines from Islam; derives from it its thinking, interpretations and views about existence, life and humanity; refers back to it for its conduct; and is inspired by it in whatever step it takes."
All that hamas does, including "keeping you dependant on Israel" is only what (they think) islam requires of them :
"Article Thirteen: Peaceful Solutions, [Peace] Initiatives and International Conferences
[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion"
ANY peaceful solution is, to hamas, apostacy, it's against islam, which carries the death penalty as you probably know.
I happen to think they're right. Islam does require this of muslims. Therefore the solution for palestine is simple : drop this part of islam. And acknowledge publicly that you've dropped it. Whatever excuse you want, nobody cares, because it kills too many Gazans for example. Then Gaza can start growing and caring for it's people.
You might notice that NONE of the suicide bombers ever was anyone with even a minor rank within hamas. So if you think the leadership of hamas actually believe in islam, think again (and check their bank accounts).
What about Geneva Conventions, 1977 Part IV, Chapter 1, Article 51
...) doesn't matter in the least.
Yes what about it ? It refers only that an army has to respect the other rules, which includes the rule that if civilians are used as human shields by a non-regular army, the use of violence against said civilians is allowed.
If you honestly read the convention you'll see it comes down to "an army must give it's opponent the chance to face it in an abandoned area, away from any civilians. If (and only if) the opponent complies, civilians are protected from harm of either of the parties". If the opponent refuses to do this, whatever their base is, even if it is a child daycare center of unrelated people, can be attacked without recourse.
This rule was once considered as being part of canon law, and is distinctly Christian in origin (e.g. both Thoraic and Sharia law consider it an acceptable tactic of war to poison the water supply of an unsuspecting city merely because they *might* oppose you)
"Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited
Just "not caring" (ie not directly attacking them
So combine a government botnet (monitored, or not, by the "tech savvy" *snort* legislative and judicial branches of gov.), our executive branches willingness to violate individuals rights under the guise of "terrorist investigation", and the military's pledge to protect us from enemies "foreign and domestic" and you have an almost perfect recipe for ... well I don't know exactly, but I suspect us individuals won't be considered much.
Tell it to John Paul Jones the pirate, arsonist of Whitehaven, who attempted to kidnap for ransom the Earl of Selkirk, and on failing this proceeded to rob his house. Of course Americans remember this nautical terrorist as a hero.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.