Slashdot Mirror
Air Force Aims for Control of 'Any and All' Computers
Noah Shachtman on Wired.com's Danger Room reports that Monday, the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson AFB introduced a two-year, $11 million effort to put together hardware and software tools for 'Dominant Cyber Offensive Engagement.' 'Of interest are any and all techniques to enable user and/or root level access,' a request for proposals notes, 'to both fixed (PC) or mobile computing platforms ... any and all operating systems, patch levels, applications and hardware.' This isn't just some computer science study, mind you; 'research efforts under this program are expected to result in complete functional capabilities.' The Air Force has already announced their desire to manage an offensive BotNet, comprised of unwitting participatory computers. How long before they slip a root kit on you?
Sounds like the Air Force already has an overabundance of tools working for it.
Tools? Seriously? Any toolset is going to have to be constantly adaptable, and is going to fall victim to the same problem as all other computer security stuff: it's obsolete almost as soon as its written.
They'd be better building a strong infrastructure, and recruiting top talent than trying to build some kind of software package, presumably to be manned by some kind of enlisted man script kiddie.
Even then, they're going to get the same kind of penetration as everyone else. 20%, 30% maybe, on a good day. You can't even rely on vendors to insert backdoors; the best choice for that would be microsoft, and adding a backdoor to Windows would be redundant in most cases.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
This must be the ultimate example of "solutions" to engineering problems coming from a manager and not an engineer. I bet they'd like a pony while they're at it.
You know they'll get what they want out of commercial OSs by putting pressure on the vendors. Linux and the BSDs are too much of a moving target, and OpenBSD is run out of Canada anyway. If ever there was an article that needed to be tagged 'goodluckwiththat,' this would be it.
I'd say this was as illegal an idea as malicious botnets. My computer cpu cycles are NOT for sale to the US Government, or any government. They can have them when they pry them from my dead cold pc case...
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Establishing total and completely control across all hardware and operating systems, all patch levels, etc?
I admire your optimism, USAF, but $11 million dollars is simply not going to make that happen -if it can even be done. Software companies have enough trouble just getting their *own* software to work installed on *willing systems*, and some of the bigger ones spend that kind of money just getting it to work on one operating system withing a reasonable set of constraints.
Take into account the fact that you will also be most likely using pre-existing exploits, which will be repaired swiftly by responsible developers that watch security RSS feeds, and this is a red herring task. If you are talking about spending 11 million dollars on doing your own research towards establishing remote control by examining source code or reverse engineering to find new exploits, then honestly, you aren't just crazy- you are batshit crazy. You're going to need a whole hell of a lot of money to do that.
The internet is said to route around censorship; however, you don't need to censor the internet if you can pwn the world's PCs.
At first glance, it seems that this would easier to do by simply mandating government backdoors in all operating systems. Wait. Not only does a legislative fix not work work for FOSS, it's also likely to start a tremendous uproar until you show enough people a video of Britney Spears's latest car accident...
... is a taxpayer money sink.
Over time, systems change. That means after this two-year study and eleventy-million dollars later, it's worth very little a year down the road. In three years, we're virtually guaranteed to have nothing for the efforts, except a statement saying "Oh, we learned a lot, and now need continuing funding. Please give us more money."
Although many holes in software exist for a long time, they are generally patched within a couple months once discovered, usually sooner. And as soon as the military activates one of these holes, it'll be analyzed and patched. That will remove one of their finite resources.
100% control of all platforms and systems is beyond ludicrous. They might as well wish they could read minds, teleport, and find Carmen Sandiego. Or at least Osama.
The whole botnet thing just shows how absurdly out of touch they are. A botnet is a tool created by a bunch of guys who have limited computer resources in a bid to increase those resources.
Why the fuck would the United States Air Force want a botnet, when they could have the real thing? A tightly integrated computer network with near unlimited bandwidth, satellites, super computers, massive clustering, and secure, integrated control.
Botnet. Jesus. Someone take the freaking tech magazines away from the air force brass before they start doing social networking or some crap.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
I bet when the military was studying psychic remote viewing and psychic assassination the project goal was for completely functional capabilities as well. How did that turn out? ;)
They already have done "some crap". You've heard of America's Army right?
How long before I sue them if I find they broke into my machine? About a week, and I'll go after class action status as well.
That doesn't bother me; games can be a legitimate training tool, and paying for the tool, then making it available to the public is acceptable. It doesn't even bother me when they use it to recruit.
What bothers me is when they do something that's just flat boneheaded, and clearly the result of someone in the chain of command who doesn't know crap about anything, shooting his mouth off and making policy.
If they want to do the whole "cyberwar" thing, they need to take it seriously, and put people in charge who have the faintest fucking CLUE about what they're supposed to be doing.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Why would the USAF want a botnet? One, a botnet is distributed and harder to block than a centralized computing facility, or even a reasonably distributed one. Two, a botnet can grow as needed. When fighting an enemy botnet, this could prove very necessary.
Not that I'm condoning any of this, mind you. Just saying, I don't think the Air Force brass are all total idiots.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
$11 Million. To hack every computer in the world. Which has to includes all the overhead of government salaries and equipment. I'm shaking in my boots.
(Holds pinkey finger to corner of mouth) "One Million Dollars." (The one where he travels forward in time, not the one from the 60s.)
Isn't there a law that says the government can't use the Armed Forces against us? Like isn't that the reason why the National Guard is called to stop riots and not like the Marines? If the Air Force is building a bot net that comprises American PC's then shouldn't that follow under the same law?
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
The dumb thing is, we've already proven that we are the world leader in unleashing the "hard kill" smackdown on information infrastructure.
Just putting effort into the software side would only add to that threat, and doing what the NSA does and just smirking and saying, "That's classified" when anyone asks them about their cyber crap would only make the threat more credible.
This is like watching some script kiddie waltz into an IRC channel and start swaggering. You know people are going to sneer, and you know someone is going to take a shot at them.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
you don't defeat your enemies by engaging in their tactics. that just makes you the moral equivalent of your enemy, thereby nullifying any moral high ground you claim to have, thereby nullifying any reason any citizen of your country or ally of your country would side with you
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Good thing the Galactica isn't networked!
I think it's you that doesn't have a clue. By having their own botnet not only can they infect people in the country they are attacking locally they can deny any responsibility for the attack. It also costs the virtually nothing when then enemy is paying for those computers to be online.
The third amendment to the US Constitution reads: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." This idea is so important that the founders put it in before trial by jury or cruel and unusual punishment. Aside from the "because we said so" Bush regime's retorts, is there any way that involuntary botnet participation could be even slightly legal?
I've worked at an Air Force Research Laboratory for the past 3 years. I can guarantee you nothing will come of this, it is a giant waste of taxpayer dollars, and no one should be worried about their privacy (just their pocket books).
Now the previous comments about them spending $11m and then 3 years later asking for $11m is close but also wrong. They will ask for at least double that, every 3 years (take a look at their POMs in the future), indefinitely...
If I'm not mistaken, the 3rd and 4th in the Bill of Rights should prevent this.
3rd:prohibits the government from using private homes as quarters for soldiers without the consent of the owners.
4th:guards against searches, arrests, and seizures of property without a specific warrant or a "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed.
"Lame" - Galaxar
"Ethics" is a set of rules followed by a given profession. Medical ethics, for instance, forbid doctors from telling Joe about Jane's surgery, while if you know about Jane's surgery you are under no such ethical obligation.
Military ethics are written by the military. If their code of ethics says it's OK to drop napalm on civilians (as the ethics were during Vietnam) than it is not unethical to drop napalm on civilian villages, even though it is certainly immoral by any moral standard I've ever heard.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Spoken like someone who doesn't understand strategy.
Disrupting communications is frequently an important move before attacking.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
You think the Air Force is dumb enough to use their own computers to download porn?
And since many of those components are made in places like, oh... say... hypothetically... China, they'll have a bit of a conundrum how to implement their secret backdoor in everything, without giving up secrets about that backdoor to _insert_country_here_.
Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
Why the fuck would the United States Air Force want a botnet, when they could have the real thing? A tightly integrated computer network with near unlimited bandwidth, satellites, super computers, massive clustering, and secure, integrated control
In your excitement you've overlooked one minor detail; the US gov't has decreed it is going to move all its systems down to 50 or so access points to the wider internet. So no matter how big and bad a system the Air Force might concoct on its own internal network, it would still be hampered by the internal to external gateway speed and if those 50 gateways are known, they're easily blocked. So they wouldn't be able to Botnet-bomb the whoever nearly as well.
use of compromised average computers as a tool of cyberwarfare is hardly a new thing: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/17/topstories3.russia . Seems the US military is only just waking up to how powerful a tool this can be.
sun tzu would have appreciated the wisdom of not engaging in tactics which win you the battle but lose you the war
the battle of course, is abstract. it is the battle for the hearts and minds of the people in your country and other countries. so if you invalidate the cause you fight for, what have you won?
it is not good enough to merely dominate in all matter of physical warfare. you must also dominate in ideological warfare. and ideological warfare is not about media manipulation or propaganda. it is about simply picking a cause to stand for and adhering to it
if the people don't believe in what you are fighting for, then your physical military efforts are pointless. likewise, if the people do believe in what you are fighting for, then your enemy can achieve stunning battlefield dominance, and yet it all of their gains will fade over time. you have to ask yourself what the point of war is. is war merely a shoving match over physical turf? on one level it is, but it involves the values of the societies fighting over that turf as well. the groups that achieve physical military dominance and solidify their gains over time, are the ones that fight for values that actually have greater staying power than their enemy's. so the only lasting victories are the ones that actually stand for something
i am not in any way failing to understand traditional military wisdom. but i will suggest to you that my pov might have a better understanding of traditional military wisdom
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
There are a variety of issues lreated to this article, ranging from fesability to legality. But setting that aside a moment, is anyone thinking about what comes next if they actually set about doing this?
In order for this to work, and stay feasible, they would start leaning on some level of cooperation from various aspects of the industry. Let's say that they have 3 good vectors for infecting machines with the military botnet. They will need some cooperation from the AV vendors to not publicize them and close them off (assuming they are not working to know backdoors).
Then what happens when someone like the Storm botnet starts using a vector that USAF has asked not be closed off?
The USAF botnet would need to be constant. It's not a tool that you can say "I need 10 million machines for an attack tonight, go get them". It has to be constantly infecting and attacking new systesm in order to maintain critical mass for use. What happens when the highly motivated guys behind a mahjor bot net find out how to identify the USAF botnet and assume control of those machines instead?
What happens when the USAF botnet causes some critical error and 3million PCs get hosed overnight?
What happens when some software company includes in it's ELUA and on-box requirements that it's not compatible with machines that are infected with the USAF botnet?
What happens when the AV and OS vendors get slapped into slience about the USAF botnet and the White Hats start exposing it and how to counteract it? Will they get visits from guys in dark suits explaining that it's a matter of national security? And if they do, will any of them let that keep them silent? And when they speak out, the cat will be out of the bag and ways to defeat it will become available to the enemy anyway.
The pseudo-legality and over-arching presence of an approach like this is fraught with peril. While it sounds fantastic on paper and even more amazing for a summer movie, it's realistic feasability is very limited.
If there's one thing that will set the tech community ablaze faster than an announcement that a major botnet on our computers belonds to a forigen power set on attacking us, it's the announcement that the botnet belongs to the US military!
Legal costs? What legal costs?
You'll be rounded up at 3 AM and dragged off to a cell somewhere. You'll receive no phone call and no legal counsel. You will be thrown in front of a military tribunal that will read the crimes you have committed, and you will then be punished accordingly.
And the government cant get service from a regular ISP to mask their identity?
HINT: they do it all the time during investigations.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You think the Air Force is dumb enough to use their own computers to download porn?
The 'Air Force'? No. Idiot individual members? Yes.
14 yrs ago, we had an E-4 busted for having 100mb of porn on his work PC. 11 yrs ago, we had an entire office reprimanded for having a 'not illegal in the US but illegal in Saudi Arabia' screensaver on the office PC's.
Granted, its a lot harder now, because individual machines, and the network, are a locked down a lot more. But idiots will still bring stuff in from home on a DVD or USB stick.
Most people think of the fifth amendment as just the right to not incriminate yourself. But it also goes on to say. . .
.nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
". .
I would say that, were this air force initiative technologically successfuly, it, at least, could not be used on any computers of US citizens, because of the fifth ammendment. Of course, what the government will say is that this capability would only be used against computers of foreign nationals, foreign corporations, and foreign governments. I'm still not sure that makes it right, unless the foreign nation is at war with us, and then it should only be allowed against nations that are directly at war with us.
You wouldn't get vary far. Your government has constitutional powers to take property from people for their use. Of course this requires them to compensate you which you might be able to recoup the 800 or so dollar in "just compensation" for your PC after spending millions in legal fees. But hey, it's the point that matters right?
"You'll be rounded up at 3 AM and dragged off to a cell somewhere. You'll receive no phone call and no legal counsel. You will be thrown in front of a military tribunal that will read the crimes you have committed, and you will then be punished accordingly."
maybe, if GW had overthrown the government and gone for a third term, but, realistically, if the government is involved in rootkiting PCs they're going to at some point face civil litigation. Most likely, their argument is going to be something like this... "but you were already Rooted with Version xyz of botnet (insert name) "
If they're going to create a botnet, they're going to do it by taking already infected PCs and reinfecting them with a proprietary mil spec root-kit.
There are a number of things they can do to to minimize damages (only root computers in enemy nations) etc, but, if they really do put rootkits on people's PCs as 'weapons of war' then there are a lot of things the international community can do as a result... So really, I think this idea is going to get scrapped, at least as an 'official' program, with 'plausible deniability' they might have some form of program done by paid hackers who have no official ties to the government and who if they ever rat out the DDoS attacks or key logging they do, then the government can turn on them and claim they were lying etc... not to mention they could probably wind up with a bullet in the head for 'changing sides'
well, an 'official' program isn't going to fly, no more than 'sony' rootkits flew, people don't want rootkits on their computers, agencies that try to do this at least without being cautious enough that they can deny doing it intentionally, are foolish.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
I shouldn't, but lets think; has the USPATRIOT Act ever been used against US citizens? Now, that wouldn't happen would it? .... right...
.... Bruce Springstein
Keep dreaming and drinking the red/white/blue coolaid my friend. Blind faith and support for your government is NOT patriotism, it's pure folly
Blind faith in your government, or anything is folly.
"blind faith in a leader will get you killed"
That's just how it is. Would you like some quotes from the USA's founding fathers on this topic? They too think you a fool. Here is a pretty damn good start for you:
http://www.poliwatch.org/archives/Analysis/2003/06/11/03.03.51/
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People