Slashdot Mirror
Is There a Cyberwar, and Is the US Losing It?
kenblakely writes "BusinessWeek is running a story asserting that the 'US
is Losing the Global Cyberwar.' This whole
cyberwar thing has been discussed a few times on Slashdot where the Chinese are asserted to be using
cyberwarfare to attain military superiority. And, of course, there is
the whole Russia-Georgia thing. Even
the US military is getting in on the action, and the fear
of a cyber
Pearl Harbor seems almost palpable. I'm curious
what the Slashdot crowd thinks about the growing fascination with 'cyberwar':
hype to get more money and create new force structure, source of the next
world war, or somewhere in between?"
There is no "cyberwar". BusinessWeek is losing it.
they are worried about chineese hackers but are not worried about china owning most of the US and buying out banks?
That may be correct - but what would they do? Destroy the economy using computers? We do seem to be doing that rather well without the need for any outside help.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
With Pearl Harbor, the civilians living in Hawaii could see the smoking ships and Japanese bombers. Newspaper reporters could do interviews.
With cyber-warfare, none of the relevant parties will typically admit what's going on. It's also hard to know whom to counter-attack.
- Attack source locations can be spoofed.
- (Relatively) innocent people's computers can be taken over and used in an attack.
- Victims are often unwilling to admit they've been attacked.
- Unlike Pearl Harbor, the attack can be perpetrated by jerky private citizens or criminal organizations within (or across) a country. It's always been hard to decide whether or not to hold a country's government responsible for that country's criminals. (For example, terrorists trained in Pakistan, or suicide bombers trained in Iran.)
And for some reason, the U.S. government often takes a surprisingly passive role when China acts aggressively towards it. So we're unlikely to see the U.S. government hold a press conference showing evidence that China has been intentionally attacking U.S. business and military networks. Not that we'd believe a statement like that until January 21, 2009 anyway.
All that we hear about in the US media is information that the US government wants to release in a round-a-bout fashion, to let the "attackers" know they have been "seen."
So..:
1) We don't know what the US (or anyone aligned with them) is doing for offense - if there is any
2) feeding (1) is that the targets are governments that thrive on secrecy rather than are answerable and open, thus won't say
3) Maybe the targets of US cyberattacks don't know they've been attacked.
The "masses of probes" are just normal automated botnet attacks, and the "unidentified attacks" are probably just unwashed masses of skiddies. If you want me to believe that a real cyberwar (in this case more aptly named "computer espionage") is up and going you better give me or assure me that you have some sort of evidence (like captured transmissions showing that the attackers know what they are looking for in terms of intercepted/exfiltrated data) showing that you're actually being attacked by foreign governments or skilled people with an actual terrorist agenda. There is nothing in TFA except buzzwords, hyperbole and "x declined to comment".
Analayze your own traffic at the point of entry. Wireshark is helpful.
Really, if there was actually a Cyberwar going on the last people to admit to it was the US.
Can the Chinese traceroute laser guided bombs away from their datacenters? The people with the most bombs usually win...
And re: Chinese investments in the U.S. - should China go to war with us, they will be screwed...all the paper debt they've created with the United States will become a clean slate; thanks for the free money suckers!
... but all this talk about cyberwar just makes me think PEW! PEW! PEW! for some reason.
Seeing that people are slooowly getting tired of THE WAR ON EEEEVIL TERRARISTS, here's the next Great War.
The state needs this to:
a) Support their friends in the industry
b) Grab more power for themselves
c) Bask in the warm glow of feeling important
Ignore this babble.
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
The article and practically every person or entity mentioned in it conflates commercial computer security with military operations. Commercial espionage, theft of intellectual property, garden-variety identity theft - these things are significant issues, but they aren't military threats. I view the article as a combination of people who have a vested interest in making the situation look as scary as possible in order to show that they (the writers, the commission, the groups the commission worked with, etc.) are all doing Important Work.
Yes, the military needs to be serious about computer security - and to develop offensive computer security abilities. Yes, we need to improve security in the commercial sector. But I don't see any sign that we need some huge overarching military establishment to address both. If nothing else, the debacle that is the Department of Homeland Security should teach us that overreacting to even significant threats is a great way to do more damage than the initial threat itself.
Disrupting, monitoring and tapping into the enemy's command and control systems, lines of communication, etc. is as old as warfare. What make sit news is that you now can do it from well within your own borders, often undetected, combined with the increasing reliance on electronic networking for C3 makes the threat more serious. As a result, countries are paying more attention to the offensive potential and defensive needs to protect their networks while making other's vulnerable. Same game, just different playtoys.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
So how does that work? They've uploaded a soldier to a webserver somewhere, and now they're going to download him hundreds of times?
Dammned fiendish of them, is all I can say.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Like Ionix says, it is Economic Warfare we are fighting. When a big chunk of your land is owned by Japan, when your harbours are own by the Saudis, when your banks are owned by China, and where your government pushes you down the path of least resistance; educationally, and technologically. It is very easy to try to find something else for the situation we are in, but frankly, good ole' greed will allow you to become a slave, way before you realize you have become one.
BOTH are happening. And it's not just "Chinese hackers". It is a concerted, organized, long-term effort supported through the highest levels of Chinese government to control the information landscape as a tool for superiority over the United States. We've talked about how China is planning to use technology to leapfrog its foes militarily -- including the United States -- and Chinese doctrine on Information Warfare makes this no secret. There are financial concerns, and there are very real concerns about the information realm as well. Human interaction is based on the dissemination, exchange, and interpretation of information. It's not just "hackers" or "cyberwar"; information warfare is much bigger, and it IS happening. This is important enough that a previous comment of mine on this issue bears repeating here:
"Information Warfare" (IW), sometimes called Information Operations (IO), spans several arenas, from the purely technical to the social and psychological. The goals and missions of IO and intelligence in general, particularly against and within non-free societies, will constantly be at odds with the democratic nature of the United States and the West. Even so, the United States currently doesn't appear to acknowledge the scope of the information campaigns China has executed against it. China's motives are strategic rather than tactical in nature; that is, they do not necessarily serve any direct or immediate specific purpose, but rather serve to create influence in its own favor over long periods of time. For this reason, many in the US see China as something of a misunderstood ally, while China simultaneously builds out its military capability.
While cyber warfare is now routinely considered in various analyses of China and other nations, the larger question of why China is so diligently pursuing this path is overlooked. China's activities in this realm are assumed to be part of a natural technological progression. However, a study of literature examining China's efforts in Information Warfare viewed against the backdrop of the importance of the Information Revolution which is sweeping the globe paints a picture of a nation looking to the information realm as a critical and key mechanism to modernize its military capabilities. Similar to how the Industrial Revolution ushered in a new era and greatly enhanced nations' abilities to wage war, the Information Revolution again could change the face of conflict. China's motivations for expanding its cyber warfare capabilities against the United States may transcend that of simple technological evolution, and warrant a deeper examination. Why, then, can China be expected to expand its Information Warfare capabilities, particularly with respect to the United States?
The US Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute encapsulates these findings in one simple thought: to China's leadership, it could mean a pathway to modernization that would obviate the need for costly and time-consuming interim modernization. "IW offers opportunities to win wars without the traditional clash of arms" (Yoshihara 2001). Indeed, China appears to be focused on the notion of such asymmetric warfare. Yoshihara (2001) goes on to explore the current state of Chinese IW and IO philosophy. The focus of Chinese theoreticians appears squarely focused on the possibility of IW offering China a decisive option to defeat a superior adversary by crippling its command and control capabilities. Moreover, Yoshihara (2001) notes that some Chinese military scholars consider the notion of victory without conventional battle; not only via disabling information-based attacks in the electronic realm, but even via more subtle psychological operations (PSYOP) designed to alter and shape an adversary's thinking.
Part of China's motivations for the intense focus on the information realm stems from China's fascination with recent conflicts driven by information. China witnessed the decisive US tactical victory in the
and now China is putting our beloved leaders in a position where they HAVE to regulate the internet. If we don't act now, (preferably by turning the intetrnet off at 10pm and raising taxes), it's only a matter of time before the baby-murdering commies come over here and take our jobs/eat our children/drink our oil/make us look bad.
In all seriousness, no, there is no "Cyberwar", if there was I'm fairly sure the US would lose rather quickly.
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
Rule 36 states:
"There will always be even more fucked up shit than what you just saw"
Clearly, if you can imagine it, someone is probably trying to do it or has done it. Cyber Warefare, like Web 2.0, is a bloated term with multiple meanings. The trouble is that when you dismiss it because it is not like some famous battle of WWII, you risk falling foul of it through inaction, lack of preparation, and lazy security.
This is the 'new cold war' and they won't cut the wires because without them the USA could not spy on China. Silly boy. It's not just about money, it's about control. In international negotiations a little extra information is always good and the USA will be trying to collect as much of it as anyone else will. period. no exceptions.
Lately there has been a bit more in the news where 'cyber warfare' has been used to demonize the Chinese among others. I think this is not so different from the build up of bad PR we saw against Iraq and now Iran. Looking at the collective picture I think that the news we hear is propaganda and that the part we hear is what the government wants us to hear. We hear 'warfare' 'China is bad' etc. What we SHOULD hear is "The US is engaged in technological spying techniques, and in our efforts we have noticed that the Chinese also do this". You should also hear that "Any dirty technique you can think of with computers: We're trying those, but those damned Chinese have ruined it for us, they are forcing everyone to use RedFlag Linux and we have no back door in that OS".
Expect new 'kernel patches' soon and complete Chinese language updates as well.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Yes, there is undoubtedly a 'cyberwar' of some kind somewhere. It is most likely being fought by one group of 'intelligence' people against another group of 'intelligence' people.
In other words, there is no war, just a bunch of cyber-spooks playing spy.
Oh, they want more money, too.
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
"Secure NASA systems were rooted by a guy who sent 30 gigabytes of data to a location in Taiwan,"
That's not war, that's the usual espionage. Happens all the time.
If it's really anything warlike, the US would make an announcement that China should stop messing about if they know what's good for them.
If that doesn't work, then they would be starting military exercises off the coast of Japan, with the usual aircraft carriers, fleet etc.
So all that talk about cyberwar is just propaganda and bullshit.
my tin foil hat says "made in china" on the side
should i worry?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Well, we've been in a long standing economic war. We don't even notice it. You know how many countries the US has a trade embargo with, and tries to convince other countries to follow suit? Of course, if you cut of a country from a sizable market, it gets into troubles.
Thinking about it, a lot of international politics of the US in the latter half of the 20th century had a bit of warfare. We just don't notice it that much. Replacing Allende with Pinochet, because the former dared to kick foreign investors out of his country, surely wasn't such a nice move. And inciting Saddam to start a war in the middle east because some Ayatollah kicked their buddy's butt wasn't so nice either. Neither was later using him as a scapegoat whenever something went wrong internally.
But hey, that's politics. Is it war? Well, not in the way that we'd think of, but to some degree it was. The US were just clever enough to find someone stupid enough to do the dirty work for them.
Back on topic, is that now war? Well, certainly not in the usual kind. Maybe it's just another form of foreign politics, and the US are just pissed that now someone else is doing it to them instead of them pulling the strings.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
1. Build inferior, insecure platform on shaky technological underpinnings
2. Cheat, bribe, lie and threaten your way to 97% market share
3. One company profits!!!!
4. Lose cyberwar
5. Oops
you had me at #!
It's not a cyberwar, it's government espionage. It's been done for as long as there have been governments, including the US going after nuclear and rocket scientist from Germany, and spying between the US and Russia during the cold war. Trying to steal government secrets that happen to be on a computer is nothing new. Covering your tracks, and maybe setting the other government back a bit in their research is normal. The US is almost certainly doing this today to all kinds of other countries. What did you think the NSA and CIA were doing before the war on terror started?
If this was an actual war, the foreign governments would be trying to destroy the US infrastructure via remote computer access. Open a few valves to flood our water supply with raw sewage, bring down the power grid in California, shutdown air traffic control, turn all stop lights to 4 way green during rush hour, etc. And major governments in the world just don't have an incentive to do this. China is already feeling the pain of owning too much US debt during our financial crisis and has seen their economy suffer as our imports slow. Africa keeps looking for foreign aid, India needs our outsourcing, and the middle east wants to sell us oil. Seeing how a housing bubble in the US has turned into a global recession, an organized government would be shooting themselves in the foot to start a war against the US now.
The exceptions to this would be Russia, and non-government affiliated terrorist groups (Al-Qaeda). Though Russia, like Brazil, is more talk than action. The risk with them is more from organized crime using computer bot-nets to profit from illegal activities.
We have already survived several cyber (holy) wars. Well, after all the losses and sacrifices, I still prefer VI to EMACS.
Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
I'd presume he's talking about the US embargo of oil sales to the Empire of Japan after they invaded French Indochina, which prompted the attack.
Somehow, I think not selling oil to an imperialist power noted for raping villiges is one of the least bad things the US has ever done.
Not a typewriter
The US were just clever enough to find someone stupid enough to do the dirty work for them.
I guess you can argue with results. The US may or may not have benefitted from the actions you describe, but the other parties, the "stupid" ones often did quite well. Pinochet certainly moved ahead using his connections with the US, for example.
Excepting the point that some level of corporate espionage occurs, the term "cyberwar" is misleading. It is hard to understand the military becoming actively involved in "internet warfare". Information warfare, on the other hand, should be an absolutely critical part of any modern military organization. Disrupting and intercepting enemy communications is a corner stone to any successful military operation, and this is nothing new. What the hell does this have to do with the internet? The internet does not serve as the communications hub for military organizations, it is instead a hub for commerce. Thus, in this sense, in an environment of total war -- taking out the internet "early and often" would make sense -- but isn't it easier to just bomb ISPs?
So that proves a 2 year old has crap taste in music.
What's next? "2 year old baby Anna likes crap music and also stupid television shows featuring morons in costumes"
"But this one goes to 11!"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It is only the enlightened ruler and the wise general who will use the highest intelligence of the army for the purposes of spying, and thereby they achieve great results. ~ Sun Tzu
Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories. ~ Sun Tzu
Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster. ~ Sun Tzu
Now the reason the enlightened prince and the wise general conquer the enemy whenever they move and their achievements surpass those of ordinary men is foreknowledge. ~ Sun Tzu
Of all those in the army close to the commander none is more intimate than the secret agent; of all rewards none more liberal than those given to secret agents; of all matters none is more confidential than those relating to secret operations. ~ Sun Tzu
It's economic warfare.
Free (and semi-free) markets will be at disadvantage until they get their collective heads out of the sands. Eventually though, you can take heart in that it will devolve into conglomerates fighting amongst themselves, and the remaining nation-states will be mostly just bystanders getting caught in the crossfire.
Are we there yet?
So in the cold war we had an arms race. Is this "cyberwar" going to start a bot race?
If you DDOS me, I will DDOS you!
We just need 300 Spartans to man the bottleneck link between here and China.
White House itself had to deal with unidentifiable intrusions in its networks.
It's hilarious that they're just finding out about this now. I remember visiting whitehouse.com years ago and it had been 0wned and turned into a porn site. And if you go there now, it still is! You'd think they'd have fixed that by now.
If there is a war they can do what they like.
Deleted