Slashdot Mirror
Could Cyber-Terrorists Provoke Nuclear Attacks?
Hugh Pickens writes "The Guardian reports that according to a study commissioned by the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament (ICNND), a joint initiative of the Australian and Japanese Governments, terrorists could use information warfare techniques to make a nuclear attack more likely — triggering a catastrophic chain of events that may be an easier alternative 'than building or acquiring a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb themselves.' While the possibility of a radical group gaining access to actual launch systems is remote, the study suggests that terrorists could focus on feeding in false information further down the chain — or spreading fake information to officials in a carefully orchestrated strike. According to the study 'Hacking Nuclear Command and Control' [PDF], cyber-terrorists could 'provoke a nuclear launch by spoofing early warning and identification systems or by degrading communications networks.' Since command and control systems are placed at a higher degree of exploitation due to the need for rapid decisions under high pressure with limited intelligence, cyber-terrorists 'would not need deception that could stand up over time; they would only need to be believable in the first 15 minutes or so.'"
Really, I'm less worried about the cyber part of one of these attacks and am more so worried about the weakest link in the chain: the human factor. Social, over-the-shoulder or 'soft' hacks would be the few ways left to gain access. Mental manipulation like keeping someone in the dark would be the best way to scare them into action. It's not like someone's magically overcoming the physical barrier that exists between the internet and these secure networks on which sensitive information and control are relegated--you need a human to exploit.
At least this time around the title's gone from
Hacking Nuclear Command and Control
to
Could Cyber-Terrorists Provoke Nuclear Attacks?
Which is a lot more accurate but a lot less newsworthy.
My work here is dung.
Without knowing how precisely nuclear arsenals, launch codes and the like are stored, I think it's really hard to say how likely or unlikely it is. I'd like to think that the systems and people involved are heavily secured, but if we look at some of the stuff that's gone walking out of a secured US facilities, sometimes you gotta wonder.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
... are trying to impurify all of our precious bodily fluids !
Bastards !
yeah, that's my way of showing why I disagree with nuclear strikes, without repeating the same message that Kubrick's movie told us long time ago
I assume my point here is pretty obvious (if you have seen the movie, of course.)
Segmentation Fault in "Life, Universe and Everything" at line 42. Don't Panic.
By not using nukes, we are using nukes. Ever wondered why there was never another major war between superpowers since WWII? They are a deterrent.
Plus, they are not the only thing subject to social engineering. How about air strikes? Regular missiles? Those can do some serious damage, and could lead to WWIII. Especially if nobody has Mutually Assured Destruction to worry about.
Great Intellect...
Essentially the defense against this sort of exploit is "be less trigger-happy".
This novel involved an acutal nuclear device, but the aim was not simple destruction, but to get the USA to think the Russians did it, and therefore to retaliate against them. I think it did a good job of illustrating how people can come up with the wrong conclusions when they have limited info and time. In this scenario, people also tended to think of just one possibility, instead of thinking about what else could be the cause. Especially hard under time pressure.
I am more concerned over biological attacks. There's a possibility now, what with the fast advances in this tech, that some group/state even a deranged individual could unleash something quite bad. And if they can construct such a virus or bacteria in advance, perhaps they could also construct any vaccine or treatment needed so they wouldn't worry about getting infected themselves. Or even worse, some nutjob who just hated everyone just might not care, a suicide attack.
An attack could pass as "natural" for maybe a long time, giving the attacker immunity from detection and a modicum of plausible deniability even if suspected. We can tell where a missile is launched from, and I am guessing but I would think normal telemetry that would be garnered would give an indication of what make/model missile, giving a clue as to origin, even with a suddeen underwater sea launch. But how to tell where a biological really came from if all of a sudden it just "appears" someplace and starts to spread, or who was responsible for any retaliation strikes, or even if it is a "natural mutation" or man made?
Anyone working with recombination techniques care to respond? Is this a possible scenario, or still mostly just scary science fiction?
the part of Sum of All Fears where we almost *do it to ourselves*: a major plot point hinges on one Good Guy mis-hearing "fifteen kt" as "one fifty kt" from another Good Guy -- the first being a potential terrorist nuke, while the second "would have to be" the Russians.
There's followup as to how hard it is to push the *clean* data down the pipe afterwards as well.
If that's not a sufficiently cautionary tale as to just how loose and messy things would actually be in a first-strike-response situation for you... then you're not imaginative enough, and probably much happier.
It's amazing how hard it is to think when you think someone's about to nuke your country.
It's somewhat analogous to the traditional election supervisor's prayer: "Please, dear Ghod, let it be a landslide".
Only, um, in reverse.
The reasons why there aren't any wars after WWII isn't necessarily nukes, but the general enlightenment that comes with technology. Other than the Soviet Union, during the Cold War no one really wanted to fight on a global scale, and the only reason that Soviet Russia did was that the people were brainwashed. Before WWI and WWII young men -wanted- war, they wanted the "glory" of victory, they wanted if they died to be remembered as a patriot with every girl they ever knew wishing that they were still alive and crying at the funeral. Than WWI hit and so did the media, and suddenly war didn't seem to be all that great to the masses except for in the propaganda and brainwashed cultures of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. The rest of them fought for pure necessity and to save their own skin. After that, very few people really -wanted- another war, sure, they did have a few small wars, but they couldn't convince the people that war was really necessary anymore. No longer in most cultures did you have the father or grandfather speak proudly about his accomplishments in war, making it sound no more dangerous than hunting with some friends. But after the world wars you had most of them quiet, traumatized, mix that in with the fact that most people no longer saw a need for war (hippie movement) and improvements in journalism made it possible for everyone to see the horrors of war lead to many cultures who refused to go to war. The reason why we haven't had WWIII isn't totally because we have nukes but because there would be very few willing fighters.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
"Cyberspace is real, and so is the risk that comes with it,"
Did someone stopped to think this is the kind of alarming news that can elevate simple computer hackers to dangerous international terrorists.
You can fool some of the people some of the time, or all of the people all of the time. Unfortunately it seems that could be all that's needed...
sudo mount --milk --sugar
This paper shows a significant misunderstanding of the command and control structure and procedures at STRATCOM (formerly SAC), National Command Authority (NCA) and other key elements of the process. I am waiting for the author to explain how the attacker will obtain the encryption codes to MILSTAR, SLFCS or any of the other communication channels into a Minuteman Launch Control Facility or the equivalent communication channels going to bomber squadrons, submarines and other force components with nuclear capability. Then there are enable codes, launch codes and various other keys that would be needed. The article also fails to address safeguards in place. One needs to only examine the "incidents" that have occurred in real life, such as a exercise tape accidentally being loaded at SAC, prompting incoming ICBM warnings, to see that these procedures worked even 20 or 30 years ago, and they hve only been improved since then.
Having worked on the unauthorized launch studies for Peacekeeper (the decommissioned ICBM system often referred as MX), I can tell you the author did not have the data needed to be able to conduct this study, much less draw any valid conclusions