Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Most Vulnerable To Cyberattack?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the also-most-vulnerable-to-american-idols dept.

alphadogg writes "Several nations, most prominently Russia, the People's Republic of China and North Korea, are already assembling cyber armies and attack weapons that could be used to attack other nations. Given that the United States is heavily dependent on technology for everything from computer-based banking to supply-chain tracking and air-traffic control, it's particularly vulnerable to the denial-of-service attacks, electronic jamming, data destruction and software-based disinformation tricks likely in a cyberattack. Here's what ex-presidential adviser Richard Clarke, who is releasing a new book called Cyber War, and others are saying needs to be done to keep cyberwars from escalating into full-scale combat."

12 of 118 comments (clear)

  1. first post by slick7 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodet

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  2. FUnny how there's no eviDence... by calibre-not-output · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...to back any of this up.

    --
    Nothing lasts forever but the certainty of change.
    1. Re:FUnny how there's no eviDence... by calibre-not-output · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I personally think that allowing full disclosure of security problem would greatly help that but what do I know...

      About as much as me, I'd assume.

      The obvious staring-you-in-the-face difference between this and 9/11 is that this book is flinging accusations at specific parties - all of them major world governments - without any evidence. It's very different from saying "a group of cyberterrorists is in principle capable of hijacking our servers and messing with our communications", and more like saying "Iraq has WMD, let's fuck their shit up" - also without evidence.

      --
      Nothing lasts forever but the certainty of change.
    2. Re:FUnny how there's no eviDence... by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's not analogous at all. We know, and have known for some time, that a huge number of attacks come out of China and Russia. While we don't specifically know that the Russian or Chinese government is sponsoring it, we do know pretty reliably that they don't seem to care about it as long as the crimes are being addressed over seas. That's completely different than the claim that the Iraqi government owned and controlled weapons of mass destruction something which was never substantiated following the formal dismantling of those after the first gulf war.

      At the end of the day, the argument you make is disturbingly similar to: because Neo-Nazis just post the details of people they want assassinated that they aren't themselves responsible, when it's almost certain that given and address and a motive somebody will follow through.

      And no, I'm not being as extreme with the examples as it might appear, there's any number of electronic devices which could cause that level of trouble. Ever imagine what would happen if somebody were to screw with the communications infrastructure? It's not that hard to believe that people could die as a result. Especially if done in conjunction with a suspected terrorist attack.

  3. ATC by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Pray tell, why should a system such as Air Traffic Control even be accessible on a public network such as the internet? To the best of my knowledge air traffic controllers aren't allowed to telecommute. Why aren't networks such as this hardened and kept off public networks?

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    1. Re:ATC by jittles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      probably so you can do things like In-flight tracking and other handy things. Now that doesn't mean they can't design their network in such a way to make it so such attacks on the actual air traffic system are impossible.

  4. second post by slick7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As long as the US outsources IT, it is to be expected that there will be those that will challenge our preeminence in any field related to IT.

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  5. Bill Gates is the "Manchurian Candidate"? by peter303 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    His OS is used 90% of US computers, including military ones. And it security holes you could sail an aircraft carrier through.
    MicroSoft has been more diligent about security lately. But the damage has already been done.

    1. Re:Bill Gates is the "Manchurian Candidate"? by calibre-not-output · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm as anti-Microsoft as you can get without stepping into fanboy territory, but any system that had such a wide deployment would be more sought after by malicious programmers, and would thus have more actively exploited security flaws. Blame MS for default settings being too loose on security, but don't blame them for being under heavy fire all the time.

      --
      Nothing lasts forever but the certainty of change.
  6. Re:Oh for chrissakes by thijsh · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The patriotic upper echelons know all about these threats, they have carnivorous software, and cool acronyms like SIGINT, and COINTELPRO and nice 'social networks' like room 641A. And they already have the plans in place to chip away at your block of freedom.
    The only thing they can't figure out is how to explain it to us with a bad car analogy.

  7. Groan, cold war paranoia by petes_PoV · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I suppose this counts as a firewall gap, or a software gap. In fact it's probably just a load of sabre-rattling and FUD put about by the interseted parties to get a little more pork from an easy target, rather than having to go out there and sell products that normal people want, in the real world.

    Or it could just be good old fashioned xenophobia

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  8. Re:Clarke's Been Playing This Violin for Years by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Really??? Oh, now THAT is interesting.

    Descend with me for a moment into conspirator territory:

    1) Assume for a moment that 'terrorism' was mostly just a rip-and-replace of the old enemy, 'communism'. And I could discuss this at length if desired, but bear in mind, at a minimum, that Osama being a terrorist was not only okay during the 80's, but he was terrorizing using our own tax dollars. Terrorism isn't new, by any means, and it has only recently become intolerable. Anyway, assume 's/communism/terrorism/g'..

    2) Assume then that someone needs to be Cassandra about this topic. They raise the early alarm bells against deaf ears, all the while lessening the resistance against more reasonable voices.

    Given the possibility that "1" and "2" are true, would it likewise indicate that there really is an agenda to get 'Cyber War' to be the next new enemy? This gentlemen would be tapped to do what he did so well last time around, but for this topic instead.