State-Sponsored CyberAttacks Expected To Rise

wiredmikey writes "According to a report released today, IT security professionals will see a rise in State-sponsored attacks, like the Stuxnet worm, that will build on concepts and techniques from the commercial hacker industry to create more powerful 'Advanced Persistent Threats.' The researchers also expect an increase in compromised mobile devices leading to data theft or loss as a result of lagging security measures, and that next year will bring the first major data breaches as a result of compromised devices. The biggest potential impact will be caused by the proliferation of sophisticated mobile devices interacting with corporate networks."

Comments

A rise?

[dropadrop]

To know there is a rise you would need to have some kind of baseline on the current situation. I don't think anyone knows how much state sponsored cyber attacks are currently going around, but I would imagine quite a bit. Most states will have quite a high level of technology and far more motivation to keep things secret then your average cyber criminal. Maybe one (kind of) exception is Russia where the cyber criminals are state friendly to a level where they will (with or without actual concent) do cyber attacks for the states benefit (look at ddos attacks at estonia as an example).

Re:A rise?

[ColdWetDog]

"Boy, that's one mean piece of software. Hottest thing since sliced bread. That goddamn thing is invisible. I just rented twenty seconds on that little pink box, just left of the T-A ice; had a look at what we look like. We don't. We're not there."

Neuromancer, William Gibson. 1984.

Truth - stranger than fiction, if lagging a bit in time.

Re:A rise?

[MozeeToby]

To know there is a rise you would need to have some kind of baseline on the current situation.

You do? If it rains for a week straight I can make a prediction that the river level will rise over the course of that week without knowing what the level of the river was before it started raining. It could be a dry creek bed or it could be an inch from bursting it's banks, that information doesn't necessarily factor into my prediction of a rise.

Re:A rise?

[Monkeedude1212]

You do? If it rains for a week straight I can make a prediction that the river level will rise over the course of that week without knowing what the level of the river was before it started raining. It could be a dry creek bed or it could be an inch from bursting it's banks, that information doesn't necessarily factor into my prediction of a rise.

Is that an accurate prediction?

What if the week before it was raining more, like a monsoon, and the week after it was hit with tidal wave?

Point is, the fact that you know its happening doesn't actually mean it's going up. You need to know what it was like before for it to have any meaning.

Your whole point was based on the assumption that it wasn't raining before your week started, thus, you knew the existing preconditions.

Re:A rise?

[Bryan3000000]

Yes, you need a baseline on the current/usual rainfall. For example, assume it customarily rains 24 hours a day, one inch per hour. You do not know this information. You are told that it is going to rain for a straight week. You predict a rise in the river. Your prediction is wrong, because it is always raining and the river level has assumed equilibrium.

You don't need a baseline on the water level - you need a baseline on the rate of rainfall. To predict a rise in attacks, you would need to know the current frequency of attacks, or at least something about how often they have occurred. Pretty basic stuff here - think before you post.

Re:A rise?

[Monkeedude1212]

just because a prediction is untestable has no bearing on it's accuracy.

It has a huge bearing on its accuracy, you can't BE accurate without testing it!

"Aliens live on mars" - I can claim that is an accurate prediction so long as we do not test that claim.

Re:A rise?

[Anarchduke]

Very analytical. However, the post you replied to never mentioned that he needed to know the previous condition of rainfall, only that he didn't need to know the previous condition of the river. Perhaps he thought that the previous baseline of rainfall you were referring to was, as you put it, "pretty basic stuff", and didn't need to be mentioned.

In terms of the actual article, I interpreted that MozeeToby was saying that just because one don't know current amount of government sponsored IT attacks doesn't mean you can't guess it will go up. Just like MozeeToby, I can safely assume it will only increase, once more and more countries create dedicated cyber-warfare groups.

As far as the history of rainfall (or cyber attacks) goes, it had never even sprinkled before 29 October 1969.

weeeeeeee

[kaoshin]

Company that sells security solutions predicts need for more security. The surprises just keep coming.

Re:weeeeeeee

[hellkyng]

Indeed, especially considering the security companies selling their junk are terrible failures at preventing malware just like stuxnet. I really don't seem them stepping up to brawl with state funded players any time soon.

seriously though?

[nimbius]

this is a security company telling you information that drives their sales. its like an ice cream manufacturer saying "i see a need for more ice cream in the future."

im surprised slashdot hasnt become more abrasive toward this type of annoying product placement and corporate fear mongering.