Slashdot Mirror


Schneier Recommends Nuclear-Style Cyberwar Hotlines, Treaties

strawberryshakes writes "Cyberwar is the new nuclear war. Bruce Schneier says governments should establish hotlines and treaties outlining the protocol surrounding cyberwar, just as they would for any other war. He wrote in the Financial Times (paywalled, but available through Google), 'A first step would be a hotline between the world’s cyber commands, modelled after similar hotlines among nuclear commands. This would at least allow governments to talk to each other, rather than guess where an attack came from. More difficult, but more important, are new cyberwar treaties. These could stipulate a no first use policy, outlaw unaimed weapons, or mandate weapons that self-destruct at the end of hostilities. The Geneva Conventions need to be updated too. Cyber weapons beg to be used, so limits on stockpiles, and restrictions on tactics, are a logical end point. International banking, for instance, could be declared off-limits. Whatever the specifics, such agreements are badly needed.'"

123 comments

  1. Oh boo hoo... by moosehooey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So what if the Chinese DDoS the internet for a while? OMG, twitter might go down!!~!eleventy!

    I think the ISP's will be much more effective in fixing any problems, possibly by blocking all traffic from the offending country, if it comes down to that.

    1. Re:Oh boo hoo... by 0racle · · Score: 1

      How would you prove it was the Chinese government? Unlike nuclear war, you don't have to be a government to carry out a 'cyber attack.'

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    2. Re:Oh boo hoo... by Chapter80 · · Score: 0

      So what if the Chinese DDoS the internet for a while? OMG, twitter might go down!!~!eleventy!

      Since most bank-to-fed and fed-to-bank transactions are via electronic networks, and much of the telephone communications go over electronic networks, and a huge segment of our economy is conducted via the internet, and email between customers and vendors is very common, I think the impact would be bigger than just twitter going down.

      But Schneier (as much as anyone) should recognize that politicians are reactionary. This will get attention after the first cyber-attack.

    3. Re:Oh boo hoo... by Peach+Rings · · Score: 1

      And this is an incentive for the Chinese to implement such a hotline how?

    4. Re:Oh boo hoo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would you prove it was the Chinese government? Unlike nuclear war, you don't have to be a government to carry out a 'cyber attack.'

      "Made in China" written on every packet, duh.

    5. Re:Oh boo hoo... by plover · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think the ISP's will be much more effective in fixing any problems, possibly by blocking all traffic from the offending country, if it comes down to that.

      This is "cyberwar" (their word, not mine) we're talking about. General Hayden, the former Director of the NSA, spoke at Blackhat on the topic this summer. He said that the Internet today resembles a vast indefensible plain, and that an enemy attack can come from anywhere. He thought (hoped?) a kind of "geography" would eventually evolve on the internet, allowing for tactical maneuvering, permitting the kind of strategies warriors like to fight and defend from. You're alluding to a similar type of thinking, where if the attack comes from China, you pull the cable on the back of your router marked "From China".

      It's that kind of thinking that's unfortunately going to fail at cyberwar.

      If I'm attacking your country's systems, I'm not coming from China. I'm hopping hacked servers and networks from China to Estonia to Russia to France to London to New York. If it's a DDoS attack, I'm not commanding a million Chinese PCs to send you SYN packets, I'm sending one instruction to a command and control network to tell an army of zombies across the country and globe to send you SYN packets. Or I'm activating the hostile commands buried in my counterfeit Cisco routers spread across your country by cheapo eBay resellers.

      The best defense against info-warfare is to have a good alternate strategy. Twitter may not need backups, but Wall Street does. Industrial plants and the electrical grid need air gaps (and obviously a lot more protection than they have today.) The armed services need an isolated network. So does the intelligence community. The first, second, and third jobs of cybercommand should be creation of these defense plans.

      --
      John
    6. Re:Oh boo hoo... by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      General Hayden, the former Director of the NSA, spoke at Blackhat on the topic this summer. He said that the Internet today resembles a vast indefensible plain, and that an enemy attack can come from anywhere. He thought (hoped?) a kind of "geography" would eventually evolve on the internet, allowing for tactical maneuvering, permitting the kind of strategies warriors like to fight and defend from.

      Basically the Princes and Tribesmen want the Dwellers to plant a Forest in which they can fight their battles. It's only reasonable.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    7. Re:Oh boo hoo... by fishexe · · Score: 2

      The best defense against info-warfare is to have a good alternate strategy. Twitter may not need backups, but Wall Street does. Industrial plants and the electrical grid need air gaps (and obviously a lot more protection than they have today.) The armed services need an isolated network. So does the intelligence community. The first, second, and third jobs of cybercommand should be creation of these defense plans.

      They need all those things and also a good, well-enforced policy to keep defense/intelligence employees' ad hoc sneakernet from de-isolating the isolated networks. Witness the recent near-destruction of Iran's nuclear program at the hands of Stuxnet, which is believed to have been brought into the nuclear facility's isolated network by a scientist using a thumb drive to take work home with him.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    8. Re:Oh boo hoo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what if the Chinese DDoS the internet for a while? OMG, twitter might go down!!~!eleventy!

      Twitter, your bank and it's ATM's, the point-of-sale systems in thousands of stores across the country, the stock market, etc... etc... If somebody seriously could DDoS a significant portion of the 'net, the effects could be considerable.
       
      But, as other point out downthread, this whole proposal is just ludicrous. This is nothing more than Bruce, a) once again demonstrating that he doesn't understand the difference between cryptography and real world security, and b) having milked the TSA for all the buzz he can in the last couple of weeks - generating more buzz so that people keep paying him to speak at conferences. A guy has to make a living y' know.

  2. Stockpiles?...of cyber weapons? by Last_Available_Usern · · Score: 4, Funny

    What exactly is a stockpile of cyber weapons? A room full of nerds and a case of Mountain Dew?

    1. Re:Stockpiles?...of cyber weapons? by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Probably something along the lines of a number of botnets, zombies, secret 0-days vulnerabilities, etc.

      It's pretty easy to picture governments building up large botnets of their own machines, ready to tear down any site they want. Limits on that would be good, I think.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    2. Re:Stockpiles?...of cyber weapons? by KublaiKhan · · Score: 2

      That was my question.

      Would the stockpile be counted MAFIAA-style, with each copy, download, and upload counting as a 'unit'?

      Or would the stockpile be counted in lines of code? Perhaps in terms of algorithms used? Type of weapon?

      Given the rate of development that "cyberweapons" undergo, I think that 'stockpiling' would, in reality, mostly refer to the archive room with a bunch of obselete software cluttering up DVDs.

      --
      In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
      A stately pleasure dome decree
    3. Re:Stockpiles?...of cyber weapons? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Limits on stockpiling that which can be infinitely replicated, would that not be DRMs on war?

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    4. Re:Stockpiles?...of cyber weapons? by Zeek40 · · Score: 1

      A stack of 5 1/4" floppies. Those things were the perfect combination of a Frisbee and a ninja throwing star.

    5. Re:Stockpiles?...of cyber weapons? by KublaiKhan · · Score: 1

      Oh, now wouldn't that be hilarious.

      "I'm sorry, Sir, I can't launch the weapons. The licensing server's gone down again."

      --
      In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
      A stately pleasure dome decree
    6. Re:Stockpiles?...of cyber weapons? by Xugumad · · Score: 1

      Presumable a variety of different cracking tools, worms, and related pieces of software. As much as the film/TV idea of people frantically tapping on keyboards during an attack is exciting, in reality it's normally about semi-automated systems attacking automated systems. A "cyberattack" from a government is most likely to involve pulling something suitable out of storage, giving it target details and clicking "Go", rather than trying to code something from scratch on demand.

    7. Re:Stockpiles?...of cyber weapons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Software can be infinitely replicated, but the hardware it needs to run can't... although, to be fair, it would be much easier to replicate large amounts of computer hardware than something like nuclear weapons.

    8. Re:Stockpiles?...of cyber weapons? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Right, but that's still silly.

      What's a botnet? What's a zombie? A botnet is, typically, a bunch of zombies. A zombie is simply a machine that can be remotely controlled using a some piece of software that's installed on it, which is typically injected by a Trojan horse, drive-by-download, e-mail virus, whatever.

      Now if the government says "we'll take down 300,000 of our 1 million botnet nodes," how are you going to know they did it? How do you know they have a million botnet nodes? With nuclear missiles, it's pretty easy: spy satellites and reconnaissance aircraft can are used by world governments to detect nuclear weapons. But with botnets, it's not so easy. You basically have to take their word for it. The moment you have to the government's word for anything, you're hosed.

    9. Re:Stockpiles?...of cyber weapons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like wikileaks, for example?

    10. Re:Stockpiles?...of cyber weapons? by fishexe · · Score: 1

      What exactly is a stockpile of cyber weapons? A room full of nerds and a case of Mountain Dew?

      Yes. Although with only one case, that qualifies as a "small stockpile".

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    11. Re:Stockpiles?...of cyber weapons? by jcwayne · · Score: 0

      A room full of nerds and a case of Mountain Dew?

      Also know as the eighth circle of hell.

      --
      Failure to follow this advice may result in non-deterministic behavior.
    12. Re:Stockpiles?...of cyber weapons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The unpatched Internet connected pc's of the world are a stateless stockpile of cyber weapons. How do you limit that? Government-mandated patching, that's how. It is a national security risk to have your machine able to be infected by a botnet/etc.

  3. Oh, please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Cyberwar is the new nuclear war.

    Gimme a break. When I see a hacker kill off 100,000 people, then I'll take that statement seriously.

    Jesus Christ, hyperbole is becoming the norm these days.

    1. Re:Oh, please. by Altus · · Score: 1

      hyperbole is the new understatement!

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    2. Re:Oh, please. by memyselfandeye · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Gimme a break. When I see a hacker kill off 100,000 people, then I'll take that statement seriously.

      Jesus Christ, hyperbole is becoming the norm these days.

      QFT! Last time I checked a DDOS isn't capable of evaporating several hundred square miles like an ICBM with 6x600kT warheads. I think our leaders and 'thinkers' need to play around with a google maps mashup here, and see some friggin' clarity!

  4. Hotlines are useless without a web of trust by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

    How else could you trust the caller? Phones are just another form of IT.

    1. Re:Hotlines are useless without a web of trust by KublaiKhan · · Score: 1

      A worldwide certification system would be useful for many things besides cyberwarfare.

      And, o'course, if universal encryption (and thus resistance to governmental or corporate eavesdropping) became practical as a result...

      --
      In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
      A stately pleasure dome decree
    2. Re:Hotlines are useless without a web of trust by Suki+I · · Score: 1

      I like the idea that the IP phone will keep working during the attack.

    3. Re:Hotlines are useless without a web of trust by maxume · · Score: 1

      A charitable definition of hotline includes some assurance as to the party it is connecting you to.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  5. Whew. by pclminion · · Score: 1

    My first reading of the headline was "Schneier recommends nuclear war." Would have been a more interesting article...

  6. I would recommend one case *per nerd* by moosehooey · · Score: 1

    If this is going to go on for a few days, they'd better stock up on the Dew!

  7. Or by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We could just ban the use of Windows in critical IT infrastructure.

    1. Re:Or by KublaiKhan · · Score: 1

      That would just move the problem.

      No OS is secure. There is -always- a way in, even if it's just social-engineering the guy with the passwords.

      Moving to a non-Windows OS without addressing everything else at the same time would, in the end, have no real effect. ...besides, who uses windows on a router, anyway?

      --
      In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
      A stately pleasure dome decree
    2. Re:Or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LMGTFY
      http://www.home-network-help.com/ip-forwarding.html

    3. Re:Or by mangu · · Score: 2

      No OS is secure. There is -always- a way in, even if it's just social-engineering the guy with the passwords.

      True. But I'd bet that the lock in the safe in my bank is more secure than the lock in my suitcase.

      To say "No OS is secure" is very different than saying all OSes are equally insecure.

    4. Re:Or by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      You seem to be a bit out-of-date in your thinking. Most of the bugs today are in the applications, on the platforms. SQL injection doesn't care about the operating system.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    5. Re:Or by KublaiKhan · · Score: 2

      True enough--but the point is that the sole action of switching OSs will not cause any real gains in security.

      Gains in security can only be made with an organizational dedication to security from the top down--everyone involved must be made to realize the risks involved, and mitigations of these risks must be performed (and checked) at every level.

      So if you switch over to Linux, great, good job. But if your secretary still opens every funny email that shows up, sooner or later you're going to get hit.

      --
      In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
      A stately pleasure dome decree
    6. Re:Or by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Uhhh...friend? You DO realize that by switching ALL of them from Windows to Linux you be bringing huge masses of dumbasses along for the ride, yes? Windows can actually be a pretty damned secure OS, especially Windows 7 with ASLR, registry and file virtualization, DEP, and low rights browser, but as a guy that fixes them all day I can tell you it is the PEBKAC that bites you in the ass every damned time.

      So unless your master plan comes with a couple of hundred billion to train all the stupid users, or to hire much more expensive smart users, well then it is doomed to fail. I have literally sat beside a user and said "Don't open that! It is a virus!" and had them go "Oh my BFF Kim sent me this! You are just paranoid!" and watched as they put in the helpful instructions that came with the password protected zip file and calmly infected her machine. Hell just today I had to deal with a lady that got pissed her husband was looking at porn, so she locked down all the accounts with tough passwords so he couldn't get his dirty pervert ass into it....and then promptly forgot them all.

      THIS is the kinds of folks you are dealing with bud, folks that would sell you their passwords for a cookie, stick any flash drive they found on the street into their PC, follow instructions sent to them by email (including turning off AV) to get some "free" app or video crap, etc. You see, thinking Linux would save you is what I call "magical thinking" which frankly NEVER works. Time and time again I've seen "Oh thanks to X we're safe!" with X being an OS, IDS, firewall, etc. But magical thinking doesn't work, only a top to bottom approach with absolute least permissions does. Otherwise you are just in a race to build the most idiot proof box, and the idiots will ALWAYS figure out a way to royally screw your fancy plans. That is why we have limited users in Windows, to keep the idiots out of as much as possible. But ultimately your are only as strong as the biggest idiot in the bunch, and I hate to say it, but there are more of them every. damned. day. and they are breeding like fricking bunnies.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  8. Lecture from the school of hard knocks by trghpy · · Score: 0

    I have the feeling this will end up being better in theory than implementation.

  9. bad analogy ! by JonySuede · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cyberwar is the new nuclear war.

    No it's not. it used to be that nuclear weapons were out of reach for a private entity. It is not the case with cyberweapons. How do you regulate the action of the mafia or the triads ? How do you apply a treaty onto an individual ? Treaty and regulation works for limited availability weapon but for something as easy to produce, I dont see how it could work.

    --
    Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    1. Re:bad analogy ! by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

      Cyberwar is the new nuclear war.

      No it's not. it used to be that nuclear weapons were out of reach for a private entity. It is not the case with cyberweapons. How do you regulate the action of the mafia or the triads ? How do you apply a treaty onto an individual ? Treaty and regulation works for limited availability weapon but for something as easy to produce, I dont see how it could work.

      If the world powers join to "pinch off" the threat, and the treaties and hotlines are in place to address that, then it has a chance of working.

    2. Re:bad analogy ! by Xugumad · · Score: 1

      Essentially, in agreeing a line that will not be crossed, with well reasoned arguments for not doing so, anyone crossing that line makes an enemy of a lot of people at once. It might be harder to regulate worm/cracking tool development, but that doesn't mean there's nothing that can be done.

    3. Re:bad analogy ! by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Cyberwar is the new nuclear war.

      No it's not. it used to be that nuclear weapons were out of reach for a private entity.

      That posed an interesting Google search for me, probably put me at the top of the US Watchlist. "Is it illegal to Own Nuclear Weapons?"

      Which hasn't given me anything like what I'm looking for. Its more like everyone asking if Iran has nuclear weapons, new policies set forth by treaties and such... Nothing about a regular joe citizen owning a nuclear warhead, something I'm now curious about.

      So I go next down the list, its gotta be like other weapons of the same classification. I google "Is it illegal to own a bomb?"

      Oddly enough the fourth result is the Wikipedia entry for 4chan.

      So - does anyone know the policy on that? I mean, it looks like it varies on state to state what kind of weaponry you're allowed to be packing. There are laws against illicit manufacturing of firearms and explosives, but like, there must be a legal way to manufacture guns, someone does it for the US army - so maybe there's a legal way to manufacture bombs. In that case would you be restricted to who you could sell it to? Is there some kind of registration program?

      Too many questions. Point is, in America, you can own a gun. Most laws involving guns include ammunition and explosives. So, in theory, you should be able to own explosives as well, and by that logic, you should be able to own nuclear warheads.

    4. Re:bad analogy ! by N0Man74 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. Such an idea is rather worthless.

      Threats to networks could come from governments, but they can also come from extremists, corporations, hobbyists, or a legion of meme-spewing 4-channers.

      The targets can be just as varied. They might target corporate networks, government networks, utility infrastructures, or a website that happens to of highly political interest.

      Even if governments agree to such treaties, how do we know that they won't operate secretly anyway, and just blame cyber criminals or rogue groups if they do launch an attack? It's not like data packets in cyber attacks carry flags.

    5. Re:bad analogy ! by plover · · Score: 1

      If the world powers join to "pinch off" the threat, and the treaties and hotlines are in place to address that, then it has a chance of working.

      So the US, China and Russia all agree to not hack electrical power plants? BFD. Who's going to convince Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Israel, Nigeria, Chechnya, Lichtenstein and Morocco to not make secret plans? Who's going to convince the various organized criminal entities? Who's going to stop J. Random Hacker, who can download and modify a copy of Stuxnet from the comfort of his mother's basement?

      Think about it: the best (most experienced) people to ask for advice on how to be effective at stopping hackers would be the RIAA. And if that image doesn't convince you how useless attempting it is, you're deliberately not paying attention.

      --
      John
    6. Re:bad analogy ! by maxume · · Score: 1

      The proposition in your second paragraph is insane.

      I'm pretty sure that the group of serious hacker stoppers excludes purveyors of DRM simply by definition.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:bad analogy ! by memyselfandeye · · Score: 1

      It is illegal and regulated by BATF to own unlicensed explosives, such as c4. It is, however, legal to own materials that do not explode but defligrate, such as black powder, so I suppose you could own a 'dirty' bomb that burns instead of exploding. But I know you are also not allowed to own unlicensed radioactive sources over a certain, minuscule, vasltly smaller than the critical mass of uranium or plutonium isotopes.

      So without any citation of specific laws that reads "no person shall be allowed to own a nuclear weapon of mass destruction," you still can't own them since you can not own the materials that compose them. And I'm fairly sure a person can't own a weapon of mass destruction period.

    8. Re:bad analogy ! by maxume · · Score: 1

      There are restrictions on the possession of radioactive materials.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    9. Re:bad analogy ! by plover · · Score: 1

      It was intended to be laughable, but insane works for me, too. But the point is valid. Trying to defend stuff with DRM from determined hackers is similar in many ways to trying to defend anything else that can be found in the hands of determined hackers -- useless.

      --
      John
    10. Re:bad analogy ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about the olympic games? during the world hacking competition, all global players agree to stay out of foreign entities.

    11. Re:bad analogy ! by fahlesr1 · · Score: 1

      How do you regulate the action of the mafia or the triads ? How do you apply a treaty onto an individual ?

      Perhaps a clause guaranteeing the extradition of a private entity who engages in an activity that falls under whatever the parties to the treaty define as "cyber-warfare" would solve that problem. Perhaps not. Its definitely something that nations should be discussing.

    12. Re:bad analogy ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love the level of self delusion Slashdot seems to perpetuate. Stuxnet was a military developed piece of code (obviously) which drew on nuclear, chemical, exploit-coder, and software engineering brains to create. It was a clear example of what the world powers who oppose Iran are capable of. They understood the ASM that was being delivered to the controllers of SPECIFIC IRANIAN airgapped devices. The agency responsible was able to exfiltrate enough information regarding those devices that they could create a highly sophisticated operational "glitch" that would severly damage Layer 1 devices. That's worlds beyond someone knowing you have X phone with X version of firmware on your desk and not only hiding their presence but causing the device to melt itself to slag moments before you made an important call.

      They had to know the specific opcode they were manipulating, the specific device type they were manipulating, the rotation cycle for seperating uranium isotopes int that rotation cycle etc etc. This was not some hackneyed piracy prevention tactic. Why do you think the private sector has a huge gap when it comes to InfoSec, the gov't can pay more or just tell you that you have to work for them.

    13. Re:bad analogy ! by blair1q · · Score: 1

      No, it's not, but you missed the obvious reasons:

      A cyber-attack won't kill hundreds of thousands of people in a flash of light, then kill millions more from cancers and other after-effects of the blast and fallout.

      It won't obliterate acres of infrastructure and render the area uninhabitable for decades or centuries.

      It won't scare the shit out of an entire range of humanity from the simplest of folk to the most-informed on the subject.

      Frankly, anyone who compares cyber-war to nuclear war is blowing smoke up the public's ass in order to get a panicky public to over-fund every cockamamie idea proposed to combat or prevent it.

    14. Re:bad analogy ! by theverylastperson · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure if you owned a nuclear bomb you'd be able to negotiate to keep it.

      --
      ed duval the very last person
    15. Re:bad analogy ! by plover · · Score: 1

      It was a clear example of what the world powers who oppose Iran are capable of. They understood the ASM that was being delivered to the controllers of SPECIFIC IRANIAN airgapped devices. The agency responsible was able to exfiltrate enough information regarding those devices that they could create a highly sophisticated operational "glitch" that would severly damage Layer 1 devices. That's worlds beyond someone knowing you have X phone with X version of firmware ...

      Wrong. It WAS worlds beyond, but now we've delivered thousands of copies of it to terrorist wanna-bees around the globe.

      The military developers of Stuxnet were certainly geniuses, but they were also short-sighted idiots who didn't consider the collateral damage of deploying a weapons-grade tool on the internet. All that brain-power you boast about is now in the hands of global sociopaths ranging from corrupt governments to 4channers who might redeploy it for teh lulz.

      Assuming you know SCADA (and you can learn all you need to on line) you can modify Stuxnet's payloads to damage any Siemens industrial control based system you can get it to. You could make a variant that randomly operates valves or motors anywhere. Screw trying to target the Predator drone factory: just cause chaos anywhere, and they can even blame the Americans or Israelis for producing the worm.

      I hope every factory in America is patching their systems and updating their security policies, but I'm guessing that some will fail at it, and we're going to see a public instance of collateral damage on shore as a result. It won't be a nuclear plant, but it might be a bakery or dairy that fails to sterilize their products, causes a chemical factory to vent pesticides, or maybe a waste treatment plant will route all raw sewage to the nearby river. Less spectacularly, it may just kill a few factory workers when their safety equipment goes offline.

      All this might even have been worth it if Stuxnet had succeeded at destroying the Busheshr turbine, and their nuclear program was disabled for a few years. But it didn't. It interfered with a couple hundred centrifuges, and delayed the refining of some of their U-235. So now we still have a nuclear Iran, and we've given them their very own cyberweapon.

      --
      John
    16. Re:bad analogy ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does "pinching off" the threat even mean? You are talking about webs of trust and retrieving and disseminating information issues. Taking the time to assess the situation and have two human beings open up a line of communication, when you are talking about information systems that do the equivalent several billion times every second, seems a little less like pinching off tubes and a little more like plugging one of the holes in a colander to me.

      Please explain the procedure, including invoking a hotline and the good it would do, for each of the following situations that all fall under the "cyberwarfare" umbrella:

      -A disgruntled employee, one of a web of trust that includes three people qualified and honest enough to be in a situation, has decided to damage several vital systems before taking his own life

      -You have just discovered someone near a police or military operation you are running sending a live webcam feed out, and one of your soldiers has just accidentally shot an unarmed non-combatant

      -Since generating and transmitting electrical power is always brought up with these things, someone tears a hole in a water tower, causing a small flood and a shut down of the nearby power grid for safety reasons

      -Any DDOS

      My point:

      You can't fight a forest fire with a bic lighter, and you can't compensate for a failure of an automated system with a slower automated system.

    17. Re:bad analogy ! by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

      What does "pinching off" the threat even mean?

      I'm not Bruce Schneier, so I can't explain what procedure he'd have in mind, but I can explain what I was thinking.

      If a threat is coming from a particular node, set of nodes, or portion of the network that can be characterized (as DDOS are), the leaders can agree to drop those nodes off the network.

      Example: If a particular DDOS was a problem, a hotline call might be placed by one country's leader to another (potentially separate from the network, since the DDOS might actually knock out network calls), and the leaders may decide to drop all Windows machines off the network, or give them a limited access only to a "patch site", until the threat is removed.

      Sort of like running the Internet under "marshal law", until order can be restored.

      I dunno, just a thought.

  10. Cyber weapons = Nuclear weapons by Fibe-Piper · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Look at the stuxnet attack on Iran last month. If that country had a more developed nuke program a hostile neighbor (country X) could have had the opportunity to co-opt their systems and launch against Israel. Israel would immediately engage in a retaliatory strike and country X would be the winner (assuming they are anti Iran and at least neutral in their relations with Israel).

    Country X in this case just became a nuclear power without ever facing embargoes, or hostility from the US.

    --
    I went to battle M.C. Escher, but drew a blank.
    1. Re:Cyber weapons = Nuclear weapons by deapbluesea · · Score: 1

      Look at the stuxnet attack on Iran last month. If that country had a more developed nuke program a hostile neighbor (country X) could have had the opportunity to co-opt their systems and launch against Israel.

      And fingers=bullets by the same logic. A cyber attack is not a nuclear attack, and a cyber attack that results in nuclear weapons exchange is still not a nuclear attack. An exchange of nuclear weapons is a nuclear attack. There have been fears of falsely attributed nuclear weapons launches since Russia's first nuclear test. The fact that spies could have (possibly) done the same thing doesn't make spying nuclear warfare. Neither is cyber warfare=nuclear warfare.

      --
      Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
    2. Re:Cyber weapons = Nuclear weapons by Fibe-Piper · · Score: 1

      Splitting hairs = splitting the atom?

      --
      I went to battle M.C. Escher, but drew a blank.
    3. Re:Cyber weapons = Nuclear weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Israel would immediately engage in a retaliatory strike and country X would be the winner'.

      Damn you, for publishing my plan.

      Sheik X.

  11. omg it's the cyercaust! by hypergreatthing · · Score: 1

    Quick! pick up the red emergency phone and dial the 16 year old 3l33t hax0r general in charge so he can fire the scripts! For great lols!

    1. Re:omg it's the cyercaust! by Ltap · · Score: 1

      16 years old? He's over the hill! Fire him and replace him with his 13-year-old subordinate!

      --
      Yet Another Tech Blog
      (but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
      http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
  12. Exaggeration by flyingfsck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hmm, he seems to be seriously exaggerating the threat. Network attacks are very easy to defend against and the damage is negligible compared to a real military attack. So this is plain stupid.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Exaggeration by Ltap · · Score: 1

      This seems to me like an attempt to head off intra-national attempts to regulate "cyber-weapons", applying rules to citizens that they don't apply to themselves. By drafting rules for countries they prevent (to some degree) the stopping of individuals and the ignoring of countries. By bringing it to the level of an international treaty, it gives it a level of seriousness that would stop countries from simply DDoS'ing each other on a whim or to put on political pressure, which would make Internet access in some countries sketchy at best.

      --
      Yet Another Tech Blog
      (but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
      http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
    2. Re:Exaggeration by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      Tell that to those who have lost family members due to cyber attacks...

    3. Re:Exaggeration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's also using the word "cyber", as in 'I don't know what I'm talking about, but it's some kind of important IT thing.'

    4. Re:Exaggeration by Securityemo · · Score: 1

      Network attacks are very easy to defend against

      Not really, not if you're not talking about just pulling the plug. And in any case you still need to take the measures necessary to do so. Remember that McKinnon got access to a subcontractor's (I think it was) internal network by using a password cracker and a public RAT. That's incompetence, you say. Fine, but regardless of it's form or shape it's still a security problem, period.

      --
      Emotions! In your brain!
    5. Re:Exaggeration by hellkyng · · Score: 1

      You assume that a network or "cyber" attack is negligible compared to a real military attack. What about when those attacks steal or reveal sensitive military information, compromise troop movements, or even better silently alter or changes plans? Or how about if malicious software were to cripple a nations infrastructure such as power and water? Or steal the information regarding the whereabouts of critical personnel in military branches? What if a nation were to conduct economic warfare, such as targeted pump and dump spam or hack into a nations banks and continually reveal customer information. A state player with large resources might be able to create a Heartland type data breach many times over, that could cause some serious chaos.

      Malware like stuxnet could easily bring a nation to its knees if it was properly applied. The best thing we can do is to have a little foresight with regard to the true threat events like these pose especially where state actors are concerned.

      Besides Schnier is one of the most level headed security people around.

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124027491029837401.html - DoD plans for jet fight stolen
      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/06/pentagon_breach_assessment/ - Pentagon breached
      http://datalossdb.org/incidents/2478 - Records of 40,000 plus army personnel stolen

    6. Re:Exaggeration by mangu · · Score: 1

      What about when those attacks steal or reveal sensitive military information, compromise troop movements, or even better silently alter or changes plans? Or how about if malicious software were to cripple a nations infrastructure such as power and water? Or steal the information regarding the whereabouts of critical personnel in military branches?

      You mean like when a spy watches the troops with binoculars and writes down what he sees? Like when someone follows a key military officer by foot?

      What shall be subject to treaties and have hotlines next: binoculars, paper, pencil, or shoes?

    7. Re:Exaggeration by hellkyng · · Score: 1

      There are already established guidelines for the things you describe ie rules of ware etc. The online equivalent of those items can have substantially more impact and scope then the in person. Hence it makes complete sense to at least establish some guidelines for how to go about those things. Right now online there is nothing to dictate what form warfare over the internet might take. If we have an opportunity to take proactive steps to limit those things in a sensible manner, we should do so.

    8. Re:Exaggeration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That router was like a brother to me...

  13. slashdot=star trek ref by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    see: a taste of armageddon

  14. Ol' boy's gone off the deep end this time by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    It's another case of doing everything but locking and securing a sufficiently resistant cockpit door.

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  15. Zonk OMG by dakkon1024 · · Score: 1

    Can we make facebook a civilian target?

  16. I solved the puzzle! by Suki+I · · Score: 1
    The stockpiles are electrons to be limited by credits Countries with lots of electrons have to share them with countries that have fewer electrons.

    Substitute smoke for electrons if that makes it more understandable and gives a better visual for the hotline idea.

    Someone forgot to make a rule, that everybody will follow of course, not to mess with the IP phones used for the hotline. Can't mess with the networks they run on either!

  17. The Geneva Conventions... by airdweller · · Score: 1

    Will it mean hackers and the like will be considered enemy combatants if taken prisoners? Won't they have to wear uniforms to distinguish themselves from 'terrorists'?
    Too bad the black berets are already taken by the USAF. How about black hoodies?
    I'm also pretty sure some will insist on including dice, wands or xkcd quotes...

  18. Cyberwar Hotline by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Hello, cyberwar hotline. Have you tried turning it off and back on again?"

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  19. Oh. My. God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at the stuxnet attack on Iran last month. If that country had a more developed nuke program a hostile neighbor (country X) could have had the opportunity to co-opt their systems and launch against Israel. Israel would immediately engage in a retaliatory strike and country X would be the winner (assuming they are anti Iran and at least neutral in their relations with Israel).

    Country X in this case just became a nuclear power without ever facing embargoes, or hostility from the US.

    What?!? Complete nonsense. That was thought of back in the 50s.

    The Stuxnet went after control systems in nuclear power plants. The only thing that happened was they couldn't run - BFD.

    Nuclear weapons have human controls - nothing gets launched without a human being turning keys and pressing buttons.

    Geeze!

    1. Re:Oh. My. God. by plover · · Score: 1

      The Stuxnet went after control systems in nuclear power plants. The only thing that happened was they couldn't run - BFD.

      No, that's not the only thing that happened. Stuxnet physically damaged a number of centrifuges, it prevented them from successfully enriching uranium, and its second payload appears to have been designed to cause their nuclear reactor's steam turbine to destroy itself, which would have delayed their ability to create a nuclear bomb for years.

      Nuclear weapons have human controls - nothing gets launched without a human being turning keys and pressing buttons.

      Sure, we're told that American nuclear weapons have human controls. But do we really know that Pakistan's missile triggers aren't connected to a computer network? That the Pakistani president doesn't have an iNuke app on his phone, with a single big red button labeled "Mumbai" glowing in the middle of the screen? Or that North Korea's weapons are air-gapped, and not just hooked to a 300 baud modem in some back room?

      --
      John
    2. Re:Oh. My. God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we begin from the assumption that Pakistan's nuclear weapons facilities were secured by an idiot, why would cyberwar treaties help the situation? They still have a fucked up military-internet complex. It doesn't seem fathomable that a country that can't add an air gap on their weapons could effectively defend against a cyber attack.

  20. You'll get "Bob" from India... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who will tell you to run the recovery CD.

  21. General purpose hotline? by igreaterthanu · · Score: 1

    Aren't these just fancy encrypted telephones between superpowers? Why do they need different hotlines for different crises?

    --
    I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
    1. Re:General purpose hotline? by maxwells_deamon · · Score: 1

      VOIP phones between the responce centers ;-)

      The actual hot line was originally a teletype machine. It was a red phone only in the movies and on TV. Probably upgraded by now.

    2. Re:General purpose hotline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nimrodism. All hail the Bruce.

  22. ph34r by dakkon1024 · · Score: 1

    all your FaceBook are belong to us

  23. Missing the Point, entirely by Haedrian · · Score: 2

    "These could stipulate a no first use policy, outlaw unaimed weapons, or mandate weapons that self-destruct at the end of hostilities."

    There are tons of major differences between a nuclear weapon and cyber-'weapons' .

    Firstly, how do you work out who sent it? A nuclear warhead is pretty easy to track - but what about Stuxnet?

    Also, civilians aren't generally capable enough to create their own nuclear weapons, they can make cyber-'weapons'.

    What it'll end up with is everyone agreeing that cyber-weapons are bad and banned, then doing stuff in secret.

    The solution is better security. Yes, its an impossible goal - but its still more realistic than having the president going- "Dammit! My facebook has been DDOSed. Someone get me the Kremlin!"

    1. Re:Missing the Point, entirely by tchdab1 · · Score: 1

      >>Firstly, how do you work out who sent it?

      By tracing it.

    2. Re:Missing the Point, entirely by Minwee · · Score: 1

      Okay, now you know the shape of the weapon, but who are you going to show that picture to?

    3. Re:Missing the Point, entirely by lxs · · Score: 1

      Once you've backtraced it, do you call the cyber police?

    4. Re:Missing the Point, entirely by tombeard · · Score: 1

      ITYM "backtracing".

      --
      The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
    5. Re:Missing the Point, entirely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Between easily hackable WiFi access points, Tor, proxies and a variety of other methods, you sir are an idiot.

  24. cyberwar isn't about nation-states! by strangelovian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Schneier is assuming that in cyberwar the main actors are going to be nation-states. Look at Wikileaks; that's a form of cyberwarfare and I don't see how a hotline between the US president and the Chinese premier is going to help. We're entering a post-nation-state era, but Schneier sounds like he's using models from the 1960's.

    1. Re:cyberwar isn't about nation-states! by glwtta · · Score: 1

      Schneier is assuming that in cyberwar the main actors are going to be nation-states.

      Actual cyberwar is a matter for nation-states. That whole "autistic 14 year old super hacker from Ukraine brings down all of US infrastructure with a push of a button" scenario should stay where it began: crappy 90s sci-fi.

      And calling WikiLeaks "cyberwarfare" is just, well, Palinesque.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    2. Re:cyberwar isn't about nation-states! by strangelovian · · Score: 1

      Wikileaks uses the power of the internet to undermine authoritarian or non-transparent governments around the world. I'd say that qualifies it as one of the most powerful cyber-attack we've seen so far. As Julian Assange and Osama bin Laden understand, the war for your mind is by far the most important kind of warfare -- taking down infrastructure is pretty trivial by comparison. And neither of these guys is going to be deterred by treaties or hotlines!

    3. Re:cyberwar isn't about nation-states! by glwtta · · Score: 1

      Wikileaks uses the power of the internet to undermine authoritarian or non-transparent governments around the world.

      Really? So far all I've seen are some mildly embarrassing and entirely inconsequential internal communications. Why must geeks always blow everything out of all proportion?

      That's not even the point though, "cyberwarfare" refers to the "actions by a nation-state to penetrate another nation's computers or networks for the purposes of causing damage or disruption" (from Cyber War, via WP), it's any random action tenuously related to a computer somehow.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
  25. Cyber-conventions? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    Do you think the cyber-guerrillas will respect the Geneva convention? The international cyber-banks will be the first to go in a world-wide-cyber-war!
    The cyber-dead will be strewn about the cyber-fields, and cyber-children will run in terror from cyber-napalm. WE'LL REVERT TO PRE-CYBER CIVILIZATION!
    So... like today, but instead of cyber-dot, to complain about greedy corporations we'll have to go talk to our neighbors.

  26. Re:Stockpiles?...of floppy disks.. by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    I find it interesting that Bruce, who is a pretty savvy guy, would suggest treaties for 'cyber warfare' that are analogous to those employed in conventional warfare. The problem is, as illustrated by the snarky remarks in this thread, is that the internet is so unlike anything else that such treaties would be pointless.

    How are you going to verify that someone else is complying? Its one thing to be able to count missile silos or uranium mining operations, but how do you make sure that someone isn't researching methods for retasking criminal botnets for military purposes or preping viruses for targeted release? His suggestions are comically out of touch...

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  27. like the wikileaks war by tchdab1 · · Score: 1

    Tell me that the attacks both visible (from idiots like Lieberman) and less visible (from so-called "hackers") are not the signs of cyberwarfare being directed against the power of free information via Wikileaks.

  28. Oh my... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess the internet really IS serious business!

  29. Re:Stockpiles?...of floppy disks.. by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

    Or maybe Bruce is thinking ahead at what the Internet might be like a few years down the road.

    If the governments had as much control over the internet as they wanted to, these treaties might be made under the assumption that each country keeps its house in order. Much like if a bunch of Canadians took up arms and started marching on American the Canadian Government would be in hot water trying to explain that one.

    Same thing here - if you can't keep your own hackers and crackers in line than you pay the consequences. It would be entirely possible to expect that kind of control over their own segregrated parts of the internet. They keep bringing up this idea of an "Internet Killswitch" in the states. That could be used to stop both incomming and outgoing attacks.

  30. It makes sense, considering the following scenario by Securityemo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    *calls FSB major*

    Yo! You don't know who I am, and I'm not sure how I got your number, but there's this thing going down in the internal networks of a few dozen hospitals here, and we're tracing it back to a site in your country. Our expert will soon be on it (god willing, assuming we can find them and brief them and give them access to the binaries) but the code obfuscation and anti-reversing features are like acts of god almighty, and amusingly treated as such by the insurance companies. Could you please help us catch these crazy bastards for interrogation about the stopping key... pulling the plug? That won't work, it's a self-contained virus, bricking shit like a startled soviet-era comedian. Talk to my boss? Well, I'm not sure he knows how to deal with this... or for that matter which one of my bosses I'm supposed to call...

    As (potentially) opposed to:

    *calls the kr3ml1n h4x0r bünk3r (actual official name) from the American Cyber Command (actual official name)*:
    Hello, we've got a massive self-replicating attack on our internal networked hospital equipment, much like the scenario we discussed a few months ago. We can't break the obfuscation, and IDA Pro gets eaten up from the inside by trying to analyze it, but you guys might have more luck with the binaries we've managed to capture. Also, some versions of the code communicates with a site in Russia - it's probably botnet nodes, but the "scary men in helicopters" protocol you spoke about using internally might work anyway.

    Not to talk about the difference in reaction speed between the two.

    --
    Emotions! In your brain!
  31. Minerals? by mangu · · Score: 1

    I know you are also not allowed to own unlicensed radioactive sources over a certain, minuscule, vastly smaller than the critical mass of uranium or plutonium isotopes.

    What about materials in the ground? Building materials?

    I know this is nitpicking, but there is uranium in many rocks. If you own a big quarry, there could be a lot of uranium, certainly above the limit you are theoretically allowed to own, in those rocks.

    Or what about real estate? In some places there's no distinction between soil and underground for ownership purposes. If you own a tract of land you own all that's between the surface and the center of the earth. There's certainly enough uranium to build a bomb in that 6378 km tall inverted pyramid of rock.

  32. 1st - that doesn't sound like Schneier. by khasim · · Score: 1

    He's usually a LOT more intelligent than that.

    2nd - be proactive. Pass a law that requires that each ISP check the packets on their network and do NOT forward any packets that do not match the addresses they control. There, spoofing is pretty much dead.

    3rd - whitelists, not blacklists. Know who you absolutely must have an Internet connection to and why. If someone is flooding your network, block everyone else. (yeah, this won't work for Amazon or eBay)

    4th - it's the GOVERNMENT. Use your purchasing power to demand real improvements in security.

  33. Dear Bruce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to point out that nuclear war is much worse then cyber war. Ask the people of Japan if you'd like an opinion. In fact, some might say to draw such an analogy is godwin like.

    1. Re:Dear Bruce by Antidamage · · Score: 1

      Not to mention nuclear war REQUIRES the resources of a government. Who is to say that a government is or knows they are responsible for an internet attack?

  34. Nukes for everyone? by munky99999 · · Score: 1

    Back in the day... who really could launch nukes? Hell even today how many people could build a nuke... friggen governments cant even do it. So yes you could get your dozen groups communicating and that stops it from happening. You are able to talk to everyone who can do it. Very diplomatic Today on the otherhand 23 year old guys control 500,000 zombie botnets. Computer security itself is terrible to the point basically a huge number of independants have the power to do the job. So what are governments doing to open communication with these people? They are trying to identify them in order to arrest or as the usa says "the Department of Defense is prepared, based on the authority of the President, to launch [...] an actual bombing of an attack source or a cyber counterattack." This isnt diplomatic at all.

  35. "Cyber War" by Clarke by ijones · · Score: 1

    Richard Clarke in his book Cyber War calls for some of the same kinds of controls. He calls for banning attacks on civilians, especially the banking system. He also calls for arms inspectors and an obligation of nations to assist in finding the source of attacks that come from within their borders. He calls for a "Cyber War Limitation Treaty" that would also ban putting logic bombs in civilian infrastructure. I really liked this part of the book.

    peace,

        isaac

  36. Re:It makes sense, considering the following scena by fishexe · · Score: 1

    *calls FSB major* Yo! You don't know who I am, and I'm not sure how I got your number, but there's this thing going down in the internal networks of a few dozen hospitals here, and we're tracing it back to a site in your country. Our expert will soon be on it (god willing, assuming we can find them and brief them and give them access to the binaries) but the code obfuscation and anti-reversing features are like acts of god almighty, and amusingly treated as such by the insurance companies. Could you please help us catch these crazy bastards for interrogation about the stopping key... pulling the plug? That won't work, it's a self-contained virus, bricking shit like a startled soviet-era comedian. Talk to my boss? Well, I'm not sure he knows how to deal with this... or for that matter which one of my bosses I'm supposed to call... As (potentially) opposed to: *calls the kr3ml1n h4x0r bünk3r (actual official name) from the American Cyber Command (actual official name)*: Hello, we've got a massive self-replicating attack on our internal networked hospital equipment, much like the scenario we discussed a few months ago. We can't break the obfuscation, and IDA Pro gets eaten up from the inside by trying to analyze it, but you guys might have more luck with the binaries we've managed to capture. Also, some versions of the code communicates with a site in Russia - it's probably botnet nodes, but the "scary men in helicopters" protocol you spoke about using internally might work anyway. Not to talk about the difference in reaction speed between the two.

    So you're the guy they hire to fill in where the script says [tech]!

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  37. IPv6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you realize that in addition to IPv6 routers, why, there are studies underway to put IPv6 in PCs, set top boxes, cell phones, VoIP gateways, toasters, video game consoles? Video game consoles, Mandrake. Children's video game consoles?

  38. Re:It makes sense, considering the following scena by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one is amused by you, or interested in your ideas. Re-evaluate your life.

  39. Re:Wow by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    If you examine your sig, you'll see that it can't possibly be true:

    rule number 1 of slashdot: ANY thread can be twisted into a bash of microsoft. no exceptions.

    You appear to have focused on the second part, without realizing that some threads (and indeed, whole articles) start out as microsoft bashing, and therefore can only be twisted into something other than a microsoft bash, if indeed, they can be twisted at all.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  40. Re:Stockpiles?...of floppy disks.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude-NON-FREE SOFTWARE CONTROLS THE COMPUTERS AROUND THE WORLD. This means America. It is why we have the problems we have today. You can't simply "put your house in order". The problem can't be fixed. What happens now is everything gets swept under the rug. Anti-virus companies don't fix bugs. They release "definitions" which are a complete fraud. It lets anti-virus companies say they are protecting you because they can detect a handful of pieces of malicious code. The truth is they don't detect the majority of junk floating around which is why virus removals are so common. It isn't just because people are stupid (not that they aren't). The non-free software industry doesn't help either. Neither Microsoft nor Apple have an "app store" for the desktop like GNU/Linux distributions. The only company as far as I'm aware that exists right now you can actually buy a computer that an average user can use is www.thinkpenguin.com. They're mainly targeting the masses in Louisiana, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Oregon (with local operations) even though they are selling throughout the USA right now.

  41. Which would make us LESS secure by Crazy+Taco · · Score: 1

    We could just ban the use of Windows in critical IT infrastructure.

    Brilliant! That would make critical IT infrastructure less diverse, and make it even more likely everything could be taken out with a single zero day attack.

    --
    Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
  42. Re:It makes sense, considering the following scena by Securityemo · · Score: 1

    The value of my life is undefined.

    --
    Emotions! In your brain!
  43. http://www.jordaner.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. Such an idea is rather worthless.

    Threats to networks could come from governments, but they can also come from extremists, corporations, hobbyists, or a legion of meme-spewing 4-channers.

    The targets can be just as varied. They might target corporate networks, government networks, utility infrastructures, or a website that happens to of highly political interest.

    Even if governments agree to such treaties, how do we know that they won't operate secretly anyway, and just blame cyber criminals or rogue groups if they do launch an attack? It's not like data packets in cyber attacks carry flags.

    Exactly. Such an idea is rather worthless.

    Threats to networks could come from governments, but they can also come from extremists, corporations, hobbyists, or a legion of meme-spewing 4-channers.

    The targets can be just as varied. They might target corporate networks, government networks, utility infrastructures, or a website that happens to of highly political interest.

    Even if governments agree to such treaties, how do we know that they won't operate secretly anyway, and just blame cyber criminals or rogue groups if they do launch an attack? It's not like data packets in cyber attacks carry flags.

    http://www.jordaner.com
    In outline, michael jordan shoes are current for little players. It is undeniable that are well designed for basketball players and the panel members would better clothes the sports shoes they bestow for. They can wear Jordan shoes when the play basketball and never fear about the luxurious shoes. Anyhow, it proved that air jordans are any people who discover The popularity of extensive Jordan shoes, it is unquestionable that it will be more common. Many Jordan shoes suppliers now present general Jordan shoes at blanket estimate will be good newscast for his devotion to garb Air Jordan 22 shoes when he can to absorb more people to buy.

    http://www.jordaner.com

  44. Re:Stockpiles?...of floppy disks.. by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    They keep bringing up this idea of an "Internet Killswitch" in the states. That could be used to stop both incoming and outgoing attacks.

    An Internet killswitch is about as viable as a perpetual motion machine. Assuming that you could round up all the possible avenues into and out of the united states (and there are a LOT of them, not just a few major landlines), and get the collective owners to agree that a killswtich is a good idea, you can only realistically kill all traffic, since filtering is unrealistic. If you do this, you will cause far more internal economic damage than any hacking attempt could ever cause. Plus, it doesn't stop anything that is happening inside the country. (say, a Russian mob running a phishing botnet remotely.)

    He isn't thinking ahead. My point was that that he is suggesting trying to think about a fundamentally new and different problem using conventional thought. You cannot realistically monitor a countries virtual military activities.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!