Slashdot Mirror
Pentagon Says Cyberattacks Can Count As Act of War
suraj.sun tips news that the Pentagon has decided computer sabotage originating from another country can be classified as an act of war. "The Pentagon's first formal cyber strategy, unclassified portions of which are expected to become public next month, represents an early attempt to grapple with a changing world in which a hacker could pose as significant a threat to US nuclear reactors, subways or pipelines as a hostile country's military." This news comes only days after the Chinese military admitted the existence of a team of cyberwarriors. "The report will also spark a debate over a range of sensitive issues the Pentagon left unaddressed, including whether the US can ever be certain about an attack's origin, and how to define when computer sabotage is serious enough to constitute an act of war. These questions have already been a topic of dispute within the military."
anything is an excuse to go to war. since when did they need to specify?
If attacking an american military installation via the internet is deemed an act of war, then surely exposing it on such a vulnerable network in the first place must count as treason. I mean, who would knowingly place such a valuable (and apparently, easily accessed) facility that's so vital to the defence of the country, in such danger of attack in the first place?
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
The USA fights anything with military force. Be it international justice, drugs, terrorists or whatever.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Things that America does don't count though, right?
The internet hasn't changed the fact that if someone doesn't want to be tied to an 'attack' they can make it hard to tell it was them, or even look like it was someone else.
Chinese hackers using systems located in Russia to hack NSA assets is just as hard to 'prove' as China launching a Russian made ICBM from a submarine disguised as Russian in a location the Russians would likely use etc. Unless the person who attacks you basically tells you they did it to your face (and even then potentially) you're making a judgement as to what happened based on evidence.
Call me daft, by all means, but for some reason I am incredulous that critical systems should be vulnerable to cyber attack. It just feels like something went very wrong at the design stage to allow this to happen. But then I'm not a developer...
Continually at War with some group, product, or idea since 1941.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The USA & Israel jointly developed the Stuxnet worm and launched it against the Iranian nuclear facilities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet
In the first documented and well-confirmed act of cyber-warfare, does this mean that both the USA and Israel have declared war against Iran, and that Iran would be in its rights to strike back at targets in both countries and kill people there?
Gee, this is all we need, yet another war on top of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.
So if a citizen of China, Russia, or Zimbabwe originates a successful (or even mildly irritating) attack against the US government, they will see it as an act of war?
I didn't read TFA, but looks like them terrists can spark a war by simply hacking via *name your country here* proxy.
Let's say that isn't even the case, does the Pentagon think that an international cyber attack is going to just come from an address registered to chinacyberwardivision.cn?
This seems shaky at best to declare war on phantoms... then again it falls right in line with the last decade.
Something witty.
What about SEAL Team 6 invading Pakistan?
The military has its own private network for the real important stuff.
Hence the comment in 2004 by then President Bush about "rumors on the internets that we're going to have a draft". He was referring to the public Internet, the Armed Forces internet, and any organization using an internet on 10.*.
Step 1: Declare computer attacks an act of war Step 2: Claim any entity you don't like is "hacking" you Step 3: Since "hacking" is all technical mumbo jumbo it doesnt matter if you can't prove shit. The president would never lie, would he? Step 4: Bomb the shit out of whoever the bad guys de jour are. Step 5: Shitloads of profit for the military industry, not so much for those who are footing the bill.
Football Odds
on Iran? Stuxnet was a deliberate attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
...can a foreign power do damage to "nuclear reactors, subways or pipelines" via a cyber attack? Seriously, I want to know, this is not a rhetorical question. Are their computer systems connected to an outside network or is there a someone on the inside (a la Stuxnet)?
The real problem is defense contractors that have all sorts of classified material on their computers. We could spent billions on defense related R&D and some third rate country might get that data and even might destroy our copy of the data while they are at it. Or even better, put a hidden bug in the design that will cause us grief when we try to use it in battle. (Of course, it could remain inactive until it is activated by an enemy.)
...our Military itself, and the fact that they repeatedly fail computer security audits year after year. Perhaps conversely it should be considered an act of Treason to perpetuate the lack of security around our critical systems, and hold those accountable who are refusing to spend the money to resolve the issues.
Yeah, I know I'm not the popular guy here asking the Government to actually spend MORE money, but some things need blatant and obvious attention, and allowing our country to go to war because their Windows 98 systems got hacked isn't the answer. I promise that any re-work of computer systems will be cheaper than any war we're pushed (or choose) to engage in. We've pretty much proven than beyond any doubt with the last decade worth of war on terror.
And you thought you knew what your kids were doing in their bedrooms at night.
Personally I think that any country that hides and shelters a terrorist that kills thousands and thousands of the civilians would be considered an act of war. Pakistan should consider itself lucky that its only got a small slap on the wrist by the USA navy seals.
You mean like this guy? This is a guy as bad as Osama, but he just happens to cooperate with the CIA and with "US interests". There are 100s of deaths directly linked to him including bombing of a passenger airliner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles
So is this a little inconvenient truth? Or do you stick with your assertions?
This is interesting, but the premise of the story is old news. There were reports on this when the White House report came out came close to two weeks ago. Some relevant quotes: Countries “have an inherent right to self-defense that may be triggered by certain aggressive acts in cyberspace ... When warranted, the United States will respond to hostile acts in cyberspace as we would to any other threat to our country."
http://joshuaphilipp.com/2011/05/us-faces-a-long-road-in-implementing-new-cyberstrategies/
Also, the Chinese regime openly announced its cyberwarfare command back in July 2010, and it's cyberwarfare units have been known about as early as 2003. A relevant quote:
"The stated missions of the new cyber base appear to complement the PLA's information warfare (IW) units, which the PLA has been developing since at least 2003. The PLA's IW strategy was largely spearheaded by Major General Dai Qingmin, then-director of the PLA’s electronic warfare department (Fourth Department), who advocated a comprehensive information warfare effort (Wall Street Journal, November 1, 2009)."
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=36658&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=7&cHash=4b1746fecc
Adding to this though, it will be interesting to see how much the U.S. actually enforces its new cyberstratey, given that government networks and critical infrastructure are almost constantly hit with cyberattacks from state actors. Back in 2007, Netwarcom was already saying cyber conflicts with China was already at the level of "campaign-style, force-on-force engagement."
http://www.grc.com/sn/files/FCW_on_%20Cyber_Warefare.pdf
I think the key point to keep in mind is that the attacks have to be proportional to that of a traditional conventional military attack. The Pentagon isn't going to drop a cruise missile on some kid because he launched a DDoS attack on a .mil website; that's about the equivalent to that same kid spray painting a recruitment office at night or at most getting a bunch of friends to protest in front of it. They're talking about serious and substantial attacks, the sort that brings down the power grid and blows up infrastructure for which things like Stuxnet merely represent the tip of the iceberg. These sorts of attacks aren't going to be launched by junior accidentally from the basement but are sophisticated and coordinated efforts by governments and organized movements that are deliberately out to destroy and possibly take life.