Slashdot Mirror


North Korea Training "Cyberwarriors" Abroad

jfruhlinger writes "A North Korean defector claims that the secretive totalitarian state is nurturing a team of "cyberwarriors," identifying young people with computer skills and sending them abroad to learn the latest hacking techniques, while lavishing privileges on their families at home to keep them loyal. This could lead to an escalation in tensions, especially given that the US military believes that cyberattacks from foreign countries constitute acts of war."

128 comments

  1. "acts of war" by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, if its state sponsored, i have to agree. An attack on a countries infrastructure is still war.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:"acts of war" by jhoegl · · Score: 1

      Yeah... much like our "Y2K" problems in the 1990s.

      Could Cyber wars launch nukes?
      (Waits to see this on news stations everywhere)

    2. Re:"acts of war" by Chicken_Kickers · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, and remember citizens, if They do it, it is an act of war but if We do it, then it is cybersecurity and intelligence gathering.

      Seriously, at this point, any country not training or hiring CyberWarriors(TM) is behind the times. Except of course American media likes to be jingoistic and xenophobic, what else is new?

    3. Re:"acts of war" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Offcourse that is just as relevant as the US and Israel launching cyber attacks on Iran

    4. Re:"acts of war" by lightknight · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe. But they are running out of white elephants. They need a new enemy, and they need a new one NOW! How else are they going to justify the 2014 budget?

      Crackers / Hackers / Hacktivists (bleh!) are one of those groups that people don't really understand (like Muslims, Chinese, etc.) that makes it easy to say "THEY CAN DO BAD THINGS, JUST LOOK AT THEM!" and no one really knows them well-enough to say otherwise. A little priming ("they might be working with drug dealers and arms smugglers...child pornography and human trafficking"), and the media will take to it the way cancer takes to a prostate gland. That civil rights are being strip-mined and purses looted to fuel these witch hunts does not matter; all that matters is that the Good Guys win in the end. And that the guys with guns and small brains get paid. We really haven't progressed from a feudal society, have we?

      You can't make a typical Marine into a cyber security expert; the skill-sets for either are almost mutually exclusive. This, of course, does not prevent people from buying security certs and taking pointless low-level courses in basic networking, then declaring themselves security experts. Nor will it prevent the congress critters from lavishing their favorite security firms with outlandish contracts which provide no real security.

      I'm not saying that you can't train a Marine into a cyber security expert; what I'm saying is that for every 1 Marine you manage to successfully train, you will have 40,000 hackers / crackers, with higher levels of expertise in the relevant fields, ready to bitch-slap him and his friends off the internet. I think the US government has more to fear from its own people here than foreign governments; and screwing around where it doesn't belong is only going to cause them to lose control that much faster.

      Remember, you have lots of underemployed CS / IT people here in the US, because their jobs got sent overseas. Factor in a screwed up currency and a never-ending recession. You end up with down-trodden, under-payed, over-worked, and typically highly-trained in all that technology class of people. Now tell them that the US government is going to help make things more secure, by mandating that a bunch of ill-trained marines have backdoor access to every important system in the US. That they need to keep port 23423 open at all times, or they will be fined. That they need to configure their systems to use some officially sanctioned software for virus protection, because someone in DC managed to pass a law mandating it.

      They will get a war, but it won't be the one they are preparing for.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    5. Re:"acts of war" by X.25 · · Score: 1

      Well, if its state sponsored, i have to agree. An attack on a countries infrastructure is still war.

      So, USA is in war with Pakistan for quite some time now?

    6. Re:"acts of war" by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Damn, I'm tired of holding my bladder... my popcorn could use a re-fill too. When this act of War is over, can we please have an intermission?

      Or... Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?

    7. Re:"acts of war" by satuon · · Score: 1

      If you're talking about Stuxnet, Israel is the prime suspect.

    8. Re:"acts of war" by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      And if we're talking about Stuxnet, the target was Iran.

    9. Re:"acts of war" by Xest · · Score: 2

      The issue is it lowers the barrier to starting a war, which may mean more wars.

      If a kid in say, Iran hacks into some US infrastructure off his own back and causes damage then with the US' venemous hate of the country, is it sensible that they then fire back with conventional weapons such as a cruise missile? Isn't that a dangerous precedent for escalation?

      Do you draw the line at whether it's state sponsored? what about when you get politicians crying state sponsorship and pushing for war when it's not?

      Honestly, the best option is to make sure your infrastructure isn't vulnerable in the first place. Take critical infrastructure like power plants offline so they can't be hacked via the internet and so forth.

      Creating conditions where any of 6.5bn people on the planet can unilaterally start a war from the comfort of their bedroom is pretty fucking stupid IMHO.

    10. Re:"acts of war" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conventional acts of war are easy to detect and can be verified by the press.

      "Acts of cyberwar" cannot be independently verified. The new definition basically gives the US a carte blanche to bomb the shit out of any country that has at least one computer connected to the internet. But since the US has bombed countries as they liked all the time anyway not much will change.

    11. Re:"acts of war" by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

      I highly doubt a man pedaling a stationary bike powering an Atari is an act of war.

      --
      I8-D
    12. Re:"acts of war" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will get a war, but it won't be the one they are preparing for

      That can work both ways, sweetness.

    13. Re:"acts of war" by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      A few days ago, for the first time in my life ever, I heard an ad recruiting for the CIA on the radio. Yes, I am seriously thinking it might be time to get out, like early 1930's Germany...

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    14. Re:"acts of war" by slackbheep · · Score: 1

      Never let details get in the way of a good theory.

    15. Re:"acts of war" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but we're doing it for different reasons. that shouldn't have to be explained but so many on /. are so obtuse.

    16. Re:"acts of war" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't say it lowers the barrier for war insofar as the standard of evidence is not lowered. While "a kid" launching breaking into a CI systems would hardly constitute an act of war, an organized attack by a state against US CI would. How is a cyberattack which causes strategic levels of damage to the United States any different from a bomb going off and doing the same thing? It's not, it's simply another mode of attack or an attack in an alternate plane. Frankly, I think it goes without saying that conventional attacks are justified by attacks in cyberspace of a certain magnitude. The Pentagon is basically formalizing as doctrine what is already common sense.

      Infrastructure will always be vulnerable, just as real world fortifications are vulnerable given a certain level of resources are leveraged at attacking it. In other words if you put 1000 man hours into defending a given piece of infrastructure and I put 5000 hours into defeating it, all things being equal, chances are pretty good that the infrastructure is going to fall.

      Your assumption that the integration of the digital battlespace into the doctrines of the DoD will result in a sudden loss of rationality seem to me unfounded and implausible. "Some kid" wont be able to start WWIII any more easily than some kid started WWI.... Oh yeah.... ;)

    17. Re:"acts of war" by Beliskner · · Score: 1

      Maybe. But they are running out of white elephants. They need a new enemy, and they need a new one NOW! How else are they going to justify the 2014 budget? Crackers / Hackers / Hacktivists (bleh!) are one of those groups that people don't really understand (like Muslims, Chinese, etc.)

      Ignoring relatively electronically secure infrastructure like nuclear reactors that actually aren't connected to the Internet (and shouldn't be), if an electronic enemy could knock out all VPN connections in the USA then the US economy would be devastated - all the working from home people would be locked out of their systems, this in itself would cause maybe billions of dollars of damages. For this reason alone the expense is justified.

      --
      A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
    18. Re:"acts of war" by forrie · · Score: 1

      Based on the criteria, we'd be "at war" with nearly every modern Internet-connected government in the world.

    19. Re:"acts of war" by cavreader · · Score: 1

      I call BS on the lack of CS/IT jobs in the US and pretty much the rest of the post considering I don't think anyone is expecting to build cyber security team using marines. If you can't find a job either you are not looking very hard or your an idiot. Post a resume on a popular job site and see how many calls you get. I made the mistake of putting my resume online and had over 200 calls and 300+ emails within 4 days. Even after removing my resume 3 months ago I still get an average of 10-15 inquiries a day.

    20. Re:"acts of war" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well when you so stress your ability to coordinate the motion of your hand and mouth, maybe of us become intrigued.

  2. Don't worry by Kitkoan · · Score: 1

    The US has already got their cyber warriors in training for this. They are using the highly sophisticate program/simulation game called "Homefront"

    --
    Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
    1. Re:Don't worry by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The US has already got their cyber warriors in training for this. They are using the highly sophisticate program/simulation game called "Homefront"

      Unfortunately for the USA, 'cyber war' is another form of asymmetrical warfare where the USA's massive budget can't help them.
      Hacker teams require relatively little in the way of resources, while allowing weak militaries to punch far above their weight.
      Worse, a country like North Korea has minimal internet exposure compared to the USA's massive reliance on the internet.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *whoosh*

    3. Re:Don't worry by Kitkoan · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you've never heard of the game "Homefront" about how North Korea invades the US.

      --
      Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
    4. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not true. The US is taking the wrong approach to dealing with security. While it may be useful to have people with the skills who can develop the software which can infiltrate and disrupt a countries essential systems this is not what is going to protect America. Especially if a hostile country is attacking. We may not know who is attacking the US if such attacks are performed by a nation which wishes not be identified. Nothing is preventing Iran from attacking the US in the same way we might have attacked them recently. What we need to do is figure out what hardware is critical to industrial operations and then design new hardware to replace it or at least standardize on it so that the code can be reviewed throughly and even rewritten using better coding practices that make up the drivers and operating systems. Then how can we modularize it so you only have the hardware and software needed for critical industries (Certain systems at Nuclear Power plants and other industrial control systems which have no business being on a network should not have Ethernet cards or other typical components like USB, Firewire, and similar. These standards open holes and we can develop new secure replacements which only allow signed hardware to connect.). Graphics chipsets, network chipsets, CPU, and similar all have code that needs to be reviewed or written from the ground up in a secure fashion (probably better). Everything from the BIOS to the operating system drivers, firmware, and operating software. The modular components should then be designed to be easy to remove and determine what is in fact critical. The operating system which makes it possible to connect to a network (the drivers for instance) should not be installed if the system has no need for an Ethernet port. Do we need an Ethernet port? Can we modularize this? How can we eliminate the ability to hook up an Ethernet module? How can we eliminate electromagnetic radiation in these designs.

    5. Re:Don't worry by mjwx · · Score: 1

      The US has already got their cyber warriors in training for this.

      Whenever I see the word "cyberwarrior" I tend to think "battleship". In the prelude to WWI European powers spent what would equate to tens of billions of today's pounds building battleships that were veritable floating fortresses meant to control the seas giving a decisive advantage. Battleships that spent most of WWI in dock.

      For all the talk, battleships did nothing. It wasn't until generals started thinking "how do I get around this problem" as opposed to "how many men do I have to throw at the enemy guns" did they make progress.

      My prediction, cyberwarriors will be useless in the next war if through nothing else, cutting cables will render them useless. The airgap is an impenetrable defence.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    6. Re:Don't worry by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Then the sooner we are attacked the sooner we build an immune response. Viruses and malware begat resistance by coercing countermeasures.

      What we need, and it's not "nice", is an attack that does real damage and takes down enough systems to force attention.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    7. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Airgap is simple to overcome; although it may take a bit of retrofitting. For LAN, go wireless. For WAN? Back in the '90s, companies had modem pools for people to use remotely... nothing stopping them from doing the same again, but with cell phones and/or packet radio. Slightly lower speeds, but certainly enough to enable connection and data transfer.

    8. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. The USA could leverage her resources to create a more effective cyberwarfare program. More resources translate into more effective training, better technology, more manpower, etc. Some ways I could see this being utilized:

      Training:
      compromising systems faster
      lower detection rate
      greater effect once compromised

      technology:
      faster/more effective code breaking
      faster more/effective target enumeration and analysis
      faster/more effective brute force attacks

      Manpower:
      Better and more various tools
      broader organizational understanding and capabilities
      better/faster/stronger

    9. Re:Don't worry by cavreader · · Score: 1

      The problem with your suggestion is that computer systems are a constantly moving target. Taking the guarantee 100% security in a system would result in taking a very long time. By the time you are done the tech has moved on and your sitting on an outdated system. Some very smart people have been trying to build secure systems for the past 30+ years and there are still no shortages of vulneralbilites and risks. The best defense for critical military and infrastructure systems is isolation from external access and even that can be beat by physical intrusions into a secured facility. The initial payload for Stuxnet was delivered via a thumb drive.

    10. Re:Don't worry by elucido · · Score: 1

      Cutting cables? You obviously don't know what the hell you are talking about if you don't consider the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

      If cables are cut, radiowaves, light waves, microwaves or any other mechanism can be used.

    11. Re:Don't worry by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Cutting cables? You obviously don't know what the hell you are talking about if you don't consider the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

      If you think we connect vital systems by wireless you clearly don't know what the hell you're talking about.

      As soon as any threat presents itself, you simply cut off vital systems from the network. Air gap wins.

      You need to get over your raging hard on for the word "cyber warrior" and come back to reality. If transmissions cannot be secured, we'll do it the old fashioned way, never underestimate the bandwidth of cpl noname with a case of USB drives handcuffed to his wrist.

      Preparing for the "Cyber war" is utterly useless in an age where we cant afford the existing military pork barrel projects. Everything a "Cyber Command" does is already covered under existing cryptography units.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    12. Re:Don't worry by elucido · · Score: 1

      Cutting cables? You obviously don't know what the hell you are talking about if you don't consider the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

      If you think we connect vital systems by wireless you clearly don't know what the hell you're talking about.

      As soon as any threat presents itself, you simply cut off vital systems from the network. Air gap wins.

      You need to get over your raging hard on for the word "cyber warrior" and come back to reality. If transmissions cannot be secured, we'll do it the old fashioned way, never underestimate the bandwidth of cpl noname with a case of USB drives handcuffed to his wrist.

      Preparing for the "Cyber war" is utterly useless in an age where we cant afford the existing military pork barrel projects. Everything a "Cyber Command" does is already covered under existing cryptography units.

      The room would have to be sound proof, light proof, emissions proof, as would all the computers in that room. The air gap would be completely useless if the room leaks emissions. Also the electricity use would have to be masked in such a way so that it cannot be analyzed.

      I'm not saying I know all the precautions that the government is taking, I'm saying just disconnecting a computer from the network by cutting the cable is not enough. Any emissions leak at all will leak information which could be analyzed by the enemy so the network would have to be emission proof, there should be nothing for the enemy to work with. And even then you'd have to worry about inside threats.

  3. they should put in POW camps and the universities by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    They are doing a war act and the universities if they are us should be ad risk of losing alot I say start at must give up all clams / must pay off any student loan debt and maybe even not being accredited any more. The people sent from there need to go into POW better then gitmo but with the risk of going to place like that if they don't give up there intel.

  4. They can't do squat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only internet they know of is North Korean Internet. So help them if they find out that there's an internet outside from North Korea's and that imports from god is actually imports from other countries. As far as they are concern, North Korea is Best Korea!

    1. Re:They can't do squat by nospam007 · · Score: 2

      Exactly, 3 weeks out of North Korea and they'll never go back.

    2. Re:They can't do squat by indeterminator · · Score: 1

      RTFS.

      "sending them abroad to learn the latest hacking techniques, while lavishing privileges on their families at home to keep them loyal", where the privileges probably mean the precious privilege of being alive.

    3. Re:They can't do squat by gtall · · Score: 1

      Or more accurately, the precious privilege of keeping one's family alive.

    4. Re:They can't do squat by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Exactly, 3 weeks out of North Korea and they'll never go back.

      Simply not the case for two main reasons. One, North Korea is not Eastern Europe with a disgruntled population resenting an oppressive government, but essentially a nation of true believers. Their Stalinist propaganda state has reached levels that Stalin only dreamed of. The government not only controls all the methods of communication, but actually has the population believing what they say. It's like an entire national cult, and anybody who might not believe or doubts gets put in a camp along with their family. That gets to two, which is they put a great deal into the family. If somebody screws up, they don't just pay, but their entire family pays. Defector's families go to camps. Piss off a party member and your entire family gets moved to some even worse part of NK and will never get a good job again. That they are even allowed enough education to find out they are good at hacking means they come from a loyal family to begin with. To defect, they'd have to not only betray their country, but also their family and upbringing. Traditionally, defectors only happened when they found out their heads were to be put on the block in the short future. In the choice between dieing and having their families go to camps, they chose to defect and have their families go to camps. These days, the lower classes are defecting more and more to SK but point one kicks in and they find it difficult to even understand it and some even go back, or then two kicks in and they end up sending money back home. It's even suspected that NK is sending workers to SK so they can send money back home, where it is collected by the government.

  5. Deluge of scaremongering on /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There must be a really nasty, privacy eviscerating, 4th Amendment demolishing piece of legislation that's worse than the Patriot Act making it's way through Congressional committees for all of these fucking "Cyberwarrior" stories to keep appearing in the press. Aren't there some shark attacks, or killer tornadoes that the press can cover rather than this bullshit? And why are Slashdot editors contributing to the generation of such needless fear and paranoia by promoting these crap articles on the front page? You should know better.(wags finger)

  6. What could possibly go wrong? by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Funny

    So, the totalitarian state with a complete control of the news sends its best and most idealistic young men outside the country, to learn about the internet, with the idea that they will go back home and use their knowledge to destroy the foreign enemies.

    A fiendish plan. How could it possibly go wrong?

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by lennier · · Score: 1

      A fiendish plan. How could it possibly go wrong?

      All those new Farmville and Mafia Wars players? I think the Internet is unprepared for an attack of that magnitude.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    2. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nothing, because they know if they defect or otherwise do wrong by the state then their families will be put in forced labor camps, 3 generations worth.

    3. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by stumblingblock · · Score: 1

      What could go wrong? Try to find someone who has lived in Korea, esp. rural area. People who can be very devoted to their principals. Family being held just in case.

    4. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by BenJCarter · · Score: 1

      LoL! I wonder how many post on /.?

      --
      For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
    5. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by indiechild · · Score: 1

      I know your comment is supposed to be funny, but on the serious side I doubt these youngsters would turn on the NK regime. They're so thoroughly brainwashed they're far more likely to remain loyal to the bitter end.

    6. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by satuon · · Score: 1

      And more importantly, while they are sent abroad, their families are not.

    7. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      Can't; not with their family held hostage.

    8. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A fiendish plan. How could it possibly go wrong?

      It couldn't, really. Why do you think they'll be heaping benefits on these guys' families? It's the carrot, and the unspoken (or perhaps loudly-spoken, I don't know how these things work in North Korea) alternative is the stick.

      "Nice family ya got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it."

    9. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I think the Internet can't handle firepower of that magnitude.

      FTFY.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    10. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      (cyberwarior to Kim Jong Il): You pull back on the slingshot, and hurl the bird over to knock down the pig's fort...

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    11. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Who says that people with programming skills necessarily represent the "best" and most idealistic of their young men? Isn't that a tad biased?
      Oh right, this is Slashdot.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    12. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't; not with their family held hostage.

      Agree. This is they way they force people to mole for decades if need be.

  7. Why? we had no Y2K issue in the 90's. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    The Y2 issue was a 00 issue.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Why? we had no Y2K issue in the 90's. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I thought it was a 19100 issue.

  8. Who was the audience by JinjaontheNile · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Defector says something host country wants to hear
    Who would of thought such a thing would happen? . .

    1. Re:Who was the audience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of reminds me of "Curveball", the Iraqi defector who cried wolf just to trick Bush into invasion. I can't say I blame him. If I was oppressed, I would do everything in my power to use a foreign nation as a weapon too.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2011/feb/15/curveball-lies-us-war-iraq-video

    2. Re:Who was the audience by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      Defector says something host country wants to hear

      Who would of thought such a thing would happen?.

      You apparently. Only accurate information is useful. And, of course, I'm sure it would never occur to you that the information would be cross-checked? That's what I figured.....

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    3. Re:Who was the audience by JinjaontheNile · · Score: 2

      Your lack of cynicism is awe inspiring
      Which story would sell more papers "North Koreans get scholarship to study computing abroad" or "North Korean CyberWarriors being train abroad"
      Only information that agrees with a predetermined position is useful (in politics anyway)
      Case in point, the information from defectors that formed the Iraqi National Congress.
      All the information was in complete disagreement with the UN weapons Inspections - Guess which group was denigrated?
      yep the one that disagreed with the predetermined position
      There are many other examples I could choose (creationism anyone)
      Basically, if you don't know the underlying reason for a statement, you have no chance of determining the probability of truth
      My bias is simple, I hate the term cyberwarrior
      (Cyber anything = tabloid shit = don't trust)

    4. Re:Who was the audience by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      Accurate information is everything. Unfortunately, the British and US intelligence agencies pushed for war based on such wonderful intelligence like some poor chaps university essay, hearsay and outright lies.

      I wonder if the costly embarrassment that was the Iraq invasion could have been avoided if actual cross-checking had taken place...

    5. Re:Who was the audience by gtall · · Score: 1

      Actually, the U.S. Intelligence agencies pushed AGAINST war on the grounds they didn't trust the intelligence. It was the Bush administration that twisted it to promote the war. Geeze, at least get your history straight.

    6. Re:Who was the audience by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      I'd love to see any actual evidence supporting your "version" of events, because thats not what I've seen - the US intelligence agencies were falling over themselves trying to supply supporting evidence to the Bush administration.

  9. Re:they should put in POW camps and the universiti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are doing a war act and the universities if they are us should be ad risk of losing alot I say start at must give up all clams / must pay off any student loan debt and maybe even not being accredited any more.

    The people sent from there need to go into POW better then gitmo but with the risk of going to place like that if they don't give up there intel.

    Dude, you write like a drunken, retarded, brain-damaged crackhead. I regret the possibility that I am insulting crackheads. Seriously, you are a functionally illiterate jackass who was enormously short-changed by his so-called "teachers". They have failed you and now you follow their example by failing on your own. It's just a gigantic string of interrelated failures. Learn some English and learn some style, for fuck's sake!

  10. Learn it from whom? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

    Who do they think these guys are going to learn from? Most of the "hacker underground" just wants some lulz or quick and easy cash these days. If the North Koreans think they are going to get their spies in touch with the Stuxnet authors, they have another thing coming.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Learn it from whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True story. But a great education in computer science and some good classes in computer security, etc. is not a bad start either.

      But remember... (North Korea) != (Logic)

    2. Re:Learn it from whom? by Guppy · · Score: 1

      Who do they think these guys are going to learn from? Most of the "hacker underground" just wants some lulz or quick and easy cash these days.

      Given North Korea's perpetual shortage of hard currency, this last part may very well be exactly what they're looking for.

  11. Meanwhile... by girlintraining · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, back on the home front, applicants for the US Air Force's Cyber Command are redirected to a website with no working links for which to submit their resume, ask questions, or express their interest in any meaningful way. Those who spend hours on the phone trying to track down a recruiter who actually knows the requirements will eventually be told they don't qualify because of age, their eyesight is too bad, or that a (deceased) member of their family was involved in anti-war protesting fifty years ago, and so they would never qualify for a security clearance. The best of the best of the best... see rules for official details. Some restrictions may apply.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Meanwhile... by gmuslera · · Score: 2

      If those are obstacles for you then you are not qualified.

    2. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... applicants for the US Air Force's Cyber Command are redirected to a website with no working links for which to submit their resume, ask questions, or express their interest in any meaningful way ...

      That's the point - if you're not good enough to find your way in, you're of no use. ;)

    3. Re:Meanwhile... by girlintraining · · Score: 2

      If those are obstacles for you then you are not qualified.

      Until recently, being gay made you not qualified. Do you think every barrier to entry is justified, or is it just possible that our military is being inflexible and depriving themselves of talent because of it?

      A person's age, sex, sexual orientation, poor eyesight, or even disability isn't a hinderance in this line of work: all that is required is a brain and a way of getting information in and out of it. Every asset the military deprives themselves of because of their ass-backwards recruitment policy is another one that other interests can (and will) take advantage of.

      And before you start yammering with the same tired crap about "not being qualified" ... there's ample history and recent evidence to support the notion that terrorists and foreign interests heavily recruit people who fail to meet said qualifications. Oh yeah, and they pay better too.

      One last thing: Just remember that China has more honors students than we have students. Can we really afford to be that picky in this theatre?

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    4. Re:Meanwhile... by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Of course. The entrance exam is breaking into the relevant server, and adding your name to the list of applicants.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    5. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what you fail to realize is when you join a SERVICE you are becoming a member of the profession of arms. There is more too it than just being job qualified, you must also qualify to fight with all of your faculties. On top of that, the service best qualified for this type of action (Air Force) is actively working to kick people out! There is no room for the fat 40 year old with bad eyesight with no value other than experience in the security field. Civilian workforce hasn't given you the experience needed for these specific activities anyway.

      Sending some young buck with aptitude and a willingness to learn will significantly outweigh the former option. It only gets better when you realize that they are able to fulfill the duties required of the service on top of their job. I have seen what happens when people who are lazy (and yes, being of the correct age but unfit makes you lazy) in one aspect of their live - they generally do not meet the standards placed upon them in other areas. The system works, but when the hot-shot feels they are above established processes decide they don't need to apply themselves the same as others, _every_ area of a job and mission is affected. This also goes for people set in their ways as many old-timers to similar fields may be. Of those witnessed, the young 'noob' if given any amount of spin-up time more than outpaces the experienced.

      If you really want to get involved, and think you can go through a background check without whining about it the whole time, work at the NSA or CIA or other governmental agency that you fancy. I have a feeling that very few possess the drive necessary to enter this field and are merely angry at themselves for this fact.

    6. Re:Meanwhile... by lightknight · · Score: 1

      What if you aren't interested in applying, but just want to borrow their servers for the weekend? You know, for a Botnet or something really insane like.BitCoin generators on every server + client I can find on that subnet? If Congress can sell our national forests to foreigners, I call dibs on the NSA super-cluster.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    7. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're looking in the wrong place. AFCYBER was provisional. You want the joint command USCYBERCOM (of which the AF has a part ... 24th AF being the numbered component).

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

      I think you've missed the joke.

  12. More stick than carrot by blind+biker · · Score: 2

    If you think the psychopathic dictators in North Korea use carrots to keep expats loyal, you're crazy. Their families are held hostage - to the extreme. These expats know full well that, should they fail to return, their families will be moved to one of many NK concentration camps (best scenario) or just summarily executed (more likely).

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:More stick than carrot by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      And remember kids, the places outside the prison camps are the "garden spots" of North Korea, with a much better night life, and day life, or any life at all, for that matter.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  13. "Lavishing privileges on their families at home" by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    So......do they actually let their families have electricity for a few hours a day? Maybe even give them a bit of rice every now and then?

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  14. Re:they should put in POW camps and the universiti by exomondo · · Score: 1

    They are doing a war act and the universities if they are us should be ad risk of losing alot

    So universities shouldn't accept students from Korea? Or China?

  15. Sensational? by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 1

    If the Internet is going to be a theater of future conflicts, then isn't it sensible for *all* countries to have some aptitude in the area? Has the US sworn off having any "cyberwarriors" of its own? Or is there really going to be one set of rules for the US and another set of rules for the rest of the world?

    1. Re:Sensational? by emt377 · · Score: 1

      If the Internet is going to be a theater of future conflicts, then isn't it sensible for *all* countries to have some aptitude in the area? Has the US sworn off having any "cyberwarriors" of its own? Or is there really going to be one set of rules for the US and another set of rules for the rest of the world?

      All countries have them, at least any first and second world, and those in the third world with the resources. Clearly if you're going to attack a country you want to lead with a disruption of their infrastructure and media. It doesn't matter if you hit a refinery with a cruise missile or shut down its computers - the result is the same, and it'll serve the same purpose.

    2. Re:Sensational? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      The Second World were Communist Bloc countries, there is only one of those left, Cuba.

      Vietnam, Eastern Europe, the People's Republic of China, Mongolia, even Albania have moved on economically and politically.

  16. Let's rephrase this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Republican fearmongering says we need to invade North Korea.

    1. Re:Let's rephrase this. by NFN_NLN · · Score: 1

      Republican fearmongering says we need to invade North Korea.

      Don't be silly. North Korea *actually* has nukes. The US has no problem invading people *suspected* of having nukes, but hell if they'll set foot in any place that actually has them. They had plenty of legitimate opportunities to invade North Korea and just shrugged it off. 1) North Korea routinely threatens the South AND the US. 2) They aren't bullshitting - they've actually sunk SK military ships, bombed islands, kidnapped people from the south, counterfeit US currency, etc, etc 3) They openly test above ground nuclear weapons and *long range* missiles in an attempt to put Japan in range WHO IS NOT allowed to have a military (Plus they have the balls to use the word "dong" to name their missile name... Type-of-Dong which would make getting deep-throated by one that much more humiliating) 5) Any threat to Japan is a threat to the US who is in charge of protecting them in exchange for giving up the military.

      But none of these compare at all to an OPEC member threatening to sell oil in Euros.

    2. Re:Let's rephrase this. by anagama · · Score: 1

      Since when has fear mongering been solely a Republican vice? Remember Senator Clinton got right in line behind Bush to start the Iraq fiasco ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtK9AzcU42g ), and Obama has gotten us into a third war.

      The only hope we have is that China will stop lending us money to blow up shit, but neither Democrats nor Republicans have demonstrated any motivation to decelerate our entry into any war possible.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    3. Re:Let's rephrase this. by anagama · · Score: 2

      N. Korea has no oil (*), nor is it in any shipping lanes. It's safe.

      Libya: oil exporter
      Iraq: oil exporter
      Afghanistan: Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (proposed Natural Gas route)

      (*) Well maybe a little -- an estimated 12 million barrels: http://www1.korea-np.co.jp/pk/072nd_issue/98120202.htm
      For context, the US burns 19.15m barrels per day, so N. Korea's potential reserves amount to about a 15 hour supply for the US. In other words, N. Korea has no oil.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    4. Re:Let's rephrase this. by bky1701 · · Score: 2

      "WHO IS NOT allowed to have a military (Plus they have the balls to use the word "dong" to name their missile name... Type-of-Dong which would make getting deep-throated by one that much more humiliating) 5) Any threat to Japan is a threat to the US who is in charge of protecting them in exchange for giving up the military."

      Totally false. Japan spends almost as much on their military as the United Kingdom. They just don't call it one.

      http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?cid=GPD_42

      Japan: (1/100)*5068996399491 = 5.07 10^10 UK: 2174529808278*(2.7/100) = 5.87 10^10

      By some (possibly more reliable) estimates, it is more: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/jda.htm

    5. Re:Let's rephrase this. by lightknight · · Score: 1

      We don't know that. We should send some prospectors in there just to be sure. Maybe we will find some gold? I think the US Treasury is going to need some soon...

      --
      I am John Hurt.
  17. Re:they should put in POW camps and the universiti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speak slowly, I don't understand retard

  18. It's North Korea by Danny0109 · · Score: 1

    If you haven't noticed yet, these people can get really good at anything they set their mind to. They have crazy work ethic, they can work themselves to death. Of course there is not much to do in North Korea other than work and sleep. And having your family hold hostage probably helps too. You do know how they identify the potential hackers? They pick them from geek forums like this.

  19. sardaukar? by e3m4n · · Score: 1

    Sounds like kim jun ill might have done a bit of frank herbert reading. Isn't that how the emperor kept the sardaukar loyal? by telling them that it was a test all along and that they were the best of the best, then lavish perks on them.

  20. "Act of War" by savi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    except when such cyber warfare is directed at Iran by a join Israel/U.S. operation. Then it's just ... uh. Definitely not war.

    1. Re:"Act of War" by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      The US and Iran have been engaged in open and proxy warfare since the US Embassy Hostage Crisis in 1979. Then the Persian Gulf and Operation Preying Mantis while Iran backed Hezbollah and had the Revolutionary Guards fighting the US and France in Lebanon.

      Iran and Israel have had openly hostile relations since 1979.

      US bombing Iranian naval units, Iran blowing up embassies in Lebanon, Iran arming Hezbollah to attack Israel or Israel committing industrial sabotage against Iran, it all stems from the Islamic Revolution of '78-79

    2. Re:"Act of War" by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      More or less "cyberwarfare" is espionage. Yes, espionage can be a justification to start a war, but more often than not it'll be a diplomatic incident where everyone adversely affected pretends that they're a doe eye innocent with no spies of their own, and it's really just everyone having a good laugh at country X getting their hand caught in the cookie jar.

    3. Re:"Act of War" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Classify it as an act of war. So what.

      This isn't a point of morality. Its a diplomatic and legal statement intended to inform other countries of America's likely response. Iran could declare war in response to Stuxnet if they liked. It just wouldn't be very smart.

    4. Re:"Act of War" by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      "Act of War" except when such cyber warfare is directed at Iran by a join Israel/U.S. operation. Then it's just ... uh. Definitely not war

      So, your thinking is what? That poor, peaceful Iran is being picked on? That the mean old US and Israel started a war on blameless Iran? Apart from the fact that you are speculating about the source of Stuxnet, the outrage is purely imaginary. If anything, Iran is lucky things aren't worse for it given its reckless, murderous behavior.

      Israel Seizes Cargo Ship Carrying Tons of Iranian Weapons Bound For Hamas in Gaza

      Hezbollah's stockpile bigger, deadlier

      In the 2006 war, Hezbollah fired thousands of rockets into northern Israel. Most were inaccurate, short-range models, but the attacks killed at least 39 civilians and had a profound psychological effect on Israelis....

      Hezbollah now has about 27,000 rockets and missiles, more than double its supply before the 2006 war, Israeli officials say. Acquisitions include Iranian missiles capable of hitting Tel Aviv, they allege.

      "We know without a doubt that the international embargo on the transfer of weapons to Hezbollah has been deliberately violated by the governments of Iran and Syria," said Mark Regev, an Israeli government spokesman.

      The U.S. government, which has designated Hezbollah a terrorist group, accuses Iran of providing arms, training and millions of dollars. Syria also has emerged as an arms supplier, not just a conduit for Iranian arms, Israeli officials say.

      Iran Builds Rockets to Arm Hezbollah, Deter Sanctions (Update2)

      August 4, 2006 06:05 EDT
      Aug. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Many of the rockets Hezbollah is firing into Israel are made in Iran, demonstrating the Islamic republic's success in copying Chinese and Russian technology to build its own weapons industry.

      The Shiite Muslim group's arsenal includes Iranian-built portable Katyusha rockets, Israeli Reserve Brigadier General Yossi Kuperwasser said. Hezbollah struck an Israeli ship on July 14 with an Iranian-made C802 Noor guided missile. The militia also has Iran's Zelzal rocket, with a range of 120 miles, enough to reach Tel Aviv from south Lebanon, said Yaakov Amidror, a retired major general who ran Israel's National Defense College.

      List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2011
      List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2010
      List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2009
      List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2008

      Iran says can cut energy to Europe, hit enemies (Reuters)

      28 February 2010
      Iran could make European countries suffer by cutting off energy supplies and can target any adversary with its missiles, a senior Iranian military official said on Sunday....

      “Iran is standing on 50 percent of the world’s energy and should it so decide Europe will have to spend the winter in cold,” Hossein Salami, deputy commander of the elite Revolutionary Guards, said in a meeting with war veterans and volunteers in Kerman, according to Fars news agency.

      “Our missiles are now able to target any spot in which the conspirators are in, and the c

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    5. Re:"Act of War" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awwww, poor defenseless little Israel - after all it only has 200+ nukes and first dibs on the best US technology to keep the whole anti-semitic world at bay.
      .

  21. Re:they should put in POW camps and the universiti by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 0
    Joe:

    They are doing a war act and the universities if they are us should be ad risk of losing alot I say start at must give up all clams / must pay off any student loan debt and maybe even not being accredited any more. The people sent from there need to go into POW better then gitmo but with the risk of going to place like that if they don't give up there intel.

    He does have a point, dude. North Korea's posturing with `ping -f usa.usa.usa.usa' over 9600 baud modems and Estes-quality nukes ain't got shit on Joe Seung-Hui.

  22. War by njhunter · · Score: 1

    We're technically still at war with North Korea, at least they still think we are. We're really going to get them now...

    1. Re:War by gman003 · · Score: 2

      Actually, the state of war is officially recognized. The Korean War has not yet officially ended - while a cease-fire and an armistice were signed, a peace treaty has not, and neither side has withdrawn their declaration of war. And, as the numerous infiltration tunnels violated Article 1, Paragraphs 7-9 of the Korean Armistice Agreement, and the Yeonpyeong shelling violated Article 2, Paragraph 12, you could argue that even the armistice has been abrogated, and that a full state of war legally exists.

  23. What is a Cyberwarrior? by RiotGear · · Score: 1

    Cyberwarrior is the most ridiculous piece of psy-op, misinformation the public is bombarded with. A Cyberwarrior is no more a "Warrior" than my tea-cup poodle is a "Guard" dog. We do need skilled computer scientist, information security specialist, cryptologist, and cryptanalyst to fight against those who would stage attacks against freedom loving internet enthusiasts. But "Warriors" they are not. If you don't agree with me, then you don't agree with the dictionary either....I have no love for North Korea but they are only trying to protect themselves from the (US Government and Israel) which the evidence points to them as the aggressors in the Iranian Nuclear Power Plant computer virus...

    1. Re:What is a Cyberwarrior? by sco08y · · Score: 1

      Cyberwarrior is the most ridiculous piece of psy-op, misinformation the public is bombarded with. A Cyberwarrior is no more a "Warrior" than my tea-cup poodle is a "Guard" dog.

      My late grandmother actually had a tiny little poodle that successfully drove off a home invader. Not sure if it was quite teacup-sized, but it definitely earned the title guard dog.

      We do need skilled computer scientist, information security specialist, cryptologist, and cryptanalyst to fight against those who would stage attacks against freedom loving internet enthusiasts. But "Warriors" they are not. If you don't agree with me, then you don't agree with the dictionary either....I have no love for North Korea but they are only trying to protect themselves from the (US Government and Israel) which the evidence points to them as the aggressors in the Iranian Nuclear Power Plant computer virus...

      At least in the Army, the term "warrior" now tends to mean someone who is anything but. After all, everyone who actually does fight has a term for them, I was in the Cavalry, and we're all scouts or cavalry troopers or, sometimes, avatars of awesomeness, the infantry are grunts, infants, special folk, the artillery are arty, gun bunnies or meatrockets.

      And the support personnel were cooks, mechanics, riggers, commo, clerks, whatever. Not that life was good back then, or the Army ran particularly well, or anything like that. In fact, there were all kinds of problems, and the commonality was that the solutions looked impressive, made for bilious speeches and no results were expected until that general had moved on to another assignment.

      So at some point someone noticed that the Marines were all called Marines (at least twice per sentence, semper fi, Marine, ooh rah!) and decided that obviously something that worked well for a tiny service with a tightly focused mission would work just as well for an incredibly huge organization whose mission includes replacing large portions of an existing government for an unspecified period of time.

      I think it was also part of the self-esteem building bullshit that had become vogue in the great circle-jerk of the higher echelons. This all jumped the shark when they decided that everyone should get a black beret to feel special. But before that, they renamed stuff, so Professional Leadership Development Course became Warrior Leaders Course. All the various facilities and ad hoc organizations got Warrior stamped in their name, Warriors' Hall, Warriors' Field, Warrior Platoon, whatever. I didn't realize how widespread it was until I actually worked with pogues for a year. I even debated it, point counterpoint style:

      "We go to war, so we're warriors."
      "As a fucking cook, and even then all you do is reheat shitty food."
      "We get shot at too!"
      "That would make you 'targets', not warriors."

      You'll also see Soldiers as a generic term if you read publications like Army Times, again capitalized to ape the Marines. Of course, if you know what "soldiering" actually means, that's actually truth in advertising. But calling someone a "warrior" who can barely shoot straight has been happening for at least 10 years now.

    2. Re:What is a Cyberwarrior? by elucido · · Score: 1

      Disagree.

      A cyber warrior is as much of a warrior as a pilot or a sniper. Sure a pilot or a sniper doesn't necessarily take as much or the same kind of risk as the guy kicking in doors, but a sniper can be counter sniped. A pilot can be shot to pieces.

      A hacker can be hacked, and disappeared by counter intelligence.

    3. Re:What is a Cyberwarrior? by sco08y · · Score: 1

      Disagree.

      A cyber warrior is as much of a warrior as a pilot or a sniper. Sure a pilot or a sniper doesn't necessarily take as much or the same kind of risk as the guy kicking in doors, but a sniper can be counter sniped. A pilot can be shot to pieces.

      I didn't actually address the question of whether they were warriors or not. My point was more that the term, which was already fairly archaic, has become a meaningless buzzword.

      When there's an engagement, you generally have the combat units and everyone else. The combat units rehearse battle drills and plans and such, and everyone else's job is to get out of the way. No doubt, the support personnel shoot back when they have to, they take big risks, and their service is perfectly honorable. But their role is not combat oriented, and it's wrongheaded to conflate the two.

      Example: you have a convoy. Some trucks are convoy security, some trucks might be EOD. The security elements are the combat elements, they are in charge of the mission and if there is conctact, EOD stick with whatever truck they're assigned to, and don't go off engaging the enemy unless they're returning fire.

      And, pardon my vagueness, but I've actually done something close to what "cyberwarriors" might. Though I was also a gunner at the time, this was an additional tactic that was part of our battle plan. But this wasn't about inflicting casualties, rather it was degrading the capacity of the enemy. Computers and radios don't inflict physical damage, and war is still about killing the enemy and occupying territory.

      That's really part of why it's a concern that the DoD wants to consider "cyberattacks" to be acts of war. It might be warranted, I'm not sure, but it's very much expanding the scope of what can get us into war.

      A hacker can be hacked, and disappeared by counter intelligence.

      How?! You watch too many movies.

    4. Re:What is a Cyberwarrior? by elucido · · Score: 1

      I didn't actually address the question of whether they were warriors or not. My point was more that the term, which was already fairly archaic, has become a meaningless buzzword.

      When there's an engagement, you generally have the combat units and everyone else. The combat units rehearse battle drills and plans and such, and everyone else's job is to get out of the way. No doubt, the support personnel shoot back when they have to, they take big risks, and their service is perfectly honorable. But their role is not combat oriented, and it's wrongheaded to conflate the two

      That is my point. I don't consider cyber warriors "support personnel" in an information war, I consider them to be the main unit. In these new kinds of war which don't involve conventional weapons it's pointless to think of the hacker as the support personnel. In a conventional war where you are dealing with conventional weaponry, the hackers would be the ones to disrupt enemy communication. In an unconventional war the hackers may be the main units leading the revolution, civil war, etc. They also will be the first to be captured, tortured or disappeared. At the same time their actions can cause people to be killed as well, such as if the society is violently homophobic and the hackers plant evidence of homosexuality on the computer of the enemy. The sort of psychological, or information based attacks represent entirely new forms of war. Information can kill in many cases or cause people to be killed, for this reason it's not as simple where you can think of them as support personnel.

      That being said how much longer do you think hackers can last if they aren't trained to shoot and kill? I think it's a combination of both. You can have hackers who are mercenaries, who track and kill terrorists using computer technology. I just don't think it's as clear cut as saying someone who is a cyber warrior isn't or shouldn't be trained to be a sniper, or to do assassination missions, as I don't see why a cyber warrior couldn't be trained to do all out war using unconventional weapons.

      Example: you have a convoy. Some trucks are convoy security, some trucks might be EOD. The security elements are the combat elements, they are in charge of the mission and if there is conctact, EOD stick with whatever truck they're assigned to, and don't go off engaging the enemy unless they're returning fire.

      And, pardon my vagueness, but I've actually done something close to what "cyberwarriors" might. Though I was also a gunner at the time, this was an additional tactic that was part of our battle plan. But this wasn't about inflicting casualties, rather it was degrading the capacity of the enemy. Computers and radios don't inflict physical damage, and war is still about killing the enemy and occupying territory

      Yes but in unconventional wars you aren't going to want to kill with a gun when you can kill in an undetectable fashion. If the enemy doesn't know you are coming, it certainly would be a useful skill to have the ability to use information weapons to confuse or disrupt the enemy while at the same time kill the enemy. It makes perfect sense if one person could do multiple things. So if you can leverage information.technology, but you also can assassinate/kill, this seems could be useful as well. The point I'm trying to make is I don't think we know for sure what wars of the future will look like or what skills will be required but if we are talking about urban warfare or unconventinonal warfare, guns and tanks probably wont be the best way to go about it and inflicting mass casualties probably wouldnt be the best way to launch a revolution for example. In that specific kind of war, I could see cyber warriors being the main fighting unit. Like in Libya for example where the goal is to remove or change the regime, they aren't going to want to go gun for gun in a conventional war, they are going to want to use guerilla tactics and leverage advanced technologies. In these sorts of wars

  24. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    North Korea. Cyberwarriors.

    LOL

  25. Not Soviet or Russian... by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    In Dictatorship of North Korea : You Hack Government!

  26. And in other news... by purplie · · Score: 1

    Also, North Korea is developing nuclear weapons. This could lead to an escalation of tensions, given that the US military believes that nuclear attacks constitute acts of war.

  27. If NK wants to be a real threat... by matunos · · Score: 1

    ...they should do that with some economists, and maybe try to feed their people.

    1. Re:If NK wants to be a real threat... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Just not American economists.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  28. a little anecdote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a final year undergrad for an IT Security degree, this wouldn't surprise me as I know in my course we have a North Korean quietly studying by himself and he doesn't really talk to anyone else.

  29. War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, the USA can only declare war through an act of Congress. It's written, right there, in the Constitution.

    The last time it happened was late in 1941, though. Since then there's been Korea, Vietnam, the invasion of Grenada, Afghanistan, Iraq twice...

    Seems they can just ignore the goddamned piece of paper at will.

    AC

  30. Since When? by Ventriloquate · · Score: 1

    "This could lead to an escalation in tensions, especially given that the US military believes that cyberattacks from foreign countries constitute acts of war."

    *cough CHINA cough*

  31. Re:"Lavishing privileges on their families at home by indeterminator · · Score: 1

    They are not put to a prison camp. If their offspring defects, that privilege is revoked.

  32. For We Have no WalMart by SEWilco · · Score: 1

    Of course they have to send computer students to study computers in places where computers exist.

  33. north korea by dovydasm · · Score: 1

    north korea the best korea

  34. Amazing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many more laughable propaganda pieces about North Korea can the US Government push? Despite being a joke ever since Matt Stone and Trey Parker first lampooned Kim Jong-il, the US seems convinced it can finish the Bush-era propaganda effort and finally convince Americans that the DPRK must be destroyed or turned into a state capitalist puppet. Kim is even less believable as a supervillain than Ahmadinejad, considering he can't afford to pave the roads in Pyongyang to hold military parades, much less field an army or send Asian cyberninjas to attack the World of Warcraft server farms. Don't dignify US propaganda by publishing or responding to it. It's stupid, bigoted garbage.

  35. Not entirely true by elucido · · Score: 1

    A cyber team would need botnets. Good computers. Expensive software.
    Little in the way of resources? You can't even crack passwords without a decently powered computer or series of computers to do it.

    Yes you might be able to do it with a PS3 and sure it's cheaper to pay for cyber warriors than for airforce pilots or something like that, but it's cheaper on paper than it will be in practice.

    Finally it depends on the kind of attack. Not every attack requires a lot of money or resources. The expense would come in the form of support. If someone is going to hack some important network they are going to need state of the art communications equipment and this wont be chap. They will need support which might require satellite images and other help which once again wont be cheap.

    On the other hand if you just want them to DDOS a bunch of websites and act like script kiddies this sort of "hacking" doesn't require any support because anybody could do it, and it's relatively easy.

  36. Better tools/weapons, better hardware/faster tools by elucido · · Score: 1

    If you have better hardware to run your botnet on, you can crack passwords faster, crash servers faster via DDOS, or do many things better.

    Beyond this for coordination, communication and intelligence high technology is essential. Satellites aren't cheap. Truly secure encrypted communication mechanisms aren't cheap. None of this stuff will be cheap.

    North Koreans do not have the advantage in computing power. They might have the advantage in man power, training, skill, but not in computing power. This means everything you are saying is right and that cyberwarfare will require a lot of resources but I think the resources would mainly be support resources. I don't think training will be all that necessary, theres more than enough people with the skill in the USA. The problem is organizing them.

    Step one, create a service and draft people. Step two, fully fund the service and the missions. Step three, pay for the best tools, best hardware, best support team.

    Whatever the US is doing right now obviously isn't working. The US (at least the FBI) last I checked is still focused on crime fighting, on child porn, and on everything but cyberwarfare. Cyber crime isn't really the same problem as cyberwarfare. Cyberwarfare is backed by a state while cybercrime usually results in a lot of American hackers being arrested over stupid charges.

  37. They will probably recruit by elucido · · Score: 1

    They'll probably recruit from the underground. Since the underground needs cash, North Korea would probably just offer cash for code.
    Then they'll read the code, learn to write their own code, and thats how they'll learn.

    The Stuxnet authors? You think they are the only skilled programmers? They are the skilled programmers recognized by the government, probably with clearance, but not the only skilled programmers. The North Korens can target game developers and find programmers with an equal level of skill if not greater.

  38. Bribery. by elucido · · Score: 1

    I doubt these North Koreans have a better choice. They either serve North Korea and their families get privileges or they don't an their families get tortured or killed.

    Since nobody knows exactly what goes on in North Korea, the privilege could be allowing them to stay alive.

  39. Cyberwarrior? by elucido · · Score: 1

    That is a good question. Nobody actually defines what a cyber warrior is. I assume it's any hacker or former hacker who helps the feds.

    The government needs to decide what a cyber warrior is and what their mission is. That being said anyone who risks their life and who fights in war is either a soldier or a warrior. Hackers get killed, hackers risk their lives, so they are warriors as much as anybody else, but they are information warriors.

  40. Further more by mjwx · · Score: 1

    If cables are cut, radiowaves, light waves, microwaves or any other mechanism can be used.

    Each of these technologies requires a base station, a point of ingress into an internal network. You cant simply just beam a microwave signal into nowhere. If a country wanted to cut itself off from the internet, it would be quite easy as you can simply shut down the transmitters and outgoing routers.

    Where did you learn about wide area networking?

    Or wireless, I'm yet to see a wireless technology that did not require a receiver. That would a physical bit of hardware that can be shut down, well, physically.

    Countries like Thailand and China already control all the points of interconnect for data, it wouldn't be hard for the US or UK to completely isolate themselves if the need arises (they simply have more points of interconnect to send troops to). But what is more likely is that vital infrastructure is simply removed from the public grid. An air gap can easily be gated by a human. When Mil.net 1 wants to send something to Mil.net 2, the data can be loaded onto USB key, a Pvt simply moves this from the private USB slot to the public USB slot where it can be transmitted (or just carries the key over manually).

    Seriously, what do they teach people about network security these days.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    1. Re:Further more by elucido · · Score: 1

      If cables are cut, radiowaves, light waves, microwaves or any other mechanism can be used.

      Each of these technologies requires a base station, a point of ingress into an internal network. You cant simply just beam a microwave signal into nowhere. If a country wanted to cut itself off from the internet, it would be quite easy as you can simply shut down the transmitters and outgoing routers.

      Where did you learn about wide area networking?

      Or wireless, I'm yet to see a wireless technology that did not require a receiver. That would a physical bit of hardware that can be shut down, well, physically.

      Countries like Thailand and China already control all the points of interconnect for data, it wouldn't be hard for the US or UK to completely isolate themselves if the need arises (they simply have more points of interconnect to send troops to). But what is more likely is that vital infrastructure is simply removed from the public grid. An air gap can easily be gated by a human. When Mil.net 1 wants to send something to Mil.net 2, the data can be loaded onto USB key, a Pvt simply moves this from the private USB slot to the public USB slot where it can be transmitted (or just carries the key over manually).

      Seriously, what do they teach people about network security these days.

      Learn about Tempest. Just because you aren't connected to the internet it doesn't mean your computers on the network are properly shielded and wont produce emissions which can easily be intercepted. Intercepted emissions in the form of light, sound, radiation, the flow of electricity, all of this can be intercepted to give an adversary an accurate picture of whats going on inside the computer.