Slashdot Mirror


The Code War Arms Race

pacopico writes "A story in Bloomberg Businessweek gives the first in-depth look at a wave of new start-ups selling cyber weaponry. The story describes this as the evolution of the defense industry in response to a wave of brazen attacks against Google, the Pentagon, the IMF and thousands of companies. It's pretty scary stuff, especially considering that these new weapons are not regulated at all."

17 of 74 comments (clear)

  1. Cyber Weaponry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Really? Good god, slashdot.

    1. Re:Cyber Weaponry? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Funny

      Really? Good god, slashdot.

      Your cyber disgust has been cyber recorded for further cyber review.

    2. Re:Cyber Weaponry? by dunng808 · · Score: 2

      FUD stuff. Sounds like Daily Show material to me.

      --

      Gary Dunn
      Open Slate Project

    3. Re:Cyber Weaponry? by cvtan · · Score: 2

      You forgot the iCyber aspects of the cyber story.

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
  2. So you're telling me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    That the future of cyber warfare is a bunch of script kiddies in military uniforms clicking "Attack" on some shitty VBasic GUI?

    1. Re:So you're telling me... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Well, technically they're what I call noisemakers.

      Submariners might get the hint what they will be used for.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. Re:That can't go wrong... by Penguinshit · · Score: 3, Funny

    The attack originated from 127.0.0.1!
    "Have you checked the children?"...

  4. Re:The difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    And that is based on what? Your many years watching documentaries on the history channel?

  5. Re:The difference by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Find me a US general with just one of those traits.

    Arnold (before he turned traitor at the behest of his Tory girlfriend)
    Lee (before he fought for the Confederates - see also the Mexican-American War)
    Sherman
    Grant
    Roosevelt (Theodore, not Franklin)
    Pershing
    Patton
    Bradley
    Eisenhower
    MacArthur

    ...the lineup kind of craps out after Korea (esp. w/ Westmoreland), though Schwartzkopf got pretty creative back in 1991 (though to be fair he was facing a pretty crap army).

    Long story short, well... your point doesn't stand.

    /P (who, as a USAF veteran, is wondering why the hell he's defending the frickin' *army*...)

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  6. Re:That can't go wrong... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

    Forget about them hacking, they have really good porn there!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. Re:The difference by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    You might notice that some of the most successful military actions were based on out of the box thinking. If anything, this is able to catch the enemy by surprise.

    Lately it has been sorely lacking. I have to give you that. And behold the success the US army has against a vastly inferior foe, too...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! by DeeEff · · Score: 2

    They can't get me, officer! I have norton!!!

  9. What could and what will happen by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    What WOULD render this ineffective: Teaching people how to secure their machines against the threats by exposing them.
    What WILL happen: A crackdown on "hacking tools" with the false idea that without tools there will be no hacking.

    For those that don't know why this is no solution: Try to outlaw them in China, and try to audit your machines for security holes without them.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:What could and what will happen by ka9dgx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I disagree. I trust the users to make intelligent use of the computers they have accounts on. On the other hand, I don't trust programs, nobody should.

      When a program is run, the only limits on its actions are set by the security settings of the system with respect to the account that launched it. These permissions are usually assigned by an administrator, and out of the users control. Default permissive environments are the root cause of our current lack of security. A program gone rogue can do as much damage as a malicious user on their worst day, in the blink of the eye, without even showing any symptoms of trouble.

      The user, and the scanning tools are scapegoats here. Sure, some users make mistakes, and do stupid things, but it is impossible to determine if a non-trivial program can be trusted. Blaming users for failing at an impossible task is foolish, at best. Tools are just tools, to try to help increase transparency in terms of known vulnerabilities.

      The solution is a default deny environment for programs, in which the user gets to decide which, if any, of their resources are given to a particular instance of a program. If it's not in the list, the program doesn't get it, and doesn't even know about it. This lets the user decide what they want to work with, and strongly limits the side effects of a program gone rogue.

      It's not a very hard thing to conceptualize, nor to plan out. The hard thing is the massive amount of investment in our current code base, and mind-set, which need a subtle tweak, and some clever hacks.

      There are positive signs, but I fear it will be another 10-20 years or more before a system which is default deny becomes the more popular choice. That's a lot of time and effort thrown away, that could be better utilized.

  10. Re:The difference by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The general may or may not be capable of thinking outside the box - but I guarantee that he has troops who are capable. I was Navy, rather than Army. We spent a lot of time thinking, inside, outside, under and over the box. Of six commanding officers, one was a VERY imaginative person, two more were only slightly less imaginative, and the others were more or less average in that respect. Box thinkers, but capable of following a train of thought that left the boxy station.

    Clue - military people are like civilians, in that everyone is an individual. You can't summarize how military people think - especially if you're not even a military person.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  11. Re:Sensationalized Bullshit by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

    "Hacking" in it's purest form is exploring, probing, questioning, thinking, about a solution to a problem.

    Thank you. I've often pointed out at places like CNN and other news forums, that the world's most famous "hackers" include Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and LInus Torvalds. Even here, on slashdot, where people should know better, half or more of the idiots assume that hacking is or should be a criminal offense, punishable by death.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  12. Re:The difference by liamoshan · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Marine General Paul Van Riper showed exactly that sort of creativity, and he was fucked over by Rumsfeld for it

    (forgot to log in, posted this originally as AC)