Slashdot Mirror
The Next Arms Race: Cyberweapons
Harperdog writes "Scott Kemp writes about the similarities between the nuclear arms race and the use of cyberweaponry for offensive purposes. As the article points out, offensive cyberwarfare leaves a nation's own citizenry vulnerable to attack as government agencies seek to keep weaknesses in operating systems (such as Windows) secret. Quoting: 'In the world of armaments, cyber weapons may require the fewest national resources to build. That is not to say that highly developed nations are not without their advantages during early stages. Countries like Israel and the United States may have more money and more talented hackers. Their software engineers may be more skilled and exhibit more creativity and critical thinking owing to better training and education. However, each new cyberattack becomes a template for other nations — or sub-national actors — looking for ideas.'"
The nuclear enrichment site at Natanz was kept offline. That didn't keep stuxnet out of there.
The problem with security in general is that no matter how many protections you put in place humans are still the weakest link. We will always make mistakes.
The same as pouring sugar into gasoline tanks would be.
Your saboteur just "poured sugar" into the tank of every HMVV, jeep, tank, and vehicle on the eve of your invasion on the base nearest to your entry point. The defender is going to have a mighty hard time forming an effective defense with no mechanized infantry and armor. Even harder if the power grid and water pumps suddenly go down in a major city that necessitates the Army's assistance in supplying and policing the area (most countries armies double as disaster relief too). Oh, and factor in that the communication relays are suddenly transmitting garbage and white noise.
To add insult to injury, you now have the blueprints of their newest tanks, so even if they manage to clean out the turbines and get them running again, your gunners will know exactly where to shoot to take them out in one hit, and you know exactly how long their air superiority fighters can stay in the air, how high they can climb how fast, etc.
And for a final "Fuck you", your hackers broke into the enemy's central bank's network, along with a few other major banks in his country, and 'diverted' most of the country's funds, including all the foreign currency stockpiled on the central bank's accounts, to you a day or two after the first shot rang out, so the state as a whole is left penniless and unable to pay its army.
As a wise man once said, "Knowing is half the battle". Infrastructure is good 25% or more, so you're left with 25% at most that constitutes military might. Far fewer casualties on your side, and possibly fewer on the target side as well if the leaders recognize early on that they have lost the war before the first shot was fired (since they can't mount a proper defense due to the chaos and lack of funds). Cyberwarfare can certainly kill, but it need not do so, for the objective is to cripple the target so the army encounters less resistance.
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!