Granted - there's a bit of a difference between wearing military issued clothes and choosing a watch favored by bomb makers. The point here is that common civilian items can stand out if they are favored above normal selection by a local population. And so the question goes back to how common these watches are in Afghanistan?
Right. And if you had seen the comments, you would have seen that it was known to be an Al-Qaeda favorite well before you Googled. But I see now you were trying to make a point, not just tell an amusing story. Yes. I'm sure there are people the world over buying Casio watches who aren't in Al-Qaeda. After all, it would be a pretty limited market for Casio to go after.
I remember seeing these in many stores in The Netherlands in the '90s. Owned one myself. In many ways it's a better watch than the fancy Swiss one I've got now. Very reliable, user-friendly, incredibly long battery life (people report 8+ years; I know I never had to change the battery in mine), and dirt cheap to boot ($8 on the web). I wouldn't be surprised at all if it's still popular in places like Afghanistan. If it wasn't so ugly I'd still be wearing mine.
I'm sure the watch was picked by Al-quaeda for good reasons - availability, performance, price. I don't doubt that you'll find these things all over the world. The question is, how common are they in Afghanistan? Unless you're implying there's a socio-economic parallel between The Netherlands and Afghanistan.
When I was a fresh recruit in the military, we were given a particular running shoe. They weren't special military running shoes; they were mass produced civilian products - but a particular product with particular coloring. But if you went through training, you got a pair. Consequently, you'd see new recruits fresh out of training walking around wearing the things as they did appear civilian enough. But I don't remember ever seeing those particular shoes in any civilian shoe stores in the area (probably wouldn't sell very well anyway as the local market wouldn't be too strong). So if you saw someone with a short haircut and these shoes walking around the community near base you could be pretty sure they were fresh recruits just out of training.
Granted - there's a bit of a difference between wearing military issued clothes and choosing a watch favored by bomb makers. The point here is that common civilian items can stand out if they are favored above normal selection by a local population. And so the question goes back to how common these watches are in Afghanistan?
I wouldn't be surprised either way. On one hand, I would imagine $8USD would go a long way in Afghanistan and a digital watch might not be the first thing someone in that region would go out and buy. But at the same time, it can be amazing how things like clothing and consumer electronics (radios, mobile phones, etc.) permeate all but the very most remote regions of the world.
I agree. I should note that the IT guy in question was a contractor who's project was nearing completion anyway. But it still sucked to see the guy have his work cut short.
Sounds like the gears of bureaucracy at work to me. Once an "incident" is reported and fed to The System, then it must be handled accordingly.
Not long ago, we had an "incident" at work. One of the security guards was spending his spare time doing searches on people at work based on their ID cards in the system. He lucked across the fact that one of our contractors had been busted by the FBI for phreaking in the 90s and had done his Federal time outside what would be a normal background check. He reported that we had a "hacker" working in IT. Our boss had no choice but to cut the dude loose. The security guard had also talked to the local news who ran a story about hackers at our work with access to customer financial information.
As far as anyone knows - the dude has been reformed for over 10 years (crimes which he committed didn't involve financial information). He was doing perfectly good work and wasn't any more a threat than any other IT person with his level of access. But because the way this was handled, formalities had to be followed and dude lost his gig.
The silliness enters the picture when you consider how many non-terrorists own such watches, not when you just look at all the suspected or actual terrorists who do.
How many people running around Afghanistan wear digital watches, much less this particular model? If it's very common in the region, I would agree. But I honestly don't know.
Pretty much any watch with reasonably user-accessible alarm buzzer drive leads and adequate timer features is a potential bomb trigger. The techniques for each would differ mostly in pinout, and wouldn't strike a competent electronics hobbyist as anything special. Why chose those Casios? Because they are dirt cheap, ubiquitous, and have reasonably robust timer features.
But we're not talking about electronics hobbyists here. We're talking about a course in bomb making; Step A, then Step B, etc.
Think about what you're saying: That the press should never describe any system or process, other than all their details. That's just infeasible. Further, I'm sure you don't hold yourself to that standard in your own communications, at any level. It's often necessary for us to have to generalise, according to context. This article does a pretty good job of it, IMHO (and I often have my head buried in networking RFCs;) ).
Either they should go in to the detail or resist the temptation to use details as buzz words to add legitimacy to their article. From the article:
The agent identified the IP address, or unique identification number, of the router, then got the service provider to identify the subscriber.
That article would have been more accurate if it read simply "the agent identified the IP address and then got the service provider to identify the subscriber" or even simply "the agent got the service provider to identify the subscriber." You're right that going in to full details is not feasible. And as I noted, if that's true than the point is to generalize and not fake it when one is generalizing.
Yes - I do hold myself to that standard. I do catch myself writing inaccurate information when trying to generalize. I then re-write the section or admit to the generality and pick a cut-off point above the technical detail rather than provide technical details that are inaccurate. And I'm often having to describe complex IT issue to non-technical audiences.
Ok then, so in what way does a public IP address *NOT* uniquely lead to a router, at some given point in time?
Wait - are we talking about any router or a specific given router? Keep in mind we're talking about a "unique identification number" here. And routing may or may not lead to the same device at any given time depending on time.
Oh, if your quibble is that the quote is inaccurate because IP is only half the required (IP,timestamp) tuple, then, OK, fair enough, you have a point.;)
Well - yes. That's sort of the point.
That said, temporal context is often assumed by many people (who assumes the world stays unchanged for long?), and further many ISPs use static assignments for always-on connections...
The problem is when generalities are thrown out there as fact. The general public tends to base their understanding on things based on these sorts of "facts" which means they are being mis-informed on a regular basis. If the details of how an ISP identifies someone to LEA is too detailed for an article, the reporter should cut the generality at the fact that the request had been made and complied with. They shouldn't mis-inform in order to look like they're being informative.
The IP pretty much *is* a "unique identification number" of a router, at least as far as its attachment point to the internet goes at least. With a time and an IP, the provider can map the IP to the contracting customer, and their contact details, even location. Which is what LEA is after.
So we've gone from "IP == 'unique identification number, of the router'" to "pretty much" a unique identification number.... if you associate it with additional information.
ISPs keep track of which MAC address / Serial number / other unique identifiers had that particular DHCP assigned IP address at that particular time. Still not foolproof, but more accurate that you are making it out to be.
But those aren't IP addresses, are they? I know we're getting in to the "devil in the details" realm. But if one is going to claim accuracy, then details may in fact be required.
What is wrong with that description exactly? It says IP == "unique identification number, of the router", which is quite precise, particularly for a layman's description, and not at all inaccurate.
For something to be a "unique identification number, of the router" that identification number would have to be applied only to that particular router and remain consistent. Think about that for a minute. Is there ever a scenario where your home router ends up with more than one IP address? Can you assign it an arbitrary address? Can it automatically be assigned a new address via DHCP? Will it get a different IP address if you move it to another location / plug it in to a different network?
I hear you, the cyber attacks on Georgia and Estonia never happened....all a conspiracy by the CIA...they are behind everything...even the things of which they are in front.
Of course - you only see the CIA agents you're supposed to see.
On a more serious note - that's the fun thing about this environment (I suppose it applies to espionage in general - forest of mirrors and all that). There really ARE shenanigans going on. But the exact nature and motivations aren't always clear. And because of this ambiguity and past history, it becomes very easy to either see enemies in the shadows or claim that there are enemies as a cynical fiction intended to motivate others.
I say this as someone who's spent over a decade doing exactly that; authoring horror scenarios to motivate others. Nothing drives home the need for good infosec practices, policies, and funding like a round of "spook the horses." My presentations outlined past attacks and vulnerabilities. They talked about mitigating possible future attacks via yet-unknown vectors. They were based on sound analysis of our environment and need to protect it. But in the most cynical reading - I was writing a fiction to induce action.
Add in some less-than-sound analysis and political grand-standing and we have the new tool for propaganda.
Before we jump too deep in to theology, let's throw out a bit of political conspiracy. Isn't "cyber-war" the perfect boogyman? Sure - Communists and CIA mechanizations have been traditional levers to move a population's fears in the past. But eventually, that sort of thing has to manifest somewhere; who is a Communist or CIA conspirator? But cyber attack? That's in a fantasy world. Or at least - a dark, mystical realm of black boxes that the population may be familiar with but rarely understand. One can hold off providing any proof of these nefarious doings in these magical boxes. Yet since these black boxes are attached to so many important things, one can stress the dire nature of any attack. Of course, such attacks are always foiled by brave patriots. And thus no damage is ever produced - no need for inconvenient proof. But oh what could have happened. Fear it.
It's where the movement known as anonymous started. Anyway, I don't think you'd understand them. Just stay out and save them the trouble of making you get out.
I'm shocked, shocked by your insight. 4chan? Where the "movement" started, you say? Well then - clearly I've missed something. Thank you for providing information that's impossible to find anywhere else and has been a secret for so long.
There's not much to understand about 4chan. It's not a complex entity. I do believe I understand them. But you're right - I wouldn't be one of them. And gladly so. What's sad is to see people fool themselves in to thinking this is all so very new; that nothing like this has existed before.
"Wikileaks doesn't make the claim that their leaks come from members of their organization."
They don't have to, it's implied as they're in the direct chain of leaking.
They're offering the service of anonymous publishing of anything anyone wants to leak. While that may put them in the chain, it's a different tactic than making the claim that they themselves are responsible for the leak. Which makes it difficult to prosecute them for said leaks. Which is why the US Government is rumored to be trying very hard to show direct involvement of Wikileaks and Manning. Compare that to Anonymous who are busy saying "look what we've done" with, for example, the HB Gary compromise.
"As if 4chan would offer any insight in to anything."
You further prove your ignorance.
I admit I'm being dismissive. But expecting insight from 4chan strikes me as demonstrating ignorance as well.
It is good that USA citizens are starting to realize that the USA is no more the "dream" country where/everyone/ can make their dreams come true. That was the case maybe 10 or 20 years ago, but nowadays it is just a country with the same kind of problems as other countries. And thus, it is feasible for their citizens to compare their quality of life (noting of course that QOL is more than "cash in hand"), and why not, look for places where they feel better.
I do firmly believe that world travel is important for perspective. Exposure to other countries and cultures provides some understanding of the world that shows up in our news (I'll resist the temptation to make a comment on the quality of said news). In this regard, the US is at a disadvantage due to geography and scale. It's a big country separated by big oceans. And that tends to create an insular atmosphere. The world is far away and we have so much going on in our own (huge) back-yard. It takes effort to break out of that; I dare say more effort than our European counter-parts.
None the less, US citizens should make the effort to see the world outside our borders. I have many fond memories and good stories from the times I traveled. I found places I'd like to live, enjoyed living, and would loathe to stay in any long term (despite being offered considerable income to do so). I got to experience things in a way that one just can't get from any form of media. And in the end, I returned to the US quite happy to do so. I wonder when we see people talk about emigrating from the US in disgust if it isn't a "grass is greener" mentality at work. But I also think that it is up to the individual to discover that on their own.
As for US prosperity - The American Dream has been idolized and criticized for decades on end. Even 10 or 20 years ago, there were critics claiming the dream was dead. And that criticism and debate stretches back over 80 years ago with numerous examples in the 1920s and even some from the 1800s. To claim that the Dream is now dead ignores a long standing history of similar claims.
Part of the issue is that The American Dream is an ideal. It is a mistake to consider any ideal a guarantee. Likewise, it doesn't mean that the ideal doesn't hold true for some while it isn't realized by others. The fact is that while there are aspects in US history that offer opportunity, it doesn't mean that there are not barriers and problems that may cause some to fall short. It really depends on individual experience, history, and expectations. I think I have realized the Dream in my life. I know many others who likely would claim the same. But I do have family who may think otherwise.
It would be silly to claim knowledge whether any given stranger reading a/. post would be happy one place or another. And so again - I say go and find out for yourself. My only caution is to be as flexible as you can while doing so.
You are underestimating the power of social engineers. If you have someones dox, if you have their social security number for example, and this someone happens to be either an employee for a rival corporation, within your own corporation, or anywhere else, it's very easy to build an intelligence file to find all their human vulnerabilities. Now if you want to see how vulnerable an entire corporation is, who is in charge of protecting the secret information or passwords or whatever? How psychologically stable as those people? If you have an intelligence file on every important employee within an organization, and you know which ones happen to be psychologically unstable, vulnerable to certain kinds of social engineering, etc, then you can probe the network for human weaknesses.
Right. All from a social security number. Well that's it - intelligence agencies the world over are screwed. Or maybe it's all a bit tougher than that.
Anonymous proved this when they leaked the HBGaryFederal emails. This is a move we would have expected from Wikileaks. Anonymous is now in the leaking business.
Wikileaks publishes leaks. Anonymous, in this case, compromised someone's system(s) and accounts to get at documents which they then published. Wikileaks relies on others to commit crimes. The two are not as similar as you seem to think they are.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. Whenever someone begins to doubt the boogyman, invoke Stuxnet.
What are you saying here?
Let me quote the paragraph you overlooked:
You're welcome. Reading is fundamental.
Right. And if you had seen the comments, you would have seen that it was known to be an Al-Qaeda favorite well before you Googled. But I see now you were trying to make a point, not just tell an amusing story. Yes. I'm sure there are people the world over buying Casio watches who aren't in Al-Qaeda. After all, it would be a pretty limited market for Casio to go after.
I remember seeing these in many stores in The Netherlands in the '90s. Owned one myself. In many ways it's a better watch than the fancy Swiss one I've got now. Very reliable, user-friendly, incredibly long battery life (people report 8+ years; I know I never had to change the battery in mine), and dirt cheap to boot ($8 on the web). I wouldn't be surprised at all if it's still popular in places like Afghanistan. If it wasn't so ugly I'd still be wearing mine.
I'm sure the watch was picked by Al-quaeda for good reasons - availability, performance, price. I don't doubt that you'll find these things all over the world. The question is, how common are they in Afghanistan? Unless you're implying there's a socio-economic parallel between The Netherlands and Afghanistan.
When I was a fresh recruit in the military, we were given a particular running shoe. They weren't special military running shoes; they were mass produced civilian products - but a particular product with particular coloring. But if you went through training, you got a pair. Consequently, you'd see new recruits fresh out of training walking around wearing the things as they did appear civilian enough. But I don't remember ever seeing those particular shoes in any civilian shoe stores in the area (probably wouldn't sell very well anyway as the local market wouldn't be too strong). So if you saw someone with a short haircut and these shoes walking around the community near base you could be pretty sure they were fresh recruits just out of training.
Granted - there's a bit of a difference between wearing military issued clothes and choosing a watch favored by bomb makers. The point here is that common civilian items can stand out if they are favored above normal selection by a local population. And so the question goes back to how common these watches are in Afghanistan?
I wouldn't be surprised either way. On one hand, I would imagine $8USD would go a long way in Afghanistan and a digital watch might not be the first thing someone in that region would go out and buy. But at the same time, it can be amazing how things like clothing and consumer electronics (radios, mobile phones, etc.) permeate all but the very most remote regions of the world.
I agree. I should note that the IT guy in question was a contractor who's project was nearing completion anyway. But it still sucked to see the guy have his work cut short.
Sounds like the gears of bureaucracy at work to me. Once an "incident" is reported and fed to The System, then it must be handled accordingly.
Not long ago, we had an "incident" at work. One of the security guards was spending his spare time doing searches on people at work based on their ID cards in the system. He lucked across the fact that one of our contractors had been busted by the FBI for phreaking in the 90s and had done his Federal time outside what would be a normal background check. He reported that we had a "hacker" working in IT. Our boss had no choice but to cut the dude loose. The security guard had also talked to the local news who ran a story about hackers at our work with access to customer financial information.
As far as anyone knows - the dude has been reformed for over 10 years (crimes which he committed didn't involve financial information). He was doing perfectly good work and wasn't any more a threat than any other IT person with his level of access. But because the way this was handled, formalities had to be followed and dude lost his gig.
Apparently you missed the comments back in December that noted the link to Al-Qaeda.
The silliness enters the picture when you consider how many non-terrorists own such watches, not when you just look at all the suspected or actual terrorists who do.
How many people running around Afghanistan wear digital watches, much less this particular model? If it's very common in the region, I would agree. But I honestly don't know.
Pretty much any watch with reasonably user-accessible alarm buzzer drive leads and adequate timer features is a potential bomb trigger. The techniques for each would differ mostly in pinout, and wouldn't strike a competent electronics hobbyist as anything special. Why chose those Casios? Because they are dirt cheap, ubiquitous, and have reasonably robust timer features.
But we're not talking about electronics hobbyists here. We're talking about a course in bomb making; Step A, then Step B, etc.
Think about what you're saying: That the press should never describe any system or process, other than all their details. That's just infeasible. Further, I'm sure you don't hold yourself to that standard in your own communications, at any level. It's often necessary for us to have to generalise, according to context. This article does a pretty good job of it, IMHO (and I often have my head buried in networking RFCs ;) ).
Either they should go in to the detail or resist the temptation to use details as buzz words to add legitimacy to their article. From the article:
The agent identified the IP address, or unique identification number, of the router, then got the service provider to identify the subscriber.
That article would have been more accurate if it read simply "the agent identified the IP address and then got the service provider to identify the subscriber" or even simply "the agent got the service provider to identify the subscriber." You're right that going in to full details is not feasible. And as I noted, if that's true than the point is to generalize and not fake it when one is generalizing.
Yes - I do hold myself to that standard. I do catch myself writing inaccurate information when trying to generalize. I then re-write the section or admit to the generality and pick a cut-off point above the technical detail rather than provide technical details that are inaccurate. And I'm often having to describe complex IT issue to non-technical audiences.
Ok then, so in what way does a public IP address *NOT* uniquely lead to a router, at some given point in time?
Wait - are we talking about any router or a specific given router? Keep in mind we're talking about a "unique identification number" here. And routing may or may not lead to the same device at any given time depending on time.
Oh, if your quibble is that the quote is inaccurate because IP is only half the required (IP,timestamp) tuple, then, OK, fair enough, you have a point. ;)
Well - yes. That's sort of the point.
That said, temporal context is often assumed by many people (who assumes the world stays unchanged for long?), and further many ISPs use static assignments for always-on connections...
The problem is when generalities are thrown out there as fact. The general public tends to base their understanding on things based on these sorts of "facts" which means they are being mis-informed on a regular basis. If the details of how an ISP identifies someone to LEA is too detailed for an article, the reporter should cut the generality at the fact that the request had been made and complied with. They shouldn't mis-inform in order to look like they're being informative.
The IP pretty much *is* a "unique identification number" of a router, at least as far as its attachment point to the internet goes at least. With a time and an IP, the provider can map the IP to the contracting customer, and their contact details, even location. Which is what LEA is after.
So we've gone from "IP == 'unique identification number, of the router'" to "pretty much" a unique identification number.... if you associate it with additional information.
ISPs keep track of which MAC address / Serial number / other unique identifiers had that particular DHCP assigned IP address at that particular time. Still not foolproof, but more accurate that you are making it out to be.
But those aren't IP addresses, are they? I know we're getting in to the "devil in the details" realm. But if one is going to claim accuracy, then details may in fact be required.
What is wrong with that description exactly? It says IP == "unique identification number, of the router", which is quite precise, particularly for a layman's description, and not at all inaccurate.
For something to be a "unique identification number, of the router" that identification number would have to be applied only to that particular router and remain consistent. Think about that for a minute. Is there ever a scenario where your home router ends up with more than one IP address? Can you assign it an arbitrary address? Can it automatically be assigned a new address via DHCP? Will it get a different IP address if you move it to another location / plug it in to a different network?
I hear you, the cyber attacks on Georgia and Estonia never happened....all a conspiracy by the CIA...they are behind everything...even the things of which they are in front.
Of course - you only see the CIA agents you're supposed to see.
On a more serious note - that's the fun thing about this environment (I suppose it applies to espionage in general - forest of mirrors and all that). There really ARE shenanigans going on. But the exact nature and motivations aren't always clear. And because of this ambiguity and past history, it becomes very easy to either see enemies in the shadows or claim that there are enemies as a cynical fiction intended to motivate others.
I say this as someone who's spent over a decade doing exactly that; authoring horror scenarios to motivate others. Nothing drives home the need for good infosec practices, policies, and funding like a round of "spook the horses." My presentations outlined past attacks and vulnerabilities. They talked about mitigating possible future attacks via yet-unknown vectors. They were based on sound analysis of our environment and need to protect it. But in the most cynical reading - I was writing a fiction to induce action.
Add in some less-than-sound analysis and political grand-standing and we have the new tool for propaganda.
Before we jump too deep in to theology, let's throw out a bit of political conspiracy. Isn't "cyber-war" the perfect boogyman? Sure - Communists and CIA mechanizations have been traditional levers to move a population's fears in the past. But eventually, that sort of thing has to manifest somewhere; who is a Communist or CIA conspirator? But cyber attack? That's in a fantasy world. Or at least - a dark, mystical realm of black boxes that the population may be familiar with but rarely understand. One can hold off providing any proof of these nefarious doings in these magical boxes. Yet since these black boxes are attached to so many important things, one can stress the dire nature of any attack. Of course, such attacks are always foiled by brave patriots. And thus no damage is ever produced - no need for inconvenient proof. But oh what could have happened. Fear it.
Being ostracized can embitter anyone, but the sooner you let go of your anger, the sooner you can start living life again.
I think we've all learned something special today; there's nothing as precious as a child's laughter.
It's where the movement known as anonymous started. Anyway, I don't think you'd understand them. Just stay out and save them the trouble of making you get out.
I'm shocked, shocked by your insight. 4chan? Where the "movement" started, you say? Well then - clearly I've missed something. Thank you for providing information that's impossible to find anywhere else and has been a secret for so long.
There's not much to understand about 4chan. It's not a complex entity. I do believe I understand them. But you're right - I wouldn't be one of them. And gladly so. What's sad is to see people fool themselves in to thinking this is all so very new; that nothing like this has existed before.
"Wikileaks doesn't make the claim that their leaks come from members of their organization."
They don't have to, it's implied as they're in the direct chain of leaking.
They're offering the service of anonymous publishing of anything anyone wants to leak. While that may put them in the chain, it's a different tactic than making the claim that they themselves are responsible for the leak. Which makes it difficult to prosecute them for said leaks. Which is why the US Government is rumored to be trying very hard to show direct involvement of Wikileaks and Manning. Compare that to Anonymous who are busy saying "look what we've done" with, for example, the HB Gary compromise.
"As if 4chan would offer any insight in to anything."
You further prove your ignorance.
I admit I'm being dismissive. But expecting insight from 4chan strikes me as demonstrating ignorance as well.
It is good that USA citizens are starting to realize that the USA is no more the "dream" country where /everyone/ can make their dreams come true. That was the case maybe 10 or 20 years ago, but nowadays it is just a country with the same kind of problems as other countries. And thus, it is feasible for their citizens to compare their quality of life (noting of course that QOL is more than "cash in hand"), and why not, look for places where they feel better.
I do firmly believe that world travel is important for perspective. Exposure to other countries and cultures provides some understanding of the world that shows up in our news (I'll resist the temptation to make a comment on the quality of said news). In this regard, the US is at a disadvantage due to geography and scale. It's a big country separated by big oceans. And that tends to create an insular atmosphere. The world is far away and we have so much going on in our own (huge) back-yard. It takes effort to break out of that; I dare say more effort than our European counter-parts.
None the less, US citizens should make the effort to see the world outside our borders. I have many fond memories and good stories from the times I traveled. I found places I'd like to live, enjoyed living, and would loathe to stay in any long term (despite being offered considerable income to do so). I got to experience things in a way that one just can't get from any form of media. And in the end, I returned to the US quite happy to do so. I wonder when we see people talk about emigrating from the US in disgust if it isn't a "grass is greener" mentality at work. But I also think that it is up to the individual to discover that on their own.
As for US prosperity - The American Dream has been idolized and criticized for decades on end. Even 10 or 20 years ago, there were critics claiming the dream was dead. And that criticism and debate stretches back over 80 years ago with numerous examples in the 1920s and even some from the 1800s. To claim that the Dream is now dead ignores a long standing history of similar claims.
Part of the issue is that The American Dream is an ideal. It is a mistake to consider any ideal a guarantee. Likewise, it doesn't mean that the ideal doesn't hold true for some while it isn't realized by others. The fact is that while there are aspects in US history that offer opportunity, it doesn't mean that there are not barriers and problems that may cause some to fall short. It really depends on individual experience, history, and expectations. I think I have realized the Dream in my life. I know many others who likely would claim the same. But I do have family who may think otherwise.
It would be silly to claim knowledge whether any given stranger reading a /. post would be happy one place or another. And so again - I say go and find out for yourself. My only caution is to be as flexible as you can while doing so.
"Wikileaks relies on others to commit crimes."
As if Anonymous isn't comprised entirely of 'others.'
Wikileaks doesn't make the claim that their leaks come from members of their organization.
You're very naive about this subject. Go newfag about it on 4chan and watch how fast you get eaten alive for your ignorance.
As if 4chan would offer any insight in to anything.
You are underestimating the power of social engineers. If you have someones dox, if you have their social security number for example, and this someone happens to be either an employee for a rival corporation, within your own corporation, or anywhere else, it's very easy to build an intelligence file to find all their human vulnerabilities. Now if you want to see how vulnerable an entire corporation is, who is in charge of protecting the secret information or passwords or whatever? How psychologically stable as those people? If you have an intelligence file on every important employee within an organization, and you know which ones happen to be psychologically unstable, vulnerable to certain kinds of social engineering, etc, then you can probe the network for human weaknesses.
Right. All from a social security number. Well that's it - intelligence agencies the world over are screwed. Or maybe it's all a bit tougher than that.
Anonymous proved this when they leaked the HBGaryFederal emails. This is a move we would have expected from Wikileaks. Anonymous is now in the leaking business.
Wikileaks publishes leaks. Anonymous, in this case, compromised someone's system(s) and accounts to get at documents which they then published. Wikileaks relies on others to commit crimes. The two are not as similar as you seem to think they are.
If Anonymous and Wikileaks don't represent cyberwarfare then there is no such thing as cyberwarfare.
I agree. There's no such thing as cyberwarfare.
I would advise getting some world travel under your belt first - and not just the pre-packaged European holiday route.