1. A new virus is "discovered on: January 18, 2004" by Symantec. This is the day before the Iowa Caucuses. 2. By 10:00 EST The virus has only started to affect a few sites. (at 10:00 look at "wild score" was low 0-2 sites) 3. This virus of limited distribution at that time blasts out via PoliticsOnline. 4. The virus is a W32.Beagle.A@mm is a mass-mailing worm that will only work until 28th of January. This is the day after the New Hampshire primary. 5. Virus is disruptive in that it overwhelms communities. The virus grabs a local address book and sends emails to a certain number of people within that particular address book. 6. The virus does little relative damage so that it is not a high priority to fix for individual users.
Context. While this virus may seem like a low grade kiddy spammer nuisance. Some spammer trying to get names to sell for a few grand or it is targeted to disrupt computer administrators during a key period of the Democratic primary season offsetting hundreds of thousands of dollars in organizing strength. If campaigns had plans to use email as a way to organize GOTV (Get Out the Vote) activities, rapid response to events, deployments of volunteers, rides to the polls, etc. the virus could influence thousands of votes in a dead heat race.
While it is likely that it is a prank by a teenager. There is an outside potential that the virus was released by a campaign that was not dependent on email as a communication tool to gain organizing advantage and disrupt the capacity of an opponents organization.
Network-centric struggle would suggest that knocking out communications capacity and reliability of chain of command of a decentralized leadership would create a huge advantage. It seems to be a little tightly coordinated and professionally executed (insider game targeting PoliticsOnline rather then campaign email lists) for a teen hack.
Lesson: This could be a serious attack (only next 12 hours will tell) At a minimum it is a good lesson to prepare campaigns to avoid dependency that can create a single point of failure.
Slashdot Mirror
Better Links.
0 4/01/iow a_caucuse_go.html
/ 2004/01/reu ters_coverst.html
0 4/01/vir us_attack_on.html
Hopefully, SlashDot can help answer.
Iowa Caucus
http://www.network-centricadvocacy.net/20
Reuters
http://www.network-centricadvocacy.net
General Virus Attack Related Political Theory
http://www.network-centricadvocacy.net/20
What we know:
1. A new virus is "discovered on: January 18, 2004" by Symantec. This is the day before the Iowa Caucuses.
2. By 10:00 EST The virus has only started to affect a few sites. (at 10:00 look at "wild score" was low 0-2 sites)
3. This virus of limited distribution at that time blasts out via PoliticsOnline.
4. The virus is a W32.Beagle.A@mm is a mass-mailing worm that will only work until 28th of January. This is the day after the New Hampshire primary.
5. Virus is disruptive in that it overwhelms communities. The virus grabs a local address book and sends emails to a certain number of people within that particular address book.
6. The virus does little relative damage so that it is not a high priority to fix for individual users.
Context.
While this virus may seem like a low grade kiddy spammer nuisance. Some spammer trying to get names to sell for a few grand or it is targeted to disrupt computer administrators during a key period of the Democratic primary season offsetting hundreds of thousands of dollars in organizing strength. If campaigns had plans to use email as a way to organize GOTV (Get Out the Vote) activities, rapid response to events, deployments of volunteers, rides to the polls, etc. the virus could influence thousands of votes in a dead heat race.
While it is likely that it is a prank by a teenager. There is an outside potential that the virus was released by a campaign that was not dependent on email as a communication tool to gain organizing advantage and disrupt the capacity of an opponents organization.
Network-centric struggle would suggest that knocking out communications capacity and reliability of chain of command of a decentralized leadership would create a huge advantage. It seems to be a little tightly coordinated and professionally executed (insider game targeting PoliticsOnline rather then campaign email lists) for a teen hack.
Lesson:
This could be a serious attack (only next 12 hours will tell) At a minimum it is a good lesson to prepare campaigns to avoid dependency that can create a single point of failure.