Virtual War

[Rob Thornton]

Somebody had mentioned online gaming. I need some thoughts on the value of having a bad guy placed as video game merchant. I'm rather poor when it comes to access to an analysis cell - most of the guys I do have access have no LE background and just are not thinking in these directions. You can hit me with a PM or send it to my AKO. Here is a line of thought I'm developing:

-If he’s like the tech geeks we usually see in this industry in other places, then he’s probably both tech savvy and well connected on the internet (generally geeks know other geeks).

-Pirate copies of video games are sold on both MAREZ and DIAMONDBACK at the local national stores – could be trading video games at a discount for information about locals working on FOBs then selling that info to AIF who will kill them or their families unless they quit

-As much as I like cheap videos, some of the proceeds support an illegal trade and thus support crime and terrorism.

-Since you can pay for a Satellite ISP, its likely a guy could based off the money he makes. Its also possible the shop and stock could be opened up with AIF seed money

-Anybody who has done online gaming knows you can communicate with other online gamers – terrorist networks know this and are using online gaming as both a way to communicate covertly (you have to be invited to play in certain communities), and as a good way to train.

- The influencing other young men, probably recruiting by paying younger Iraqis off with the video game hardware or software – could even be starting them on easy jobs, much like gang bangers in the US do with kids as lookouts.

Thanks, Rob

[jcustis]

Gents,

Following Rob's point about online gaming, this recently aired show came to mind. Although you may have difficulty accessing this contect-rich page, a strange example of pervasive networking is highlighted here:

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1545919/20061115/index.jhtml


Ge Jin had heard that people in China play "World of Warcraft" for profit.

He heard that they killed monsters for virtual gold that they could then sell to wealthier gamers around the world. He heard that they worked in dreary conditions — sweatshops even, people said. And he heard that many gamers hated these guys.

But he wanted to see it himself.

Over the last year Jin — a Ph.D. candidate at the University of California, San Diego — has traveled to China to find the infamous "gold farmer," the not-so-unique type of "World of Warcraft" player who last year inspired a fan of that game to post a note on the "WoW" message board that read, "Get the goddamn Chinese out of this game." That gamer received dozens of messages in support.

Jin didn't just find the farmers. He found plenty of them. "Right now China is really the world factory of virtual goods," Jin told MTV News in an interview last month. He had spoken to people who did just what the reports claimed: They mined for virtual gold and sold it through a chain of individuals that eventually reached gamers in America and Europe who, disregarding the wishes of the "WoW" makers, would purchase the virtual currency with their credit cards and use it to purchase items that speed their advance through the game. Such is the marvel of relative economic value, where the 15 bucks an American player can spend on 100 pieces of virtual gold can help a Chinese gamer make a living.

I watched the show because I have the Asian MTV channel on my expanded satellite package (a whole other drama story). The point is that there is this addictive game out there that has spawned an information/economic network where players of the game will actually pay money to make their virtual character better within the game's construct. They pay their money to brokers of characters and life points, who have in turn developed these virtual goods through Chinese players who do nothing but play the game in shifts (virtual workers).

Seeing the show made me start thinking of other terrorist financial networks. Could perhaps Ebay be the unwitting host of such a network, where bootlegged DVDs, CDs, and other goods are sold as a "brand new, in the box" products and the profits are funnelled into more nefarious activities? There has to be some semblance of truth along the line here, and as virtual markets increase their grasp on our lives, we are probably unwitting pawns in grander schemes.

Although most of us might not frequent a seedy flea market and pick up an illegal copy of the latest Rocky, do we have the same inhibitions over the Internet?

[selil]

Jcustis wait until you find out about Second Life (http://secondlife.com/)

One thing I would say about the eBay, the video game dealer, etc... is that you have to stop thinking about brick and mortar stores. Physical location is totally unimportant. The broadband connection means the bad guy can be anywhere and still active and have "point" impact on your location. A warez server located in Chile can be used as an economic engine supporting illicit activities in Afghanistan and populated by users world wide. Recruitment for real world activities and preparation can occur in a virtual 3d terrain that can be modeled and built to EXACTLY duplicate an operation environment. Using tools like "Google Earth", and "Sketch Up" (impressive tools used to create the environment but not necessary) a 3d world can be built as a custom level in a game and used for on line training. Nobody here is going to mistake that kind of training for real world training but an adversary can also use that type of modeling to pass intel, show troop movements, create plans of attack, coordinate attacks, track patterns, and so much more.

[Rob Thornton]

One of our FSNCOs who has been re-rolled as one of our analysts :D expressed shock that I did not know you could buy virtual anything. He tells me he has a friend who sold his Everquest character (a fantasy RPG) online for 5K $US. He told me he'd actually bought credits for his Star Wars Galaxies character through E-Bay. The Routine? They arrange a meeting place online within the game so one character can X-fer the credits to another - somewhere public that was easy to find. The characters on screen look like they are just standing there - the discussion takes place through IM. There is no "Star Wars Galaxy" organization which might prevent or interfere with such a transaction - very slick. Our other FSNCO/Analyst said that the last time he was here, his boss actually got an everquest account so he could leave messages for them - they'd do a virtual dead drop. Snce you could have anything be your message button (you could have it be a virtual light switch in a virtual room that is i a virtual building, on a virtual block, etc. you can hide the message avatar look like anything, then include a password that acutally allows you to access its hidden funtion.

So - 40 year old Rob is behind the power curve 0- but my 20 something FSNCOs and the 19-25 year old terrorists and criminals are not - this is common knowledge for them, and a world they are very comfortable in.

Whith sums as extravagent as those paid for the Everquest character, what looks ordinary and what doesn't? What else gets bought and sold under the guise of skills, virtual monies and players?

What type of orders pass from bad guy to bad guy? We better get smart on this real quick. We better start training our Intel guys to think along these lines instead of beating them down with conventional Soviet doctrine. Maybe what we need are some SOF like virtual warriors that go in and conduct operations with virtual characters to get the virtual information and conduct virtual DA on virtual targets - my kid who beats my ass in HALO would love that. They'll need to hack in to servers (call it an insertion) and look for stuff that don't look right. I'm not even joking - I think the bad guys are way out infront of us.

China is pushing a good deal of their budget into cyber warfare. We need to consider why - much like our FOB mentality, our response to combatting cyber terror (and supporting activities) is by and large defensive - better Anti-Virus, better firewalls. I think a good part of the enemy wants to keep us that way. This allows them to go out and conduct the rest of their buisness while we stay walled up - we have placed ourselves in our own box - contained and isolated would be the tactical terms - who knows that could have been the intent all along - Sun Tzu writ in 1s and 0s! It reminds me of what the insurgents do here to keep us out of the neighborhoods - hit the MSRs and we will sink more combat power into defending them so the AIF can have freedom of movement in the neighborhoods!

[jcustis]

Rob, your post sounds like it deserves its own thread. I had no idea it was that pervasive when I saw the show on virtual farming. I just thought it happened in one stinking game.

Can these cyber maneuvers and such be small wars in and of themselves? Or are they merely small wars maneuvers conducted on an unfamiliar piece of terrain. I'm not looking for an 4GW, 5GW theoretical answer. My hunch is that this goes way beyond (and more dangerously) than Van Riper and mission type orders issued along with the morning prayers.

[slapout9]

I read somewhere awhile back that DOD had a research project based on the SIMS that was to be adapted to situations just like you described. Don't know what became of it but as you can see it is a powerfull tool. You fight an entire war and know who is going to win before it ever happens in the physical world. Scary!

[marct]

Hi Rob,


What type of orders pass from bad guy to bad guy? We better get smart on this real quick. We better start training our Intel guys to think along these lines instead of beating them down with conventional Soviet doctrine. Maybe what we need are some SOF like virtual warriors that go in and conduct operations with virtual characters to get the virtual information and conduct virtual DA on virtual targets - my kid who beats my ass in HALO would love that. They'll need to hack in to servers (call it an insertion) and look for stuff that don't look right. I'm not even joking - I think the bad guys are way out infront of us.

China is pushing a good deal of their budget into cyber warfare. We need to consider why - much like our FOB mentality, our response to combatting cyber terror (and supporting activities) is by and large defensive - better Anti-Virus, better firewalls. I think a good part of the enemy wants to keep us that way. This allows them to go out and conduct the rest of their buisness while we stay walled up - we have placed ourselves in our own box - contained and isolated would be the tactical terms - who knows that could have been the intent all along - Sun Tzu writ in 1s and 0s! It reminds me of what the insurgents do here to keep us out of the neighborhoods - hit the MSRs and we will sink more combat power into defending them so the AIF can have freedom of movement in the neighborhoods!

It's all part of the current environment <wry grin>. Seriously, if we get back to the basics on conflict, most of it reduces to a control over "vital resources" however they are currently defined by the techo-cultural system. Right now, that means information, information processing and meaning construction. It's definitely time for a Cyber SF.


Rob, your post sounds like it deserves its own thread. I had no idea it was that pervasive when I saw the show on virtual farming. I just thought it happened in one stinking game.

Good point, JC.


Can these cyber maneuvers and such be small wars in and of themselves? Or are they merely small wars maneuvers conducted on an unfamiliar piece of terrain. I'm not looking for an 4GW, 5GW theoretical answer. My hunch is that this goes way beyond (and more dangerously) than Van Riper and mission type orders issued along with the morning prayers.

I think that the answer would have to be "both". No fancy theory needed, really; just the observation that the virtual worlds that are being created are part of the perceptual environment of large parts of the global population. These worlds contain "resources" of "value" to people and, as such, are just like any other terrain feature to be used, exploited and fought over <shrug>.

Marc

[selil]

It's very interesting that you all got this quickly. I've been preaching that the previous scenarios are the real cyber warfare, and dangers that the on the ground war fighter needs to be aware of...

Attacking and protecting scada, telco, data systems (more and more wireless and virtualized), command and control, all are areas we do real well at with the NSA and CIA having excellent operational assets in information assurance and security. We know how to protect and harden our systems from direct attack, but not so much about seeing how the systems are used in the social realm as an indirect attack. The adversary is using our own technology against us. Isn’t that one of the principles of guerilla warfare?

What we don't do very well or at least organizations don't do very well is consider Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 phenomenon’s as critical to their operational environments. This applies to the corporate world as well as the military. Information and communications are powerful weapons within the small wars world. Think about how information has taken down enormous companies like Enron and now HP. Cyber warfare doesn’t have to be bullets and bombs, but it can be very powerful for knowing where to send those bullets and bombs.

In all out warfare the advantages of the cyber world seem to decrease as the weaponization and scope of an altercation expand. There is little the cyber world can do about carpet bombing. You can use the cyber world to get the enemy to expose themselves in the real world. The only groups that seem to have gotten this are the groups chatting up pedophiles in chat rooms and misdirecting them to police sting operations.

In small wars the conflict is limited and the nature of "humanitarian" rebuilding efforts after an incursion make distributed technology environments especially useful. The desire to provide basic services defined as water, electricity, and telephone will increase the viability of cyber warfare. The humanitarian mission is being evaluated on it's ability to provide the services (and hence the tools) that will be used against it. The primary use of the web 2.0 and web 3.0 channels would seem to be in support and communication channels between real world adversaries coordinating support missions (espionage, planning, reconnaissance, etc..).

I’ve been trying for the last few years to define where this would be in the academic world. It’s important if you want to publish on the topic. I’m a technologist (computer forensic scientist), I’ve been thinking this area of inquiry is technology anthropology, or technology sociology, but I haven’t found a military discipline that would fit. This is likely due to my own lack of knowledge about military matters. I was a Marine corporal not a general.

[slapout9]

selil, part of what you are talking about would fall under EBO (Effects Based Operations) The Air Force deals a lot in what you are talking about, they often refer to it as the Cyber-Sphere. If I can remember where I saw some these articles I will post them.

[marct]

Hi Selil


I’ve been trying for the last few years to define where this would be in the academic world. It’s important if you want to publish on the topic. I’m a technologist (computer forensic scientist), I’ve been thinking this area of inquiry is technology anthropology, or technology sociology, but I haven’t found a military discipline that would fit. This is likely due to my own lack of knowledge about military matters. I was a Marine corporal not a general.

Try Science, Technology and Society (STS). We've done some of this in Anthropology, for example there was a really excellent MA thesis by Ian Ferguson called "Sacred Realms and icons of the damned; the ethnography of a internet-based child pornography ring (http://web.archive.org/web/20010216074417/www.trytel.com/~iferguso/)" (MA Thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Carleton University, 1998). There's also a fairly good historical overview at http://web3.cas.usf.edu/main/depts/ANT/cma/CMAhistory.htm

Marc

[Rob Thornton]

I never thought I'd ref. an episode of South Park for an example, but here it is. My savvy team of FSNCOs turned analysts basically recommended I go to you tube and watch the South Park episode entitled :
"Make Love not Warcraft" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MywN5nSJhkA).

While I have to admit it was damn humorous, right down to the portrayal of the online bad guy as a balding, overweight guy with a carpal tunnel brace and potato chip crumbs in his beard, it was also a 21 minute tutorial into the world of online gaming, the industry that supports it, the psychology of many who play it, its vulnerabilities and its strengths (the last two require a bit of analysis).

While I laughed, I also felt the hair raise up on the back of my neck. While our system prolongs the acquisition process of useful tech (and useless tech), the bad guys are adapting the incredible pace of a commercial tech evolution that is driven by global consumerism - nothing produces technology breakthroughs like profit potential - which allows $$$ to pay the best and the brightest. The result is kind of akin to a poor man's (or 3rd World if you prefer) version of industrial espionage, except for there not stealing the actual tech to make a profit, they are using a hitch hiking/parasitic type of behavior that is highly innovative. There is little to no overhead to develop a network that is already there. Their investment is in producing people capable of using / adapting it.

Consider other industries that are going to be altered by the Internet and WWW. Why would it be far more profitable for recording industries to discard hard copy format for purely digital? It is profit driven. The only reason we've not seen it yet is because the cost benefit did not weigh out in favor yet - but it soon will. I bring this up because its indicative of where some of our attention needs to focused - we need to understand what drives the changes that alter the environment in favor of an enemy that does not have much money but is clever and innovative and will find ways to use his enemy's pride and joy against him. The Internet and WWW we so proudly hail and enjoy has become his (and criminals like him) parallel universe. It is vast and there are few rules (there are even rules in which can be manipulated to improve his terrain advantages).

The internet & by extension the WWW is fixing to get much faster - and is constantly getting bigger (the ability to crawl and inventory cannot keep pace with the growth - so nobody knows how big it really is, and since not all nodes are connected (some by design), there is no real map - again I go to the book cited by Hammes called "Linked" by Albert-Lazlo Barabasi. There are efforts to map it though, and the best chances actually come from search companies like Google - incidentally - RTK made mention about Google Earth in a thread not too long ago - here is an observation though - go to Google Earth and turn on its "show 3D buildings" - I suspect few at Google actually build terrain - they take advantage of people who accept a challenge of building it since you can download the terrain builder - then Google just has other customers QA/QC - more submissions means more refinements - the victim provides the rehearsal tools. Here is another thing to look at - take a gander at how many webcams you can access through Google Earth! You guys get the picture (intentional pun ).

What we have to do is figure out how to use it better then they do - part of that means acknowledging that their use of commercial low cost / no cost tech is in some ways better then our high price / slow to acquire and field tech that because of security requirements often isolates us from the WWW population (another FOB analogy here). The bad guy hopes you invest all of your time in ASAS (All Source Analysis System) and chastise your guys from being on the Internet. He loves that our DOIMs at post restrict every useful site where our Intel folks could troll message boards - guess what he probably has no problem shucking his puritanical views to use the porn sites to communicate. He uses our own culture and fears against us. He is dirty, and he knows we are not. He has no problem chopping off heads for a blog and knows full well that he will almost certainly be treated to 3 squares a day if interned into CF custody - he knows when he's not the media will intervene on his behalf - this is why when he goes before an Iraqi judge he says " I only kill Amerikis" and when he goes into CF hands he says with every X-fer "I've been abused". - They have been trained and conditioned to do so.

[SWJED]

...and it is important. NMCI (http://www.eds.com/sites/nmci/) is evil.

[Jedburgh]

...What we have to do is figure out how to use it better then they do - part of that means acknowledging that their use of commercial low cost / no cost tech is in some ways better then our high price / slow to acquire and field tech that because of security requirements often isolates us from the WWW population (another FOB analogy here). The bad guy hopes you invest all of your time in ASAS (All Source Analysis System) and chastise your guys from being on the Internet. He loves that our DOIMs at post restrict every useful site where our Intel folks could troll message boards...
One positive thing about the current company I work for, although their ISD (civilian version of DOIM) is just as - in certain cases even more - restrictive, our section has DSL lines that are separate from the company system. So, I have two computers to work with - one linked into the company, and the other, completely free to roam wherever value may be found. The ISD folks hated the concept, and it took some work - and high-level support - to get it done. But it was damn sure worth it.

By the way, regarding "trolling message boards" etc. - I recommend a cheap ($50) download for monitoring blogs, message boards, and any other website you may keep going back to for checks on new postings/updates: Copernic Tracker (http://www.copernic.com/en/products/tracker/index.html). For what its worth, this was another tool recommended to me by my contact at Jane's. It is extremely user friendly, and (for me at least) it saves a helluva lot of time in returning to various sites to check for updates/changes. They offer a 30-day free trial to check it out.

[slapout9]

I forget where he said it but one of the key capabilities of 4GW was they would simply send a "person" across an open border with nothing but money and some knowledge. He would use the existing resources in the target country to create what ever mayhem he wanted. It's like the old TV show MacGyver. Every week he was in situations where he used what was ever around him to make a weapon and win. I do think he carried a swiss army knife! Gee a future Marines weapons, Boot camp with a swiss Army knife a cell phone and old reruns of South park. Bart Simpson as a drill instructor:eek:

selil,here is sight you might like, look under catagories, has all inds of stuff you were looking for.

http://www.iwar.org.uk/comsec/

[Jedburgh]

...just in case anyone might find it useful, recently published by NIJ:

Investigations Involving the Internet and Computer Networks (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/210798.pdf), DoJ Jan 07

Contents

...Technical Working Group for the Investigation of High Technology Crimes

Chapter 1. Introduction and Investigative Issues

Chapter 2. Tracing an Internet Address to a Source

Chapter 3. Investigations Involving E-Mail

Chapter 4. Investigations Involving Web Sites

Chapter 5. Investigations Involving Instant Message Services,

Chapter 6. Investigations Involving File Sharing Networks

Chapter 7. Investigations of Network Intrusion/Denial of Service

Chapter 8. Investigations Involving Bulletin Boards, Message Boards, Chat Rooms, and IRC Listservs, and Newsgroups

Chapter 9. Legal Issues

Appendix A. Glossary

Appendix B. Domain Name Extensions

Appendix F. Examples of Potential Sources of Evidence in Network

Appendix G. Sample Language for Preservation Request Letters

Appendix C. Accessing Detailed Headers in E-Mail Messages

Appendix D. File Sharing Investigative Suggested Checklist...

[Rob Thornton]

Wikipedia definition of Information Warfare

Information warfare is the use and management of information in pursuit of a competitive advantage over an opponent. Information warfare may involve collection of tactical information, assurance that one's own information is valid, spreading of propaganda or disinformation among the enemy, undermining the quality of opposing force information and denial of information collection opportunities to opposing forces.

Black propaganda
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Black propaganda is propaganda that purports to be from a source on one side of a conflict, but is actually from the opposing side. It is typically used to vilify, embarrass or misrepresent the enemy. It contrasts with grey propaganda, the source of which is not identified, and white propaganda, in which the real source is declared. The term is also sometimes used as a synonym for particularly malicious wartime propaganda or falsification of information that is captured by an enemy.

Black propaganda may be generated by altering genuine enemy propaganda in such a way as to distort its message. This is a particularly powerful tool if the target audience has a poor understanding of the language of the enemy.

Marc had touched on this in some emails we exchanged

Here is a site from the wiki on Information Warfare (http://www.psycom.net/iwar.1.html)

[Jedburgh]

...Black propaganda is propaganda that purports to be from a source on one side of a conflict, but is actually from the opposing side. It is typically used to vilify, embarrass or misrepresent the enemy. It contrasts with grey propaganda, the source of which is not identified, and white propaganda, in which the real source is declared. The term is also sometimes used as a synonym for particularly malicious wartime propaganda or falsification of information that is captured by an enemy.

Black propaganda may be generated by altering genuine enemy propaganda in such a way as to distort its message. This is a particularly powerful tool if the target audience has a poor understanding of the language of the enemy...
That is a slightly narrow description of one aspect of old fashioned propaganda ops, which our PSYOP members can probably shed a great deal more light on.

In my experience, there are three types of propaganda, each of which has its use and can be very effective when properly implemented:

Black Propaganda: Information deliberately disseminated in ways that conceal the true sponsor and identify a false source. Note that this is not as narrow as the definition above: the false source does not have to be "the enemy" or "the opposing side". Context is critical.

Grey Propaganda: Iinformation disseminated in ways that do not specifically identify any source. This is very common in today's information environment - the 'net is brimming with unsourced information. In this context, it is placement that is key.

White Propaganda: Information disseminated in ways that identify the true sponsor/source. In my personal, biased opinion, this one requires a great deal more careful thought to be implemented effectively. Careful structuring of statements/articles and proper placement and timing do not come easy in the strategic context. And, when putting it out using a true source, if it ain't done right it can end up having the opposite of the intended effect.

[jonSlack]

Concerning the addictiveness of games for some players: S Korean dies after games session (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4137782.stm). It is an extreme example, but it happened.


The point is that there is this addictive game out there that has spawned an information/economic network where players of the game will actually pay money to make their virtual character better within the game's construct. They pay their money to brokers of characters and life points, who have in turn developed these virtual goods through Chinese players who do nothing but play the game in shifts (virtual workers).

This is not new. I played a text based MUD while I was in high school (6-8 years ago). At first I played for fun, but then it got boring. But, about the sametime I was learning computer programming. Since the game was completely text driven I was able to write a series of scripts that played the game for me. I would run it in the background while I was doing my homework during the school week. I watched it make my character was not getting attacked by other characters and also in case I was stopped by a Admin (Game rules had no problem with scripting as long as the player was at the keys.)

My character advanced and I banked in game currency. Second half of my senior year I started selling currency and then eventually my character, in total I think I made about 2 grand or so. Currency transactions were arranged through a Yahoo group and the sale of my character was to another player who was putting together a stable of automated characters (She was caught running scripted characters while not at the keyboard and her characters were locked out, she lost all of the money she invested in her "stable" when she got locked out, prolly close to $3,000 or $4,000). All transactions were paid using money orders.

I never paid real money for anything in the game, I just made money.

Again, that was all six to eight years ago. The game I played had maybe 2,000 regular players. Now, World of Warcraft has 8 million players! And that is just one game. There are others out there of equal or just lesser standing like Guild Wars and Lineage to name a couple. It comes as no surprise to me that a sweatshop industry has developed to provide wealthly gamers (Mainly from North America, Western Europe, parts of Asia like ROK and Japan and the wealthier parts of China) with a product they desire. It is supply and demand with the traditional constraints of product delivery and payment handled through the internet. Additionally, the suppliers help to perpetuate themselves because as the amount of currency increases in an environment while the supply of goods increases at a slower rate, you get inflation which in turns requires to buy larger amounts of game currency, and so on.

Small Wars relation... I do not see terrorist groups such as AQ profiting because of the resources involved such as the need for multiple and steady broadband internet connections and up to date computer hardware. Most of the "gold farmers" are based in China and are most likely getting "taxed" by local Party officials, similar, to a protection racket.


Although most of us might not frequent a seedy flea market and pick up an illegal copy of the latest Rocky, do we have the same inhibitions over the Internet?

The online "seedy flea market" is giving the stuff away, not selling it. There is little to no traditional profit in online file trading. Pirate groups do it to compete against each other and to leverage their "0-day releases" into other groups "dumps," and to make a name for their group.


Could perhaps Ebay be the unwitting host of such a network, where bootlegged DVDs, CDs, and other goods are sold as a "brand new, in the box" products and the profits are funnelled into more nefarious activities?

In selling copyright materials, money is made from "brick and mortar" stores in countries where copyright enforcement is lax, at best. The overhead involved in marketing and selling through the internet and transporting copyrighted movies and music is not worth it.


Maybe what we need are some SOF like virtual warriors that go in and conduct operations with virtual characters to get the virtual information and conduct virtual DA on virtual targets - my kid who beats my ass in HALO would love that. They'll need to hack in to servers (call it an insertion) and look for stuff that don't look right. I'm not even joking - I think the bad guys are way out infront of us.

No, we do not need avatar based direct action teams. Most of the online games are run by American firms or by allies. If we have probable cause that insurgents/terrorists are using a MMORPG for communication you get a search warrant for game logs and a wiretap to watch the suspects in the future. The DoD does not need a World of Warcraft special mission unit of druids and rogues.

Honestly though, there are easier ways to securely communicate. There are a number of available cryptographic programs available like PGP. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy) Then there is Steganography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography).

Rather, as we identify threat websites we need to just sit and watch. Preferably from a connection that cannot be linked back to the government. For AQ type sites, I would use connections from Deerborn, MI or other areas with a large population of Arabs and Muslims, a savvy admin will watch his logs and research where new visitors are coming from based on IP addresses. When you look at the site, you look at where the site links to and build map of the links. If the website has a discussion board like this, you watch it and see who the most credible posters are and attempt to identify them. This is where a government team of crackers would be valuable. When you identify good individual targets, you infilitrate their computer and install a trojan horse and a keylogger. The objective should be study and learn without being noticed, digital tactical/strategic reconnaissance.

One of the major threats out there are Distributed Denial of Service Attacks by "bot nets." Attack of the Bots (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/botnet.html)

I do not think AQ is making internet attacks a major part of their strategy. They use the internet for recruiting and public relations. On the other hand, China appears to be one of the bigger threats out there, India and Russia are probably not far behind either. Additionally, not all attacks are launched by governments. Example of the possible involvement of Russian organized crime. I also remember the back and forth of webpage defacements a couple years back after China forced our plane to land on their island. I also remember a hacker/cracker group declaring "war" on China or maybe Iraq or another nation and then having to back down because they had not realized what they started when they declared their "war." Mainly, that the country they were targeting could/would reach and out and touch them, and not just with a strongly worded email. Additionally, as the link on the Bot Nets above shows, there appears to be a "made to order" DDoS attack market developing out there.

Additionally, I do not think we are completely flat footed: CSI: TCP/IP (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.01/cybercop.html?pg=1&topic=cybercop&topic_set=)


One former blackhat says that meeting Christy and his fellow government operatives at DefCon over the years convinced him to switch sides. "When you realize that all the hackers in other countries, especially China, are ganging up on America, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to decide what side you want to be on," he says. After a couple of years working undercover "with, not for" various agencies with three-letter initialisms, he enlisted in the Army.

[Rob Thornton]

jon,
Thanks for the good research. It frames the discussion pretty well.


Rather, as we identify threat websites we need to just sit and watch. Preferably from a connection that cannot be linked back to the government. For AQ type sites, I would use connections from Deerborn, MI or other areas with a large population of Arabs and Muslims, a savvy admin will watch his logs and research where new visitors are coming from based on IP addresses. When you look at the site, you look at where the site links to and build map of the links. If the website has a discussion board like this, you watch it and see who the most credible posters are and attempt to identify them. This is where a government team of crackers would be valuable. When you identify good individual targets, you infilitrate their computer and install a trojan horse and a keylogger. The objective should be study and learn without being noticed, digital tactical/strategic reconnaissance.

That observation there is a good place to start.


Small Wars relation... I do not see terrorist groups such as AQ profiting because of the resources involved such as the need for multiple and steady broadband internet connections and up to date computer hardware. Most of the "gold farmers" are based in China and are most likely getting "taxed" by local Party officials, similar, to a protection racket.

Any thoughts on where the money goes, or how revenue could be spent? It seems a good way to finance allot of stuff.



I do not think AQ is making internet attacks a major part of their strategy. They use the internet for recruiting and public relations. On the other hand, China appears to be one of the bigger threats out there, India and Russia are probably not far behind either. Additionally, not all attacks are launched by governments. Example of the possible involvement of Russian organized crime. I also remember the back and forth of webpage defacements a couple years back after China forced our plane to land on their island. I also remember a hacker/cracker group declaring "war" on China or maybe Iraq or another nation and then having to back down because they had not realized what they started when they declared their "war." Mainly, that the country they were targeting could/would reach and out and touch them, and not just with a strongly worded email. Additionally, as the link on the Bot Nets above shows, there appears to be a "made to order" DDoS attack market developing out there.

You know as far as Coalition contributions could go - if a country like India, or or somewhere that had the labor and networks - they could make a serious contribution hunting down and attacking listed sites - especially if they were paid - there might be allot of unhappy WoW fans though. Politically there'd be flak about using people chained to their desktops in support of GWOT.

[jonSlack]

Any thoughts on where the money goes, or how revenue could be spent? It seems a good way to finance allot of stuff.


"Gold farming" is a legitimate business in my opinion. I'd imagine the money goes toward typical business expenses like labor costs, maintaining and upgrading equipment and other normal mundane legimate expenses along with some to local party officials who are bound to have their hand out. Some workers in China make tangible consumer goods, others "farm gold."


You know as far as Coalition contributions could go - if a country like India, or or somewhere that had the labor and networks - they could make a serious contribution hunting down and attacking listed sites - especially if they were paid - there might be allot of unhappy WoW fans though. Politically there'd be flak about using people chained to their desktops in support of GWOT.

I do not see the purpose in in "attacking" threat websites. RIAA and other copyright agencies attacked and shut down Napster and Kazaa and other similar sites and look happened, they basically forced the creation of the bitTorrent network which is now almost impossible to track and observe, let alone shut down.

The real value in the websites is intelligence like I mentioned in the previous post. If you target them and shut them down you just force them to change their tactics and find better ways to hide from you.

From left field, but if the threat sites happen to be running advertisements like a lot of the blogs do, try buying the ability to display links and banners on the threat website. The links and banners would lead to sites that communicate our side of the story (IO or PSYOP as the case requires.)

A good example of what we should be trying to do is like what Starbucks did in response to Oxfam's Day of Action video on youTube. Starbucks did not threathen to sue and shutdown (attack) youTube or even Oxfam. What they did is used youTube to present their side of the story to the public.

First watch Oxfam's Starbucks Day of Action (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N5wzr5xeWI). Notice, the second clip in the "Related" column is Starbucks' response. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dteTrEM7mlM&mode=related&search=)

[AFlynn]

The mention of steganography made me think of where I first heard of it: an Alternate Reality Game(ARG) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_Reality_Game). I think the teams of people put together to tackle those puzzles represent some formidable distributed problem-solving capability. Is anyone looking at hiring those guys?

[marct]

The mention of steganography made me think of where I first heard of it: an Alternate Reality Game(ARG) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_Reality_Game). I think the teams of people put together to tackle those puzzles represent some formidable distributed problem-solving capability. Is anyone looking at hiring those guys?

I remember back in "the old days" when I used to run a games design company. Some really bright, out-of-the-box type people were in the industry then. Honestly, I think it has to do with an eclectic mindset more than anything else.

Marc

[Steve Blair]

Games design is an interesting field, but one that isn't valued much outside of its community. Interesting dynamics in this area.

[nichols]

Sorry, been extremely busy for a while.

This ties into sims/gaming

We just deployed 6 DVTE suites (33 Dell XPS 1710 per suite) to II MEF. Additionally 22nd MEU left with a suite.

1 Suite is going to Division Schools to instruct TTPs to Coalition Forces, we had the game company replace all English scripts/voice overs with Arabic.

Tactical Iraqi has been extensively deployed to II MEF
Tactical Pashto is going out the door
Tactical Sahel French will be in the Beta testing stage in another month.

Last September's Gazette has articles covering the DVTE.

[120mm]

Is anyone aware of a computer simulation oriented toward COIN? And what level of sophistication can a "soft" computer game be expected to portray?

[nichols]

My suggestion is do not go down the rabbit hole for the ultimate COIN sim. Instead look for a simulation that allows the end user to modify the game play as needed. If the end user can not change the sim then you have a nasty loop where requirements being feed to the sim company will never catch up with real world scenarios.

The second part is the Artificial Intelligence, JF Com is using AI developed out of the University of Pennsylvania that drives the AI according to the input that the 2 shop should have. There are some that say the best opponant is a human, in some cases I agree with this but for COIN type scenarios and I was your opponant, you would get a "nicholised" view of what COIN is. When the AI is the opponant, you get reactions that are based on outside source input.

[marct]

Hi Nicols,


My suggestion is do not go down the rabbit hole for the ultimate COIN sim. Instead look for a simulation that allows the end user to modify the game play as needed. If the end user can not change the sim then you have a nasty loop where requirements being feed to the sim company will never catch up with real world scenarios.

Some very good points, here, and they tie into one of the major problems with computer based games; the insbility to shift the programming elements on the fly. Personally, I think one of the best COIN sims is an old science fiction board game by GDW called Bloodtree Rebellion. It's based around classic Maoist insurgency theory, which is a bit of a limitation given current practices, must it's a very nice, parsimonious game.


The second part is the Artificial Intelligence, JF Com is using AI developed out of the University of Pennsylvania that drives the AI according to the input that the 2 shop should have. There are some that say the best opponant is a human, in some cases I agree with this but for COIN type scenarios and I was your opponant, you would get a "nicholised" view of what COIN is. When the AI is the opponant, you get reactions that are based on outside source input.

The flip problem is that the AI is the "nicholized" version filtered through a sim shop. AIs, in and of themselves, are frequently as dumb as the dumbest programmer involved in their creation.

If you are going to use AIs in a COIN sim, then it would be best to "train" them to act as individual leaders in the AO, and update their training based on each subsequent piece oof intel relating to that person. This gets you your "outside source input". Have the AIs as individual "players", but also allow human "players".

Which brings up the question of "rules". All sims are based on rules, but one key advantage that the board games had was their ability to create "simple" rules that would engage with other "simple" rules to produce a highly chaotic game.

For example, let's suppose that we were going to build a COIN sim for Iraq. To my mind, one of the key "rules" would have to be concerned with the availability and cost of cell phones and 'net traffic as well as with their changing capabilities. Ideally, there should also be an LSI component that monitors speaches, graffiti, AIQ posters, etc. All of these are fairly "simple" modules, but they will create a highly complex and chaotic game environment - which is what we have in reality.

Marc

[Steve Blair]

I would say the best use for computers in this sort of exercise is as book keepers and for determining combat and other interaction resolution. If you're set on using computers, I'd suggest a MUD-type model. You will want live players on the "other side" and not an AI-driven opponent.

Role-playing games would be another good source of rules. Not so much the newer ones (such as d20-based systems), because they have become enamored of many, many tables of questionable utility. But there are a number of older systems out there that could easily be adapted and "computerized" in some aspects.

[marct]

I would say the best use for computers in this sort of exercise is as book keepers and for determining combat and other interaction resolution. If you're set on using computers, I'd suggest a MUD-type model. You will want live players on the "other side" and not an AI-driven opponent.

Role-playing games would be another good source of rules. Not so much the newer ones (such as d20-based systems), because they have become enamored of many, many tables of questionable utility. But there are a number of older systems out there that could easily be adapted and "computerized" in some aspects.

I'd totally agree with these points. One of the things that led me to get out of game design, and go back to school, was a growing frustration with the use of computers in games. Some of the best games ever designed were produced in the early to mid 1980's and the computer sims still haven't caught up with them.

When you are talking about the "older systems" did you have any particular ones in mind?

Marc

[nichols]

I wrote an article in last September's Gazette covering the current TDS (Tactical Decision-making Simulations) that the Corps currently uses. Current TDS are used for analytical and recognitional decision making. Our current efforts are to have a Mission Rehearsal TDS.........tough nutt to crack but we are bringing the pieces together.

[nichols]

You will want live players on the "other side" and not an AI-driven opponent.

We have run into problems when doing AT or COIN type missions with live players. I could read all the source material on who or what I', supposed to act like but at the end of the scenario you will be able to trace back certain nicholism that became part of me as I advanced through life.

He's a good article of where we want to go next:

http://www.seas.upenn.edu/%7Ebarryg/CultureGames.pdf

[Steve Blair]

Interesting stuff. Computer sims like that have always interested me, but I do have a bias toward stuff that uses real people on both sides. This is because you can still get free play and those wonderful "out of the blue" things that people (regardless of culture) will do.

Marc, I would say that the old RoleMaster system (not the newer ones..second edition and so on) would be a good starting point simply because it can be "tweeked" into just about anything you need. It also has the advantage of having a stout combat system and a decent percentile-based system that can be used (to a degree) to model more complex actions and skills.

And I agree with you about the mid-1980s being the golden age of game design. I look at the d20 junk now and want to scream. Spycraft alone has more tables than a chemistry lab, and 80% of them seem to have no use at all. I think designers lost sight of the fact that a computer is a TOOL, not a viable opponent in the same sense that the guy sitting across from you is. And don't get me started about computer "RPGs" and like.

What company did you work for/run? I did some design work for ICE and a few articles for TSR back in the 1980s.

[marct]

Hi Steve and Nicols,


Interesting stuff. Computer sims like that have always interested me, but I do have a bias toward stuff that uses real people on both sides. This is because you can still get free play and those wonderful "out of the blue" things that people (regardless of culture) will do.

I'm about 1/3 through the paper, and I would like to try out the Athena version. Still and all, I think it is based on a fatal flaw - the players only appear to be "leaders". I would think that, for a complex COIN situation, it would be better to run it as a fully distributed system with components of an RPG in it; basically, something that would allow people to start as a disaffected Iraq, for example, and try to build their own insurgency group.


Marc, I would say that the old RoleMaster system (not the newer ones..second edition and so on) would be a good starting point simply because it can be "tweeked" into just about anything you need. It also has the advantage of having a stout combat system and a decent percentile-based system that can be used (to a degree) to model more complex actions and skills.

RoleMaster was a good system. I'll admit hat I had a bit of a tendency to favour the Archon Games system, but it was quite complex. I also used to use a lot of the Paladium Games system.


And I agree with you about the mid-1980s being the golden age of game design. I look at the d20 junk now and want to scream. Spycraft alone has more tables than a chemistry lab, and 80% of them seem to have no use at all. I think designers lost sight of the fact that a computer is a TOOL, not a viable opponent in the same sense that the guy sitting across from you is. And don't get me started about computer "RPGs" and like.

LOLOL Oh, too true, Steve!


What company did you work for/run? I did some design work for ICE and a few articles for TSR back in the 1980s.

I ran my own company, Valhalla Simulation Games, and did a bit of consulting / freelance work for Palladium and FASA.

Marc

[Steve Blair]

Heard of Valhalla Games.

Palladium was good, but there were certain aspects of their rules that gave me fits.

I used (and continue to use) RoleMaster more as a basic framework and have done tons of customization to it for a variety of game settings.

And I agree with the thought of adding more of a player component to any system that's used to model COIN. One of the more difficult aspects of these situations is the lack of one leader (there are often MANY leaders, springing up and disappearing with great frequency) and the appearance of many new groups. Hard to do in a computer model that focuses on leaders.

[marct]

Heard of Valhalla Games.

Palladium was good, but there were certain aspects of their rules that gave me fits.

I used (and continue to use) RoleMaster more as a basic framework and have done tons of customization to it for a variety of game settings.

And I agree with the thought of adding more of a player component to any system that's used to model COIN. One of the more difficult aspects of these situations is the lack of one leader (there are often MANY leaders, springing up and disappearing with great frequency) and the appearance of many new groups. Hard to do in a computer model that focuses on leaders.

VSG was fun while it lasted but, after 5 years, I figured it was beter to go back to school and finish my degree. I do agre on the Palladium rules; some of them gave me fits as well :). Still and all, it was an easy system and, IMHO, a system is only a rough guide for a good gamesmaster.

I think the other problem with a sim focusing on leaders is that it also seems to presuppose a state as the operational unit. Given the current situation, this is a mistake. That's one of the reasons I would like to see any sim have more RPG components and be aimed at a model of "bottom-up" conflict, rather than "top down".

Anyway, it's going to be a busy day for me, so I'd better sign off and stat working :D

Marc

[120mm]

I find it interesting that the Army has embraced Command Post computer simulations that purportedly exercise CPs as a way to TEWT. I work for such an operation, and I've done a head count and compared it to good old fashioned map and lead miniature simulations, and find that we use up to 3 times as many people as in the old days of pushing lead. Plus, you add in the time and expense of civilian contractors/consultants and the cost of the computers, and it becomes an incredibly wasteful boondoggle, with problems that have remained unresolved for 20 or more years.
So, I fear the Army getting involved in a COIN computer simulation....

[nichols]

We have our MTWS which is contractor intensive also.

In addition we have MAGTF XXI which is a stand alone TDS designed stimulate COC activities. Last year at EWS it was used by the students to drive input into C2PC. This TDS is used by the Marines and does not require contractor support.

[nichols]

Another application for gaming use for teaching coalition forces TTPs.

We are doing a mod to VBS-2, all English scripting/voice ques and so on have been changed over to Arabic. Division Schools has been issued a DVTE Suite that they intend to use for coalition training. This should be interesting.

[marct]

The bio-cultural imperialism of Sid Meier’s Civilization (http://www.focaal.box.nl/previous/Forum%20focaal39.pdf)

[sgmgrumpy]

Prototype Game (http://www.cubic.com/corp1/pdf/Tech_Outlook_Games_low.pdf)



During a recent demonstration at a U.S. Army conference,
the Cubic-NSC team showcased a scenario involving
an insurgent driving a vehicle-borne Improvised Explosive
Device (IED) toward a checkpoint. In this scenario, soldiers
were challenged to counter the insurgent attack while exercising
their unit Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTP)
and Rules of Engagement.


While simulations alone will never replace live, handson
training with actual equipment, they can provide a
valuable enhancement to the Army’s “crawl-walk-run”
method of training.

[jcustis]

It would appear that one could die from some of this stuff...


BEIJING, China (AP) -- A man in southern China appears to have died of exhaustion after a three-day Internet gaming binge, state media said Monday.

The 30-year-old man fainted at a cyber cafe in the city of Guangzhou Saturday afternoon after he had been playing games online for three days, the Beijing News reported.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/09/17/internet.death.ap/index.html

[wm]

I recently stumbled across an interesting 1897 text by English Field Marshall Evelyn Wood, VC, entitled Achievements of Cavalry. I found the following quotation on page vii of the preface particularly instructive with regard to the topic of this thread


Cavalry officers can become efficient leaders, after
adequate study, by two means:—
Firstly, by war service.
Secondly, by practice in cavalry, and combined
manoeuvres.
The former experience, costly in lives and money,
is not often available, and the latter means has
only been afforded to our Service during the last
few years, and even in that time but to a very
limited degree. The Prussians, on the other hand,
have had manoeuvres of some kind ever since the
time of Frederick the Great, i.e. for a century and a
half; and it is significant that during the twenty-two
years, 1821-43, m which no large bodies of cavalry
were assembled for manoeuvres in that country,
there was a tendency to eliminate warlike exercises,
and substitute parade movements for them.
Until recently our regiments had not got beyond
parade movements. I hope, however, that the British
public is beginning to recognize the necessity for
annual manoeuvres ; and, satisfied, as I am, that there
is an increasing desire for improvement amongst the
officers, I believe in the future of our cavalry.

Here's another interesting paragraph from the previous page (my emphasis added) in which Wood explains the distribution of the 12 examples he has choosen.


It will be observed that England, Poland, and
Russia each furnished the troops for only one of the
feats I have selected, Austria two, and France two,
while North Germany is credited with five out of the
twelve Achievements. This is to be accounted for,
so far as our cavalry is concerned, by the fact that
though it had many opportunities of achieving success
in the Peninsular War, yet the leading of its
commanders, being more indicative of courageous
hearts than of well-stored minds, was often barren of
results.

The thoughts expressed in this second quotation may be even more germane to the discussion at this thread (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=3942) or the various discussion spawned by LTC Yingling's article.

For those interested in the book, you can find it on-line here (http://books.google.com/books?id=RmcDAAAAYAAJ)

[Beelzebubalicious]

Interesting discussion. Reminds me of an article I read awhile ago and saved as a favorite. It's titled "Insurgency: Modern Warfare Evolves into a Fourth Generation" and was written by Thomas X. Hammes and was published in the Strategic Forum publication of the Institute for National Strategic Studies
National Defense University in January 2005. Might be old hat for some out there, but I thought it was an interesting read at the time and given this thread, worth another look:

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/SF214/SF214.pdf

Here is something I came across (now a bit dated) related to using onling gaming for Military Training and Education:

Massive Multiplayer Online Gaming: A Research Framework for Military Training and Education (http://www.adlnet.gov/downloads/downloadpage.aspx?ID=100)

By the way, I've looked into virtual games a bit and come across some interesting examples. Check out:

VECTOR (http://vector.chisystems.com/index.htm) (Virtual Environment Cultural Training for Operational Readiness)

The Institute for Creative Technologies (http://www.ict.usc.edu/content/view/31/84/) does some interesting work, including a Stability and Support Operations Simulation (http://www.ict.usc.edu/content/view/33/86/)