hackers bringing the world to the brink of catastrophe
'No one is ready for this'
Now, cyber-attacks are on the rise and Nato's top computer experts have gathered in a military base in Estonia to prepare cyberwar defences
Quote:
And the coup de grace? Hidden programs inside the country's electricity grid might then jump to life, shutting down power supplies, creating targeted blackouts, even sending nuclear reactors into freefall.
Such a doomsday scenario might sound drastic - more of a cyber-apocalypse than a cyber-attack - but it is one that has been outlined many times by the Metropolitan Police, MI5 and the Joint Intelligence Committee. The US Navy investigator and cybercrime specialist Kenneth Geers characterises the typical response of powerful individuals as they hear this doomsday scenario outlined as a sort of unbridled terror inspired by technology. "More than one senior official said they've had so many cyber-briefings now that they don't want to turn their computers on any more," he says.
Behind the security gates and razor wire, however, this is a different kind of military operation - the unlikely frontline in Nato's attempt to prevent a global cyberwar. K5 is where the alliance's top computer experts - high-ranking researchers, academics and security specialists - work in teams to analyse potential cyberthreats, and predict exactly how Nato will fight virtual wars in the future.
Computer Spies Breach Fighter-Jet Project
Interesting article on WSJ.com today:
Quote:
Computer spies have broken into the Pentagon's $300 billion Joint Strike Fighter project -- the Defense Department's costliest weapons program ever -- according to current and former government officials familiar with the attacks.
Quote:
Many details couldn't be learned, including the specific identity of the attackers, and the scope of the damage to the U.S. defense program, either in financial or security terms. In addition, while the spies were able to download sizable amounts of data related to the jet-fighter, they weren't able to access the most sensitive material, which is stored on computers not connected to the Internet.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124027491029837401.html
Cyber warfare; Expansion of 4th or the emergence of 5th generation warfare?
This is the second short response for a class I am taking. Enjoy!
On April 21st, the Defense Department announced that spies hacked into the $300 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter project. Full details of the cyber attack may never become available to the public, but the Department of Defense quickly revealed that the amounts of F-35 data dowloaded were "sizable", and speculation places the origin of the attack in China. This cyber attack follows a chain of escalating security breaches, including Air Force air-traffic control, and the U.S. electric grid (on April 4). In the last six months, the Pentagon spent $100 million repairing damage caused by network breaches (WSJ.com).
But what exactly is 5th generation warfare? According to Thomas Hammes, the U.S. currently fighting the 4th generation of warfare—underscored by a transition from “maneuver warfare” (third generation) to targeting multiple networks (political, economic, social, and military) and making strategic goals “unachievable or too costly for the perceived benefit” (Hammes, 2006). Fourth generation warfare does not focus on the “military victory” of the first three generations, but destruction of the political will to wage war. It is from this mindset we see the new prominence of non-conventional warfare and tactics, such as violent insurgencies and transnational terrorism. This definition begs the question: “is cyber warfare a form of non-conventional warfare”
The general theme between generations of warfare is the gradual expansion of the battlefield at the expense of restrictions--for example, the dynamics of forth generation warfare include a “social” dimension previously ignored by third generation. If we look to expand the scope today’s wars, we must move beyond “physical warfare”. Thus a fifth generation may be defined by kinetic (conventional and unconventional warfare) and non-kinetic attacks on political, economic, social, and military networks in order to make strategic objectives unachievable or too costly for the perceived benefit. I believe that cyber warfare pushes the boundaries forward in such a way that makes fifth generation an inevitable reality. In spite of the addition of “non-kinetic” tactics such as cyber warfare, physical attacks will remain just as relevant as they are today—a few well-placed, heavy chains or IEDs on a high voltage transmission line can bring down the U.S. power grid just as cheaply and effectively as a hacker.
The recent surge of high-profile cyber attacks on the United States serve as a litmus test for fifth generation warfare. Congress recognizes the existence (though not necessarily the extent) of a threat, and allocated $17 billion to buffering government network security. American utility providers are also taking steps to secure technologically dependent systems. However, the symbolic nature cyber attack on the F-35 project should not be overlooked—tomorrow’s wars will depend on $300 computers as much (or more) than a multibillion dollar super jet.
Sources:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124027491029837401.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123914805204099085.html
Hammes, Colonel Thomas X., and Usmc. The Sling and the Stone: On War in the 21st Century. Zenith Press, 2006.
Information Warfare is an adjunct, not warfare in itself
The way I see it, information warfare, specifically the targeting and attack of the enemy's command and industrial infrastructure is an adjunct to other, more "conventional" forms of warfare, not a form of warfare in itself. As Selil put it, armies have been targeting others' infrastructure since the dawn of warfare.
As I see it, cyberwar isn't a form of warfare per se, it is a tactic that is used as part of a wider strategy. Its just like bombing the enemy's roads or power lines to slow his movements and reduce the effectiveness of his fighting forces.
Cyberwarfare Called Fifth Domain of Battle by Pentagon
http://www.securitynewsdaily.com/cyb...pentagon-0531/
Quote:
"Our military must be as capable in this new domain as it is in more traditional domains,” said Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn III, referring to military theory that divides warfare into the domains of land, sea, air and space.
Killing people and breaking things in cyberspace is not possible. Living, breathing humans do not exist in cyberspace, nor do tangible things. Technologies for terminating humans in meatspace and breaking their stuff involving cyberspace as a transport medium for various payloads is going on now.
Technologies for influencing potential adversaries not to act in ways that might get their meatspace existence ended also transit cyberspace.
Guns don't usually kill people
Quote:
Originally Posted by
selil
This is a technological fallacy that most people don't understand until they've been exposed to a few others. Examine the common phrase "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Though concretely incorrect (the person is a secondary actor to the technology) the same exact linkages can be made for cyber.
Guns, howitzers, mortars, and small arms usually only kill people by accident. It's projectiles launched from these pieces and the damage they inflict upon human bodies that kills. The ballistic trajectory of these projectiles runs through the domain of the air, but that does not make them aircraft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
selil
If, as an example I remotely turn off your pacemaker via wireless signals, does the end result not count because it wasn't a bullet?
Nope, doesn't count as a kinetic kill, or even as a homocide unless somebody investigates my death and can prove you turned off my pacemaker. I'll still be dead, but my death won't be counted as a cyberwar KIA if you cover your tracks right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
selil
If I use a high bandwidth command and control system to run a predator drone that rains missiles down that isn't cyber, but if I hack back on that predator drone and turn it on it's owners is that cyber?
Your Predator's C2 is a computer network subject to attack that requires defense. If you successfully attack the Predator's C2 network and cause it to fire upon friendlies, you can call that cyber if you want. Others might call it CNA or even EW
Towards a Theory on Cyber-War: Dave Aitel meditates on the "Three Cyber-War fallacies
Those of you following issues of cyberwar likely subscribe to the Dailydave Newsletter, and Dave Aitel--a veteran of the NSA and CEO of Immunity, Inc.--recently posted a link to a work-in-progress presentation entitled "The Three Cyber-War Fallacies." In it, Aitel seeks to debunk the following three claims:
Quote:
1. Cyberwar is asymmetric.
2. Cyberwar is non-kinetic.
3. Cyberwar is not attributable.
These are all provocative claims worth examining, so I wanted to see if anyone here wanted to debate one or more of these. At any rate, read through the presentation. It makes for interesting reading even in its unfinished form.