Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US and Russia Open Talks On Limits To Cyberwar

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the you-put-down-yours-first dept.

Government 80

andy1307 passes on this from the NY Times: "The United States has begun talks with Russia and a United Nations arms control committee about strengthening Internet security and limiting military use of cyberspace. American and Russian officials have different interpretations of the talks so far, but the mere fact that the United States is participating represents a significant policy shift after years of rejecting Russia's overtures. Officials familiar with the talks said the Obama administration realized that more nations were developing cyberweapons and that a new approach was needed to blunt an international arms race ... While the Russians have continued to focus on treaties that may restrict weapons development, the United States is hoping to use the talks to increase international cooperation in opposing Internet crime. Strengthening defenses against Internet criminals would also strengthen defenses against any military-directed cyberattacks, the United States maintains."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Here's a good first step ... (5, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30419904)

Stop buying networking hardware from China, and build (or re-build) domestic suppliers of such equipment. That applies to any nation that wants to maintain security: China has been abusing its position as a dominant hardware supplier for some time now. You can have all the network security in place that money can buy, but if the Internet-facing defenses have been compromised from the manufacturer you're pretty much screwed. Too much untrustworthy modified firmware has been coming out of China lately for me to place any faith in it. Well, all right ... I suppose that if the boards are made in China but a domestic vendor supplies the firmware locally it would be okay ... but that's not how it usually works.

Now, some of you may think that I'm picking on Chinese vendors ... and I am, but the criticism is well-deserved in this case. Not that I believe the individual manufacturers are doing this of their own accord, necessarily. But there's a lot of intrusion attempts coming out of that country, and you can bet the people behind it look at selling compromised hardware to other countries as a legitimate tool. How many of those attempts are successful because a firewall or router has hidden code in it I suppose we'll never know.

Re:Here's a good first step ... (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 4 years ago | (#30420052)

I would hope that military equipment contracts would be put to domestic businesses to keep it from being that easy.

Actually, do not need to go that far. (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#30420186)

I would like to see the military AND the feds restrict its purchases of critical sub-systems like this to equipment made only in trusted countries and from trust suppliers.

Re:Actually, do not need to go that far. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30420286)

How come Harlem is full of niggers while San Francisco is full of faggots? Because San Francisco got first choice.

It's like an American presidential election, the lesser of two evils.

Re:Here's a good first step ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30421990)

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/09/164201

FTA: FBI Says Military Had Counterfeit Cisco Routers

I can see a problem here...

Re:Here's a good first step ... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30420130)

Stop buying networking hardware from China, and build (or re-build) domestic suppliers of such equipment. That applies to any nation that wants to maintain security: China has been abusing its position as a dominant hardware supplier for some time now. You can have all the network security in place that money can buy, but if the Internet-facing defenses have been compromised from the manufacturer you're pretty much screwed. Too much untrustworthy modified firmware has been coming out of China lately for me to place any faith in it. Well, all right ... I suppose that if the boards are made in China but a domestic vendor supplies the firmware locally it would be okay ... but that's not how it usually works.

Now, some of you may think that I'm picking on Chinese vendors ... and I am, but the criticism is well-deserved in this case. Not that I believe the individual manufacturers are doing this of their own accord, necessarily. But there's a lot of intrusion attempts coming out of that country, and you can bet the people behind it look at selling compromised hardware to other countries as a legitimate tool. How many of those attempts are successful because a firewall or router has hidden code in it I suppose we'll never know.

Stop buying networking hardware from China, and build (or re-build) domestic suppliers of such equipment. That applies to any nation that wants to maintain security: China has been abusing its position as a dominant hardware supplier for some time now. You can have all the network security in place that money can buy, but if the Internet-facing defenses have been compromised from the manufacturer you're pretty much screwed. Too much untrustworthy modified firmware has been coming out of China lately for me to place any faith in it. Well, all right ... I suppose that if the boards are made in China but a domestic vendor supplies the firmware locally it would be okay ... but that's not how it usually works.

Now, some of you may think that I'm picking on Chinese vendors ... and I am, but the criticism is well-deserved in this case. Not that I believe the individual manufacturers are doing this of their own accord, necessarily. But there's a lot of intrusion attempts coming out of that country, and you can bet the people behind it look at selling compromised hardware to other countries as a legitimate tool. How many of those attempts are successful because a firewall or router has hidden code in it I suppose we'll never know.

Stop buying networking hardware from China, and build (or re-build) domestic suppliers of such equipment. That applies to any nation that wants to maintain security: China has been abusing its position as a dominant hardware supplier for some time now. You can have all the network security in place that money can buy, but if the Internet-facing defenses have been compromised from the manufacturer you're pretty much screwed. Too much untrustworthy modified firmware has been coming out of China lately for me to place any faith in it. Well, all right ... I suppose that if the boards are made in China but a domestic vendor supplies the firmware locally it would be okay ... but that's not how it usually works.

Now, some of you may think that I'm picking on Chinese vendors ... and I am, but the criticism is well-deserved in this case. Not that I believe the individual manufacturers are doing this of their own accord, necessarily. But there's a lot of intrusion attempts coming out of that country, and you can bet the people behind it look at selling compromised hardware to other countries as a legitimate tool. How many of those attempts are successful because a firewall or router has hidden code in it I suppose we'll never know.

I think we should blame ourselves for allowing them to have control over it. The factories might be crap and there might be poeple wishing to take advantage of it... If our pcps were build in our own region we wouldnt have this problem. But I dont think it depends on us?..

Re:Here's a good first step ... (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#30420846)

Given your quoting meltdown, I think its fairly certain you should blame yourself for lack of control.

Either that or the Chinese have a wicked sense of humor....

Re:Here's a good first step ... (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 4 years ago | (#30422098)

Are you having file system problems?

It looked like the post was preceded and followed by the post.

Re:Here's a good first step ... (3, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#30420456)

Too much untrustworthy modified firmware has been coming out of China lately for me to place any faith in it.

Citation needed.

I don't doubt this is possible, but a network component manufacturer having product built in China is probably able to tell if the unit is not to spec.

China uses commodity chips, (some of which is also manufactured in China) but the finished product has to run the home manufacturer's software.

The assumption that the engineers that designed it couldn't tell if the the design has been altered and back doors inserted seems a bit of a hyperventilation to me.

Re:Here's a good first step ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30421162)

Unless the manufacturer is friendlier with China than it should be. It wouldn't be the first time. Same companies, even.

Ever read about the domestic business deals going around prior to the rise of the Nazis in Germany? Very telling. History could repeat itself.

Re:Here's a good first step ... (2, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#30421816)

Besides, the whole idea is completely missing the point. Cyberwar cannot be limited the way nuclear arms can, because a civilian attack is not fundamentally different froma military one: unlike with nuclear weapons, the civilians have access to all the tools and knowledge the military does. Oh, and their motivations don't fundamentally alter the approach they take. It's like bankrobbers routinely nuking cities.

If a 100k botnet attacks your site, how do you determine if they're the Russian military or a bored teenager?

Re:Here's a good first step ... (3, Funny)

easyTree (1042254) | more than 4 years ago | (#30422280)

If a 100k botnet attacks your site, how do you determine if they're the Russian military or a bored teenager?

var attacker = (benefitToForeignPolicyAgenda (russianMilitary) >= benefitToForeignPolicyAgenda (boredTeenager)) ? russianMilitary : boredTeenager;

Re:Here's a good first step ... (1)

WilliamBaughman (1312511) | more than 4 years ago | (#30423924)

Citation needed.

Slashdot | Feds Seize $78M of Bogus Chinese Cisco Gear [slashdot.org]

Slashdot | FBI Says Military Had Counterfeit Cisco Routers [slashdot.org]

Modding "Disagree" is censorship. A rational rebuttal makes Slashdot better.

Modding "Disagree" is not censorship. It's an important tool to safeguard other readers from thinking your post was anywhere near "Insightful." If you really thought the original post required citations, why not add them yourself? Or better yet, why not edit your post now that you have some. Maybe Slashdot should add a "Dangerously Ignorant" or "Falsely Claims that a Different Opinion Lacks Supporting Evidence" mod for posts like yours. If you really thought that a "rational rebuttal" would make Slashdot better, why didn't you do some trivial research before you posted?

Re:Here's a good first step ... (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#30423994)

Bogus does not mean back-doored.

You not only attempted to change the meaning of the thread from a strategic subversion of embedded technology to simple economic piracy. Simple piracy is not cyberwarfare, its not even a precursor of cyberwarfare.

If you are going to get on you high-horse and preach about the moderation system at least have the courage to keep the discussion focused. These drive by link dumps of non germane slashdot postings do not prove your point (if you had one) and do not prove the contention of the thread-lead.

Re:Here's a good first step ... (1)

WilliamBaughman (1312511) | more than 4 years ago | (#30424128)

If you think that gray market products are inherently trustworthy, and that it's safe for the FBI to buy product A and unknowingly use product B instead (even though it could turn out to be an exact duplicate of product A), then I don't have the time right now to explain how those link are relevant to the parent post.

Re:Here's a good first step ... (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#30424182)

I didn't say they were inherently trustworthy. Again stop putting your words in my mouth.

I said counterfeit products are not cyber warfare. That is the topic of this story after all.

If the FBI or the ARMY security relies on knowing who manufactured and item, then they are not doing their job.

Re:Here's a good first step ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30430114)

Too much untrustworthy modified firmware has been coming out of China lately for me to place any faith in it.

Citation needed.

I don't doubt this is possible, but a network component manufacturer having product built in China is probably able to tell if the unit is not to spec.

China uses commodity chips, (some of which is also manufactured in China) but the finished product has to run the home manufacturer's software.

The assumption that the engineers that designed it couldn't tell if the the design has been altered and back doors inserted seems a bit of a hyperventilation to me.

The chips and final assembly is done in China for companies in other countries who contract out the firmware design to India. It would be interesting to watch a cyber war between China and India. I'm not sure who'd win.

Re:Here's a good first step ... (1)

camcorder (759720) | more than 4 years ago | (#30420600)

Do you mean whole 266 [cia.gov] (even you cut that into half) different country to build their own networking hardware? If not, why any under-developed country should trust a developed country, then? Especially if some of those countries have a bad record of bullying weaker ones for any imaginary reason.

Sooner or later developed countries will realize this arrogance will backfire. If anyone is looking for a solution for a real security, it's hidden under understanding every human being living on this planet have the same rights as you have. Once you realize this fact, whoever produces these products will lose its meaning, and you won't waste your time to build machines that kill others.

Re:Here's a good first step ... (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#30420808)

If anyone is looking for a solution for a real security, it's hidden under understanding every human being living on this planet have the same rights as you have. Once you realize this fact, whoever produces these products will lose its meaning, and you won't waste your time to build machines that kill others.

Nonsense. Every human being doesn't have the same rights that I do. Sure, it'd be nicer, if they did.

Re:Here's a good first step ... (1)

camcorder (759720) | more than 4 years ago | (#30420880)

That's the problem already. They don't have the rights you have now, (and you don't have the rights that some minority have). But what's your or their importance in the eternity which makes us different than each other? Can you name any single thing?

Re:Here's a good first step ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30421176)

Dude...are you high? Pass that shit around and then maybe I can understand your babble.

Re:Here's a good first step ... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30421308)

Why do you think that is so? We are all the same, yet some countries are in such peril. It isn't because the people are stupid, or lack any qualities anyone else might have. There is only one thing that dominates these countries, and it's closer to home than you would think. International business, in bed with finance, with a stranglehold on government and "journalism". Who is to investigate, when all of the investigators are employees of the entity they are supposed to investigate?

Fortunately the traditional (not lately) form of government the USA was founded on, as written, is the finest example of liberty, sans all out anarchy that the world has seen. The issue, is that a country like China is very attractive to a rich socialite with monopoly on his mind who would love to reduce the threat of his competition, and to increase the legal wiggle room so he can squeeze a little more profit from the exhausted phallis of the "public good". To increase efficiency, bringing that system back home, to make domestic operations less problematic and more profitable, might also be attractive.

So given that motive, said CEOs and Foundation/Bank Chairmen, might have every reason to have interest in engaging in treason for their own fortunes. China is a giant factory for the companies that financed it's "hostile takeover". European and American Corporations ARE China. When the world is your marketplace, how much is standardization accross countries of policy in favor of your operations, with protections against legal prosecution for your illegal activities, effective to your profits? So, we see emerge a global model of the 21st century oppressive authoritarian standard, which we see slowly showing up subsequently in the places that used to be havens of liberty. I wonder what these unsavory fellowes could stand to gain with the inclusion of "top secret" backdoors to further weaken the threat of liberty to their control over the global economy. Without control over the global economy, people have choices. Choices are the monopoly man's worst nightmare.

Want to give them any more of your business?

Re:Here's a good first step ... (1)

easyTree (1042254) | more than 4 years ago | (#30422286)

But what's your or their importance in the eternity which makes us different than each other? Can you name any single thing?

Living in a country with more nukes than any other? Did I win?

Re:Here's a good first step ... (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#30423986)

Yes, you won the prize. We'll deliver at no cost to you a free internet.

Re:Here's a good first step ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30421610)

Of course everyone has the same rights as you do. What people may not have is the same liberties.

Re:Here's a good first step ... (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#30422238)

Of course everyone has the same rights as you do. What people may not have is the same liberties.

That's a distinction not worth making in my view. If you "have" the rights, but you don't have the liberties, then you don't really have the rights.

Re:Here's a good first step ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30422844)

Sure you do, as long as no one finds out what you're doing.

Re:Here's a good first step ... (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#30420884)

State Actors have the resources to cause chaos with or without hardware exploits.
It'd be nice to not have backdoors into the routers, but when some guy in England can hack into
classified databases over a 56K modem... there are much simpler problems that need addressing.

Excellent juxtap0osition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30421036)

The following article is titled, "The Limits To Skepticism".

Re:Here's a good first step ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30422254)

...has been abusing its position as a dominant...

How refreshing to see the name of a country other than the US as part of this sentence.

Re:Here's a good first step ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30423488)

[Citation Needed]

Please link some evidence pointing to this. Not to persuade some random AC who might be considered trolling, but to sway a PHB to buy American when it comes to their network fabric instead of dodgy equipment from overseas. Equipment that might just have a ssh port appear if the right knock sequence is done which allows full access to the router and its config.

"In Soviet Russia..." (2, Funny)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 4 years ago | (#30419916)

Ah, I just can't do it. Can somebody else say it?

Re:"In Soviet Russia..." (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 4 years ago | (#30419956)

In Soviet Russia, cyber war limits talks?

Re:"In Soviet Russia..." (4, Funny)

lul_wat (1623489) | more than 4 years ago | (#30419974)

In Soviet Russia Government Cybers You ..wait that's a different kind of cybering

Re:"In Soviet Russia..." (4, Funny)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 4 years ago | (#30420452)

In Soviet Russia Government Cybers You .

Putin: So.. then... I open my secret caves..
Obama: I didn't know you had a cave right there..
Putin: It's a wet one... for our underwater missile carriers..
Obama: Mmmmm my missile carrier is pretty long. My engineers are making it longer as I speak.
Putin: Once we reach the open ocean, all under water.. I launch my missile...
Obama: Make it glow, show me the money shot baby...
Putin: And it explodes, all over Norway... in mesmorizing blue light...
Obama: Oh baby... you almost really tore a new hole there, up in the atmosphere
Putin: The explosion was, sadly, premature
Obama: That's ok, I understand.

Re:"In Soviet Russia..." (2, Funny)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30420624)

Barry, wish I could quit you. [x96.com]

Re:"In Soviet Russia..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30428478)

I vote we make all links open in a new window, so that while I am traumatized, I can quickly shut the damn thing and not lose my place in the comments.

Re:"In Soviet Russia..." (1)

agrif (960591) | more than 4 years ago | (#30421796)

Thank you.

This just made my day simultaneously funnier and more disgusting.

Re:"In Soviet Russia..." (4, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30420054)

Ah, I just can't do it. Can somebody else say it?

In Soviet Russia, meme fails you?

ACTA (2, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30419998)

the United States is hoping to use the talks to increase international cooperation in opposing Internet crime. Strengthening defenses against Internet criminals would also strengthen defenses against any military-directed cyberattacks, the United States maintains."

Now we know why ACTA is a secret treaty...

Internet crime? (1, Insightful)

iammani (1392285) | more than 4 years ago | (#30420016)

Or do they actually mean internet 'pirates'?

Re:Internet crime? (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 4 years ago | (#30420092)

You beat me to it. I like the internet being kind of like the old west, there is "feds", "sheriffs" and "fences" here and there but for quite a bit it is rather open fields were you can do what you like.

Re:Internet crime? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30420182)

Marked as troll, but I would be surprised if piracy is not part of Internet crime talks, especially since Russia openly host ftp sites full of movies.

Re:Internet crime? (1)

Tibia1 (1615959) | more than 4 years ago | (#30420618)

They mean crime as in malware and infectious software developers in the US. They believe that they are the only tools they need to build internet defenses.

Reliable infrastructure.... (2, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#30420048)

I really don't see the point in "cyber warfare" other than small-scale attacks on a certain site or ISP, a large scale plan could never fully work because any country could simply switch to basically a huge local network. Would it be hard? Yes. Is it able to be done? Yes.

Plus, other than attacks on military infrastructure, the coming diversity of OSes, CPU platforms, and networks would make attacks on civilian devices nearly impossible. You might be able to write an iPhone worm, but you wouldn't be able to write an iPhone/Android/Java/BREW worm that attacks anyone on any cell network. That worm would also not work on a PC running Windows/OS X/Linux/BSD. And the diversity in browsers make exploit-based attacks even harder. It used to be you could attack the weak IE browser and get 90% of web surfers, now you would only get slightly more than half, and you would need to attack Firefox (both 3.0 and 3.5 along with perhaps older versions), Safari, Chrome, Opera and many smaller browsers.

In short, cyber warfare is a possibility on infrastructure and is quickly approaching impossible on large amounts of devices.

Re:Reliable infrastructure.... (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#30420070)

>>You might be able to write an iPhone worm, but you wouldn't be able to write an iPhone/Android/Java/BREW worm that attacks anyone on any cell network. That worm would also not work on a PC running Windows/OS X/Linux/BSD.

Dude it's called snowcrash.

Re:Reliable infrastructure.... (2, Insightful)

Lord Lemur (993283) | more than 4 years ago | (#30420462)

I'm guessing he was born in the wrong decade to have read snowcrash. I'm also guessing he doesn't understand how cyberwarfare has already been used in warfare, both hot and cold, with quite positive effects.

I remember when 6" of air made something safe. It's downright scary how much of what we use and rely on is internet facing. Maybe, soon enough, the securty decision will factor into the engineering decision.

Re:Reliable infrastructure.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30420276)

You might be able to write an iPhone worm, but you wouldn't be able to write an iPhone/Android/Java/BREW worm that attacks anyone on any cell network.

why not ? give me the 0.001 brightest of a 1.2 billion country (China or India I dont care) and I shall build that thing

Re:Reliable infrastructure.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30421606)

why not ? give me the 0.001 brightest of a 1.2 billion country (China or India I dont care) and I shall build that thing

You can't have them, as they periodically get exterminated [wikipedia.org]

Re:Reliable infrastructure.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30422720)

If I exterminate them when I am done can I have them , please ?

Re:Reliable infrastructure.... (2, Insightful)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30421578)

I really don't see the point in "cyber warfare" other than small-scale attacks on a certain site or ISP, a large scale plan could never fully work because any country could simply switch to basically a huge local network. Would it be hard? Yes. Is it able to be done? Yes.

I think your post betrays a surprising amount of naivete. The Internet is, by definition, international. The amount of foreign transacting that would be decimated by switching to "basically a huge local network" is unfathomable. The Internet is fast becoming the heart and soul of our economy - and cutting it off at the knees is never an acceptable solution. The cost is always too high to justify.

Plus, other than attacks on military infrastructure, the coming diversity of OSes, CPU platforms, and networks would make attacks on civilian devices nearly impossible. You might be able to write an iPhone worm, but you wouldn't be able to write an iPhone/Android/Java/BREW worm that attacks anyone on any cell network. That worm would also not work on a PC running Windows/OS X/Linux/BSD. And the diversity in browsers make exploit-based attacks even harder. It used to be you could attack the weak IE browser and get 90% of web surfers, now you would only get slightly more than half, and you would need to attack Firefox (both 3.0 and 3.5 along with perhaps older versions), Safari, Chrome, Opera and many smaller browsers.

Anybody with a DSL-class Internet connection can take out large swaths of the Internet using common, widely known exploits, such as DNS spoofing attacks [securiteam.com] . Since this is a DOS attack, it would affect anything at the target points.

You are right in that the Internet is increasingly heterogeneous, but while alternate platforms have flowered, the Internet was never homogeneous! Sure, you could attack 90% of client browsers with an IE attack, but never 90% of the Internet hosts! And certainly not 90% of the "core servers" - high bandwidth servers at the logical center of the Internet.

The Russian mob runs a fairly profitable extortion racket with the force of DDOS attacks. While they currently target semi-legal websites (such as gambling and extreme porn sites) in order to keep their profile low, as their stature grows, they will become an increasing risk to companies doing core, legitimate business.

And the problem is severe. Like I said, anybody with a DSL-class connection can do terrible things - what do you think a mob gang with 125,000 infected hosts can do?

Re:Reliable infrastructure.... (1)

BlackBloq (702158) | more than 4 years ago | (#30423384)

You speak as if they only connected things that make sense to the web. Alas tis not the case, for we have nuke plants, traffic controls, you name it... all directly connected!

Corroboration? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30420116)

How the heck are you going to limit military use? This isn't like nukes where there are facilities to visit. I can't help but think that language is just smokescreen for the public, and this is really about cooperation on policing the internet. (Cue more secret talks ala ACTA.)

Big mistake (2, Informative)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#30420174)

Negotiating with Russia on this, would be like America doing a treaty with UK to limit nukes; It is useless Without including China, Iran, Burma, and North Korea, then we will be missing a large part of this equation. China, Iran, and North Korea are in very active development of attack systems (as well as real systems such as new missiles, warheads, nuke subs, etc). Heck, a big part of that Chinese firewall, is not just to control their citizens, but it is also to control the outside world coming in.

Re:Big mistake (2, Interesting)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30420366)

No, its not useless. The US and Russia are the big boys on the block militarily and Russia still has a load of technology. A treaty between the US and Russia on this establishes a "level playing field" for this arena, just like the US and Soviets had treaties about how close SSBMs could get to the coastlines and things like ABM.

Re:Big mistake (1)

orange47 (1519059) | more than 4 years ago | (#30421918)

hey, you forgot the Nigeria and its royalty..

Re:Big mistake (1)

iritant (156271) | more than 4 years ago | (#30422084)

Many many nations have signed the Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime. At least one study in Singapore showed that acceding to the treaty, or even implementing provisions without acceding to it, reduces cybercrime within borders. See http://weis09.infosecon.net/ [infosecon.net] for the paper.

Re:Big mistake (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#30422250)

Cybercrime has nothing to do with the military doing attacks. Totally different issues.

What about Russian cyber attacks? (1)

JBaustian (1204174) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428234)

Georgia, Ukraine, and one or more of the Baltic states have been attacked by Russia or from Russia. Are these talks going to lead to Russia promising not to do it again?

a Lot of kids in Russia are hackers and gov does n (0)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30420216)

a Lot of kids in Russia are hackers and gov does not have the man power to stop it and some of them make money form hacking banks and can pay off local cops as well.

Now play nice Russia. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30420236)

No more exposing our Global Warming fraud or else we will get mad you Ruskies!

Replacement Propoganda: (1)

Anci3nt of Days (1615945) | more than 4 years ago | (#30420372)

Support World Peace!

CORRECTION: Support WWW Police!

Landmines. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30420574)

I'd be glad if there was no money in the maufacture of landmines. Who cares about cyber-whatever?

Pirates == terrorists? (2, Insightful)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 4 years ago | (#30420580)

Strengthening defenses against Internet criminals would also strengthen defenses against any military-directed cyberattacks, the United States maintains.

How much do you want to bet that "Internet criminals" in this case are people pirating music and movies? While I'm glad to see that we're finally engaging the Russians, it'd be nice if our foreign policy wasn't being directed by the RIAA and the MPAA.

Re:Pirates == terrorists? (1)

freescv (1642459) | more than 4 years ago | (#30420712)

"Our foreign policy?" You mean the laws bought by lobbyists and mega corps, say 500 in America, TOTAL while the 330,000,000 people go on thinking one vote every 5 years is alright instead of daily voting. You don't happen to know how to build a daily, open source voting machine online secure enough for general stats do you? :D FreeSCV http://www.opensourceg.com/ [opensourceg.com]

Re:Pirates == terrorists? (1)

courseofhumanevents (1168415) | more than 4 years ago | (#30420714)

Pirates aren't engaging in cyberwar. While I wouldn't think for a minute that the copyright cartels would pass up sticking their noses in this, it's not the main issue here.

Re:Pirates == terrorists? (1)

cpghost (719344) | more than 4 years ago | (#30422578)

How much do you want to bet that "Internet criminals" in this case are people pirating music and movies?

Pirates use WMD (weapons of mass dissemination) too...

Frist 4soT (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30420592)

If you ha7e

I can point them in the right direction. (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 4 years ago | (#30420644)

First,
Start by actually patching your machines and implementing some very basic security stuff..

You know, the kind of stuff that a script kiddie, with aspergers, searching for evidence of UFO's won't be able to get passed.

Or if you can't even manage to do that, or find out which systems you need to do it to, then when he finally get's extrodited at your request, instead of humiliating yourself further by giving him a trial and locking him up for the rest of his life. Give him a computer, let him download a few hacking tools of the internet, get him to press the GO button and write down a list of everything that gets hacked into.

Re:I can point them in the right direction. (1)

Rennt (582550) | more than 4 years ago | (#30421314)

First, Start by actually patching your machines and implementing some very basic security stuff..

You know, the kind of stuff that a script kiddie, with aspergers, searching for evidence of UFO's won't be able to get passed.

So Windows is right out then?

Cyber . . . oh fuck, the retards are on duty (1)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 4 years ago | (#30420726)

When you start hearing about "cyber" anything it's time to worry. Misappropriated prefixes are never fun.

Poopst! (1)

pete6677 (681676) | more than 4 years ago | (#30420814)

Poopst!

What about limiting war in general? (0, Troll)

CPE1704TKS (995414) | more than 4 years ago | (#30420940)

It's funny how governments, especially the US government, are so worried about how cyberwarfare could affect their businesses, etc. However, they really couldn't give a rat's ass about human lives. Case in point, 100k+ Iraqi citizens killed in the war. What a horrible travesty and a crime against humanity that war was. I don't see them talking about how countries could stop attacking regular civilians, but oh, don't do anything that might destabilize our business infrastructure!

Re:What about limiting war in general? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30421808)

It's funny how governments, especially the US government, are so worried about how cyberwarfare could affect their businesses, etc. However, they really couldn't give a rat's ass about human lives. Case in point, 100k+ Iraqi citizens killed in the war. What a horrible travesty and a crime against humanity that war was. I don't see them talking about how countries could stop attacking regular civilians, but oh, don't do anything that might destabilize our business infrastructure!

+1

Re:What about limiting war in general? (2, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#30424224)

Force trumps law, hence any "law" limiting war relies on violence for enforcement.

Lawfare only restricts the lawful thus weakening them relative to the law-free.

As for Iraq, when Iraqis tire of killing each other they will stop. Being law-free, they are free to kill each other except where constrained by internal opposition.

The US has no real choice. (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 4 years ago | (#30421938)

As long as the US in general relies heavily on Microsoft windows they better keep out of any real cyberwar.

Isn't this a waste of time? (1)

maillemaker (924053) | more than 4 years ago | (#30423922)

Does anyone think anyone will REALLY honor these treaties? I am 100% convinced that they will say, "OK, we will stop cyber warfare work" and then they will get their geeks right back to work on it in their laboratories again.

I would put ZERO confidence in any treaty of this sort.

When two Evil Empires cooperate, everyone loses! (1)

AlexLibman (785653) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427608)

This will inevitably be used to introduce more government controls, and thus to limit Internet freedom for everyone...

I wouldn't be surprised if this was in part inspired by the heroic "Climategate" hacktivism (the responsibility for which I personally neither confirm nor deny at this time), liberating and bringing to light just a tiny crumb of the government's dirty laundry on just one of its power-grabbing scams...

Internet Borders (1)

pacinpm (631330) | more than 4 years ago | (#30429888)

Let's count down time to introduction of internet borders. You will have to have a internet passport to connect to site in foreign countries. It will stop cyberwars, terrorists and (you guessed it) child pornography.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?