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!

The US-Soviet Cyber Cold War

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the mutually-assured-ddos dept.

Security 117

Roberto123 writes "A security expert with the NSA says a cyber cold war is being waged that has significant parallels to the Cold War between the US and Soviet Union. Dickie George says the way to fight the cyber cold war is by building security into technology, making it transparent to the end user, continually monitoring networks and updating their security software."

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

Damn (1)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299206)

I expected the "Cyber cold war" to be way more matrix-y than this.

Re:Damn (3, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299356)

That wouldn't be just a Cold War, that would be a seriously Cool War.

Re:Damn (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 3 years ago | (#34301924)

I dunno. Waking up nekkid in a VAT of slime might have its downsides. Although there probably would be a lot of nekkid chicks nearby...

It's even more boring. (4, Interesting)

khasim (1285) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299434)

From TFA:

"This is life and death and about our freedom and our way of life," he's not talking about the Soviet Union firing nuclear missiles at the U.S. or infiltrating our government with spies bent on subversion. He's talking about cyber criminals hacking into personal, business or government computers, stealing information, intellectual property and/or money.

Oh noes!!! The Nigerian scammers are taking our Freedom! Teenagers downloading our movies are stealing our way of life!!!

How about we focus on the real issues? Why don't the banks have a better means of verifying transactions?

I'm still more worried about nuclear missiles than I am about whether the newest Harry Potter movie is available on a torrent.

But that's just me.

Re:It's even more boring. (1)

pitchpipe (708843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299532)

How about we focus on the real issues?

You have to question why a security expert with the NSA compares fighting computer crime from a nation with a GDP comparable to the state of Texas [wikipedia.org] with the old real threat of absolute destruction from a foe that had [wikipedia.org] a little over half the GDP of the US at the time, but had a larger population, larger land mass, and a larger workforce... along with a whole bunch of US destroying missles.

Naw. I understand his job. (3, Informative)

khasim (1285) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299616)

He's propping up his job with whatever rhetoric he can dig up.

zOMG!!! It's like the nukes are coming back! But they're even badder now. We must fears them even moars! Fearz them! It's the only way I'll keep my job!

Instead, just a bit of modification on the side of the banks and we'd have almost no "identify theft" fraud.
But that doesn't happen because the banks don't want the cost of improving their security.
Not when that cost can be dumped onto us (the customers) and the retailers.

More pushing of Clarke's book (1, Insightful)

sgt_doom (655561) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299712)

I think this, together with that drivel about China hijacking the 'net traffice from the US gov't for 9 minutes, is just more propaganda to push Richard Clarke's pathetic claptrap book ("Cyber War" -- hence the constant usage of the word, "cyber" -- get it??).

Somehow, everyone is supposed to conveniently forget how the Clinton administration, with Richard Clarke as the national security advisor, handed the Chicoms the over-the-horizon missile targeting, placing them on par with the USA. And everyone is supposed to conveniently forget how the Bush administration, when Clarke was still in as national security advisor, allowed the highly classifed ball bearing factory in Ohio to be sold to the Chicoms. Sorry, Clarkey, but we won't but your trash.

Re:More pushing of Clarke's book (1)

P0ltergeist333 (1473899) | more than 3 years ago | (#34303728)

I'm not saying your claims are incorrect, but I can find no corroborating sources for them. Would you care to source them?

Re:It's even more boring. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34300762)

You have to question why a security expert with the NSA compares fighting computer crime from a nation with a GDP comparable to the state of Texas [wikipedia.org] with the old real threat of absolute destruction from a foe that had [wikipedia.org] a little over half the GDP of the US at the time, but had a larger population, larger land mass, and a larger workforce... along with a whole bunch of US destroying missles.

I don't have to question why; I already know. He's doing it for the same reason that others over-hype threats, for money and power.

Some of us still remember the cold war... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34300028)

Some ("Many" might be more appropriate here) of us still remember the cold war and lived in the small countries that bordered the soviet union. I lived in a country that bordered the soviet union and the risk of invasion was very real (the communist party also planned a revolution, even though they failed to carry that out) even without a large scale nuclear war. But the risk of the war - That only a few people would need to be too trigger happy and tomorrow the world as we know it might not exist - was always in the back of our minds. (Not saying that it was constant terror: Some of the best years of my life were during the cold war. But even if we were able to put the fear in the background, it was always there. Every news broadcast about the latest political tension between us and our large neighbour was a reminder of it.)

Speaking of "cyber war" is in itself a bit silly (cyber bombs destroying your house? cyber soldiers raping civilians? people dying on cyber prison camps? people starving and resorting to cannibalism under cyber siege? Cyber war has nothing to do with anything that we assosciate with war) but it might have some justification as we become more and more dependant on our IT infrastructure. However, it's rediculous to compare it to the cold war: If it would be like cold war (=we would have to live constantly aware of the fact that it is very possible that the world as we know it ceases to exist due to a few trigger happy officers) we wouldn't really need articles to tell us about it.

Re:Some of us still remember the cold war... (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | more than 3 years ago | (#34302828)

I lived in a country that bordered the soviet union and the risk of invasion was very real ... Every news broadcast about the latest political tension between us and our large neighbour was a reminder of it.)

Was? Why is this in the past tense? If you live near Russia, this shit happens now.

Re:Some of us still remember the cold war... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#34303356)

If you live near Russia, this shit happens now.

Can you give one example of any country bordering Russia that is presently at risk of an unprovoked invasion from it?

Re:Some of us still remember the cold war... (2, Interesting)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | more than 3 years ago | (#34303468)

"Unprovoked." Cute.

Re:Some of us still remember the cold war... (0, Flamebait)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#34303570)

I had to clarify. USSR has invaded Germany in 1945, and US invaded Japan - but I don't suppose that is the kind of thing you had in mind.

Let me be more specific, then - by "provocation" I specifically mean a deliberate and intentional act of aggression against Russian territory, or Russian troops legally stationed overseas. A specific example of that would be Georgian troops shelling Russian peacekeeper base in Tskhinvali during the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia, killing several troops stationed within.

Re:Some of us still remember the cold war... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#34303354)

lived in a country that bordered the soviet union and the risk of invasion was very real ...the communist party also planned a revolution, even though they failed to carry that out

Soviet Union bordered the following twelve countries: Afghanistan, China, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Hungary, Iran, Mongolia, North Korea, Norway, Poland, Romania, and Turkey. Of those, only Finland, Iran, Norway and Turkey did not have communist governments already.

Now, can you clarify which one of those countries was under a "real risk of invasion" from the Soviet Union? Because I'm not aware of any documents in the archives, or indeed anything like that, to indicate that the USSR ever seriously contemplated an invasion of any of those countries after the end of WW2. It certainly did contemplate an all-out war in Europe against NATO, but only in response to a potential NATO aggression (Soviet leaders were not idiots and knew that NATO and all European countries would stand together in the face of assault, and that Soviet military was not strong enough to break that).

Now it may well be that the perceived risk of invasion was high. It was certainly so in all involved countries during the Cold War, on both sides. Actually, many still believe in high likelihood of a US-led NATO invasion in Russia today - which should tell you just how realistic those perceived risks are...

Re:It's even more boring. (1)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34300216)

It's just a small step from downloading a Harry Potter movie to building nuclear weapon's and selling them to Iran, I guess.

Re:It's even more boring. -- and even more scary (3, Insightful)

wagadog (545179) | more than 3 years ago | (#34301052)

"Why don't the banks have a better means of verifying transactions?"

Why indeed.

There was a time when they did, and investment banks actually invested rather than allowing failed math and physics grad students self-restyled as "quants" and "wiz kids" gin up things like CDOs on Excel.

You'd think the gubmint would pay a little bit more attention to monitoring and regulating the practices that *have* *already* destroyed our country.

These Wall Street spreadsheet jockeys have already destroyed more wealth in this country than all the "cybercriminals" combined.

But going after Wall Street fraudsters just isn't a priority, because they have only destroyed middle-class people and shifted the blame to the poor.

By contrast "Cybercriminals" are actually a threat to the rich and the super-rich, and the government's job is to protect the wealth of the super-rich.

Re:It's even more boring. (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34302292)

I'm still more worried about nuclear missiles than I am about whether the newest Harry Potter movie is available on a torrent.

A criminal is a criminal. Clearly the fact that you cannot see that means that you enjoy stealing potential profit from artists! I mean, sure, potential profit doesn't exist and it therefore can't be stolen, but it's still stealing to steal it!

Re:It's even more boring. (1)

Phoghat (1288088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304324)

Well you have this, and then you have that [slashdot.org]

What I think is they say "we'll help defend against missiles and fuck up your interwebs too"

Re:Damn (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299662)

I expected the "Cyber cold war" to be way more matrix-y than this.

I expected the "Cyber cold war" to be way more skynet-y than this.

Dickie George?!? (2, Funny)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299226)

Dickie George of the NSA?

Uh huh. Is his assistant Mike Hunt by any chance?

Re:Dickie George?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34299676)

It was, but they replaced him with Michael Taurus.

Question (2, Funny)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299256)

Anyone else amused that the word "cyber" is still in use?

It could be worse! (2, Funny)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299270)

Anyone else amused that the word "cyber" is still in use?

At least they didn't say "E-War"!

Re:It could be worse! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34299288)

or iWar, but that's patented by Apple.

Re:Question (5, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299298)

Anyone else amused that the word "cyber" is still in use?

I'm more amused about the "Soviet" part.

Re:Question (0, Redundant)

Black Gold Alchemist (1747136) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299492)

In Soviet Russia, you fight a cyber war. In Corporate America, cyber war fights you!!!

Re:Question (1)

Alsee (515537) | more than 3 years ago | (#34301024)

They need more funding to protect you from the 1337nuclear e-Communist iCybersovietmatrixunion.

-

Replace it with blogosphere. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299360)

It makes those articles much more interesting to read.

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34299482)

Sure, I'll just put on my robe and wizard hat.

Re:Question (2, Insightful)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299518)

War is war just like cyber-bullying is bullying but the term cyber war does bring with it distinctions. When you say war, people think WWII, Vietnam, Iraq - something tangible. Cyber war is beyond the grasp of most people (especially those normally involved in war) and has different rules.

It's more like e-mail versus mail, or cyber-sex versus sex. You can prepare for or experience one, but that doesn't necessarily help with the other.

Re:Question (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299878)

It depends. If a "cyberwar" could do real damage to our infrastructure -- shutting down the power grid is the most commonly used example -- then it's definitely a real war, just as real as if enemy planes are dropping bombs on our power plants. The use of new technology which permits new tactics doesn't make it "not real war," else you could claim that there hasn't been a real war since the invention of the bow! But it's a pretty big "if," and the would be "cyberwarriors" are spending a lot of time pumping up the threat without a lot of real evidence.

Re:Question (1)

fluffy99 (870997) | more than 3 years ago | (#34300470)

It depends. If a "cyberwar" could do real damage to our infrastructure -- shutting down the power grid is the most commonly used example -- then it's definitely a real war, just as real as if enemy planes are dropping bombs on our power plants. The use of new technology which permits new tactics doesn't make it "not real war," else you could claim that there hasn't been a real war since the invention of the bow! But it's a pretty big "if," and the would be "cyberwarriors" are spending a lot of time pumping up the threat without a lot of real evidence.

Hitting the power grid is pretty low class and way obvious. Try thinking more subtle like Stuxnet destroying Iran's nuclear fuel processing capability. Or perhaps something to quietly influence the financial markets to bleed billions out of the US. Crashing the US flight controller computers would have a serious impact (just look at the impact immediately after 911 as an example). Or, as is currently the case, routinely penetrating their networks to collect valuable information or technology.

Re:Question (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299658)

Anyone else amused that the word "cyber" is still in use?

When I read/hear "cyber", I generally think of sex.

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34299966)

Pervert.

(Oh, and do you know if it's my turn to bring the vaseline & dice to the orgy on Tuesday?)

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34304272)

Since we are on Slashdot, chances of him being a guy are 99,999% (five nines, WOOOOHOOOO), so about 50% of the english dictionary makes him think about sex

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34300352)

Hi baby, wanna cyber?

Re:Question (1)

jhigh (657789) | more than 3 years ago | (#34300788)

ASL?

Re:Question (1)

overtly_demure (1024363) | more than 3 years ago | (#34300670)

I think using the word "soviet" is even funnier.

Transparent to the end user yeaaah. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299264)

meaning, 'controlling them'. maybe it would be much better if this 'security' shit is altogether forfeited. to provide 'security', we are restraining and controlling ourselves much more than a foreign occupant would actually do.

Yay, profits! (1)

zooblethorpe (686757) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299302)

to provide 'security', we are restraining and controlling ourselves much more than a foreign occupant would actually do.

And that's much more profitable anyway if we do it ourselves. C.f. Chertoff's gains from his buddies at Rape^Hiscan.

Fed-up-edly,

Screw transparency (4, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299282)

I don't want transparent security technology. I want security technology that I can see and touch and NEED to think about.

1.When its transparent it just gets abused and used against me for crap like DRM by people who haven't the right.
2.I want the confidence of knowing I have protection because I put it in place.
3.I want to be able to turn it off when need be to understand where a problem exists, the security layer or something else.
4.I don't trust my government to have my interests in mind much of the time, and as much as I distrust foreign governments and foreigners even more that dose not make me included to put the security of my information and communication in the hands of my own government which has proven its often inept and at times malicious.
5.Its my stuff nobody should be dictating to me how I protect it or don't as a matter of principle. Just as with my house its my right to leave the door unlocked if I want to and useless as that right might sound I am unprepared to give it up.

Re:Screw transparency (-1, Offtopic)

el_tedward (1612093) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299346)

My account hasn't been getting any mod points lately :(
Your post should be getting plenty either way, imo.

Re:Screw transparency (1)

PatPending (953482) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299440)

My account hasn't been getting any mod points lately :(

While I've gotten 15 + 15 + 5 + 5 last week alone. (First time that's happened to my account.)

Re:Screw transparency (1)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 3 years ago | (#34300336)

+1 on that but this dick guy is talking about the end user not folks like us who already know not to click on the pop up that says you have 800 viruses click here to clean your pc. Those folks do not need transparency they need education. This goes back to the plug and play mentality that I'm always harping on. I'm just glad that I'm not the one to educate them. That's a huge job and I doubt I have he patience for it.

Re:Screw transparency (1)

el_tedward (1612093) | more than 3 years ago | (#34300676)

I dunno.. I think by the time we (hopefully..) get to the point in which the internet is safe for computer illiterate grandma, there might not be as much of a need for education beyond just how to use the computer and not sell your soul to Generic Messanger 285. I don't mean to say that education is not important and that we should ignore it, but I see the real 'solution' coming in the form of better written software (operating systems, etc) that encases less trusted software (education goes here).

If mainstream software moves more towards being better written, and the default settings for that software is sufficient enough to keep my not-quite-as-paranoid-as-me human brethren 'safe', I think I'd pretty happy, and impressed. There's always going to be software that can be tinkered with for those who want it, I just hope that service providers don't create a lasting norm of bending over and doing things "their way," because getting around their way will only get more difficult as information security progesses.

Re:Screw transparency (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34302346)

I dunno.. I think by the time we (hopefully..) get to the point in which the internet is safe for computer illiterate grandma, there might not be as much of a need for education beyond just how to use the computer and not sell your soul to Generic Messanger 285.

I've got a better idea. How about instead of dumbing everything down or forcing security on people, these idiots just learn how to use a computer properly? It's not like you have to have years and years of experience to merely realize the fact that you shouldn't download every single executable file off of the internet and run it. It really doesn't take that much time to at least learn not to do completely retarded things.

Re:Screw transparency (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299554)

Sorry, but point 5 only holds for as long as you're not negatively impacting other people with your bad choices. Shoddy security and poor user-awareness results in zombie machines that DDoS and spam their way into my life to the point that I really do care about it enough to want to go around locking peoples' doors for them.

Re:Screw transparency (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34302358)

Sorry, but point 5 only holds for as long as you're not negatively impacting other people with your bad choices.

It's funny that you say that because the stupidity of others is what is effecting me. The answer is education. It doesn't take years and years of experience to realize that downloading random executable files off the internet, for example, is a bad idea. I'm not going to suffer just because they decided to get a computer and then refused to learn anything about it when that is practically needed.

Re:Screw transparency (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34300044)

Points 1-5 are good points, for a /.-er who knows what they are doing. However, the big security issues are people who don't care enough to keep their fly zipped.

Point 1 is good because transparent security is security Joe Sixpack isn't leaving disabled.

Point 2 is also good. However, having some sane defaults can't hurt, as Joe is not going to lift a finger to secure anything.

Point 3 is also solid. However, Joe will be turning off his security at the behest of dodgy pr0n sites who tell him to in order to install malware.

Point 4 is obvious, however Joe is begging his congresscritters to protect him from the bad guys. Of course, on the other hand, he goes to the tea party rallies to bellyache against it.

Point 5 is also obvious, but Joe uses this "my stuff, my security" to have no security at all. To use a physical example, Joe doesn't care if the transients move into his house, rip off the door, clog up his toilet, rip out all electrical cords out of the walls to sell for copper, and start smoking crack in the living room. Then the bums start using the place as a starting point to break in (or just invade) other people's homes. Joe's lack of security has now just not affected him, but the whole area. It is exactly the same when all of Joe's computers are on botnets and spamming/DDoS-ing/probing all machines in the neighborhood.

Just remember, you are knowledgeable. However the average person on the street just wants the computer to show the nudie pictures without needing to worry about firewalls or tech stuff.

*sigh* Because of this, I fear that the future of the desktop will be a locked down walled garden just the iPad.

Re:Screw transparency (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 3 years ago | (#34303842)

5.Its my stuff nobody should be dictating to me how I protect it or don't as a matter of principle. Just as with my house its my right to leave the door unlocked

Are you sure? Even if your "house" contains tons of privacy or otherwise sensitive data and you just know that it will be stolen within a day? The internet is not a local neighbourhood anymore and leaky systems can publish data you never want to be published.

Smart Pipes (1)

visualight (468005) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299300)

This is where they argue that the "pipes" need to be smarter and the terminals (our devices) dumber.

Cyberwar is for the incompetent (3, Insightful)

alexwcovington (855979) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299306)

Cyberwar! It's like war, but for people too dumb to protect themselves.

Don't put critical systems or private data on anything attached to the public Internet. Regularly verify the physical integrity and isolation of all secure systems. For everything else, make regular backups to prevent wiping attacks. This is basic vigilance to protect vital assets.

What I'd like to suggest to every cheap-ass corporate exec that is counting on the government instead of internal IT staff to protect their networks, is to listen to how stupid that sounds.

Only stupid if execs are responsible (3, Insightful)

zooblethorpe (686757) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299350)

What I'd like to suggest to every cheap-ass corporate exec that is counting on the government instead of internal IT staff to protect their networks, is to listen to how stupid that sounds.

It's only stupid if the execs in question are actually responsible, and held responsible, for failing to do proper due diligence. However, as corporate behaviour in the US has consistently shown for some time now, execs are routinely let off essentially scot-free, even in the case of obviously willful and malicious profit-seeking at the expense of the company and even market -- just have a look at Enron a few years ago, or Wall Street today.

Meanwhile, if execs can save a few bucks by essentially outsourcing network security to the Feds, and pocket the savings themselves in the form of bonuses or other compensation perquisites, then, in the ethical vacuum of US board rooms, they'd have to be mad to do otherwise.

Cheers,

Seems my foes have mod points today (1)

zooblethorpe (686757) | more than 3 years ago | (#34300042)

Seriously folks, how is my previous comment here off-topic? Executive malfeasance is a large part of what has made "cyberwar" possible. But for cutting corners, many of the glaringly large holes in the US national infrastructure vis-à-vis the internet would not exist.

Cheers,

Re:Only stupid if execs are responsible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34300248)

Meanwhile, if execs can save a few bucks by essentially outsourcing network security to the Feds, and pocket the savings themselves in the form of bonuses or other compensation perquisites, then, in the ethical vacuum of US board rooms, they'd have to be mad to do otherwise.

Free markets are by nature unethical because organizations that favor ethical choices over profitable ones are going to fare less well in the markets. Even if there are consumers who would like to favor ethical companies... There are always some people who don't care, which results in significant competitive advantage to the companies going for the most profitable choice (which means that they can drop their prices or create better products for the same money and it becomes a bigger and bigger sacrifice to favor the ethical companies), there are always unethical deeds that the public don't find out about... Hell, even if a company does something good, they probably have to spend money to inform people about it or nobody will ever know.

Our - as a society - response to this is to say "Okay. Let's go with the unethical option to improve our quality of life (as it seems to be the most efficient one)... And then tax the unethical things (pollution taxes, etc.) and spend the money for public good".

Re:Cyberwar is for the incompetent (4, Funny)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299564)

Check to see if your mouse is roaring.

Obligatory ref (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34299326)

Let's hope the Russian spy agency running the cyber program is the same that gave us the fabulously entertaining ring of deep cover agents recently exposed in America.

Because nobody does it better. [huffingtonpost.com]

Re:Obligatory ref (2, Funny)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299540)

Want to see more Russian women? There are ways. I even hear there are websites that let you "order" one as a kind of live-at-home model/spy. YMMV.

If you want to improve U.S.'s cybersecurity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34299448)

Read up on Kerckhoff's principle [wikipedia.org] . If you understand the principle then
Follow the rules of the Cyberwarfare Club

  1. Ditch all software that doesn't allow public review
  2. Ditch all software that doesn't allow public review
  3. Get your enemies hooked on proprietary crap. Give them free samples. Discourage Open Source code.

The US-Whatnow cybe war? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34299462)

"The US-Soviet Cyber Cold War"
Silly me, I thought the Soviet Union hadn't existed for nearly two decades. Clearly I was mistaken, it has simply moved into the cyber-realm with cyber-Stalin at it's cyber-helm.

CWII (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34299536)

Cold War Two - Not 'Cyber Cold War'

Misleading headline (1)

kaoshin (110328) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299552)

TFA makes no mention of a US-Soviet Cyber War. It instead compares current events to the actual US-Soviet cold war. Interesting that China wasn't mentioned at all.

Re:Misleading headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34299582)

Gotta get that ad traffic somehow...what better way to do it than with sensationalist and misleading headlines.

Re:Misleading headline (1)

ozbird (127571) | more than 3 years ago | (#34300534)

Interesting that China wasn't mentioned at all.

Of course not - they make the technology now, so you don't want to get them off side, eh?

Who's fighting for freedom? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34299624)

In the cold war, Americans were afraid of losing their freedom to the Soviet Union. But according to the article, the cyber cold war is about America holding on to its "intellectual property":

In the cyber cold war, the capabilities and resources of our adversaries refers to the ability ... to steal intellectual property from businesses, secrets from governments and money from everybody.

Re:Who's fighting for freedom? (1)

grcumb (781340) | more than 3 years ago | (#34300400)

In the cold war, Americans were afraid of losing their freedom to the Soviet Union. But according to the article, the cyber cold war is about America holding on to its "intellectual property":

In the cyber cold war, the capabilities and resources of our adversaries refers to the ability ... to steal intellectual property from businesses, secrets from governments and money from everybody.

Very interesting. Especially because theft of 'intellectual property' is usually called 'espionage'. While spying and intelligence-gathering happens quite a bit during times of war, it is not warfare, per se.

As usual, the redoubtable Seymour Hersh [newyorker.com] got there first with this observation [imagicity.com] .

Re:Who's fighting for freedom? (1)

gtall (79522) | more than 3 years ago | (#34300806)

Seymour Hersh is a ambulance chasing conspiracy theorist. If he's what you are relying on for information, you need to get out more.

Re:Who's fighting for freedom? (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34302434)

Especially because theft of 'intellectual property' is usually called 'espionage'.

It's a good thing that you can't actually steal "intellectual property," then!

Meanwhile Russia joins missile shield (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34299660)

left hand of propoganda fails to meet right hand of propoganda.

Can't we simplify all this by saying Russia is Teh Evil Haxor on the odd hours and Russia is Teh Good Guy, helping out with the missile shield (and supplies to the US troops in Afghanistan) on the even hours?

Hey Slashdot editors, you fucking idiots.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34299752)

Do you have to post at least 1 fear mongering story a day? Get off the CIA's propaganda payroll..

Which Soviet Union would that be ? (2, Informative)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299882)

Uh, the Soviet Union has been gone for 19 years. I watched the Russian Federation flags go up 26 December 1991.

The Russian Federation is not the USSR. Neither is the PRC.

So, who, exactly is cyber-warring with whom ?

Re:Which Soviet Union would that be ? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34300112)

Russian Federation is ruled by same (kind of) people, so confusing it with USSR may be lexically wrong but is pragmatically adequate.

Cyber threat drills (1)

digitalPhant0m (1424687) | more than 3 years ago | (#34300018)

Are our kids going to have Global Cyber Annihilation Threat drills in school now?

Re:Cyber threat drills (1)

grcumb (781340) | more than 3 years ago | (#34300424)

Are our kids going to have Global Cyber Annihilation Threat drills in school now?

"Children! Prepare to CONTROL, ALT and DELETE for your homeland!"

"Three Finger... SALUTE!"

Re:Cyber threat drills (1)

Salgak1 (20136) | more than 3 years ago | (#34303170)

Are our kids going to have Global Cyber Annihilation Threat drills in school now?

Would they like to play a game ??? Where in Matthew Broderick when we REALLY need him ???

Someone who gets it. (5, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#34300078)

This guy gets it:

"The cyber security professionals that we are creating today have to make security invisible to the end user. "They have to make it inherent in the out-of-the-box product that you buy and the only way to do that is for us all to work together, industry, government and academia. We need to be partnering on this."

All this crap about "user awareness" is a dead end. It takes too much attention. The mess underneath needs to be fixed. It has to be automatic. (And don't claim that's impossible unless you've read up on SE Linux and NSA's work on secure systems._

The last high-level US Government professional to publicly point this out was Amit Yoran at Homeland Security. He named Microsoft as the problem. He was canned and replaced with a lobbyist.

Re:Someone who gets it. (1)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34300238)

NSA's work on secure systems? Let me guess, you where referring to the clipper chip [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Someone who gets it. (1)

fluffy99 (870997) | more than 3 years ago | (#34300524)

All this crap about "user awareness" is a dead end. It takes too much attention. ..... And don't claim that's impossible unless you've read up on SE Linux and NSA's work on secure systems.

You just contradicted yourself. SELinux is a pain in the ass to setup properly and requires user awareness. Most users end up turning it off when they can't figure out why it's breaking something or flooding the syslog with warnings. It's great for a dedicated purpose, internet facing server but it's virtually unusable for a desktop.

Re:Someone who gets it. (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#34300960)

If it's all transparent and the "war" is waged without anyone from the public ever realizing it, then how will that help convince voters to attack the next country, now that Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down?

For the US to attack Russia or China next, there need to be visible cyber casualties to whip up Americans into a frenzy.

Re:Someone who gets it. (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 3 years ago | (#34303420)

This guy gets it:

"The cyber security professionals that we are creating today have to make security invisible to the end user. "They have to make it inherent in the out-of-the-box product that you buy and the only way to do that is for us all to work together, industry, government and academia. We need to be partnering on this."

All this crap about "user awareness" is a dead end. It takes too much attention. The mess underneath needs to be fixed. It has to be automatic. (And don't claim that's impossible unless you've read up on SE Linux and NSA's work on secure systems._

The last high-level US Government professional to publicly point this out was Amit Yoran at Homeland Security. He named Microsoft as the problem. He was canned and replaced with a lobbyist.

No, he doesn't and you don't get it.

People need to be educated. People need to realize that being stupid on the internet, or with computers have a price.

Not to mention who implements and runs this "invisible security"? The gov? The corps? Microsoft?

No, sorry. We need to educate people about the need for security and how to implement it, not get someone else to take care of it so we can blindly go on our way.

Wall of Mexico (1)

Max_W (812974) | more than 3 years ago | (#34300094)

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

Re:Wall of Mexico (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34301194)

I didn't get this

cold war bs (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34300130)

This is probably just PR crap like the last cold war....

After World War II the US was the lone superpower and the greatest military war machine in the history of civilization. But we had no enemies, none of any consequence anyway. How to get the citizens to continue funding the massive war business was a serious concern. So the US and Russia - allies during the war - entered into an agreement whereby the west would build up Russia's military technology for them and in return they could be "the enemy." They could threaten their citizens with the "decadent capitalists" and we could frighten ours with the "red menace." But it was all a ruse. There was never any "detente" or anything like it. Russia was from its inception considered a third world country and heavily subsidized by the west - at taxpayers' expense, of course.

"...according to hundreds of U.S. State Department documents, the Soviet industrial and military capabilities such as trucking, aircraft, oil, steel, petrochemical, aluminum, and computers were constructed at the U.S. taxpayers' expense in the Soviet Union." - Daniel Estulin, The True Story Of The Bilderberg Group

"In order to bring a nation to support the burdens of maintaining great military establishments, it is necessary to create an emotional state akin to war psychology. There must be the portrayal of external menace." - John Foster Dulles, secretary of state in the Eisenhower administration

Re:cold war bs (1)

fluffy99 (870997) | more than 3 years ago | (#34300532)

This is probably just PR crap like the last cold war....

Hardly. The sheer number of Chinese penetrations into our commercial and govt networks is astounding. The media is only reporting a few of the incidents, and the major breaches into the DOD are classified and never publicly disclosed.

Re:cold war bs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34303482)

This is probably just PR crap like the last cold war....

Hardly. The sheer number of Chinese penetrations into our commercial and govt networks is astounding. The media is only reporting sensational incidents, and the major breaches into the DOD are classified and never publicly disclosed.

There, fixed that for ya.

Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34300306)

They'll say anything to get more control over the internet and your free expression.

Re:Really? (1)

fluffy99 (870997) | more than 3 years ago | (#34300544)

They'll say anything to get more control over the internet and your free expression.

Well there is also that. Major corporations definitely want a higher level of control over the content people consume on the internet. These corporations are the same ones who pay to have a candidate of their choice in office.

Network security an oxymoron? (4, Insightful)

jc42 (318812) | more than 3 years ago | (#34300484)

Dickie George says the way to fight the cyber cold war is by building security into technology, making it transparent to the end user, continually monitoring networks and updating their security software.

From the earliest days of the ARPAnet that led to the Internet, people have pointed out that it's pointless to build security into the network layer(s). Putting it there is a single point of failure that can be defeated by a single bribe to the right person. And the end users won't know that the network-level security has been compromised. If your security is supplied by a vendor along your message's route, that vendor has access to your message's contents, to do with as they please.

For this reason, it has been long understood that the only real security is in end-to-end encryption. Security at any lower level is merely a waste of cpu cycles and bandwidth. It can't be trusted by the users, who must supply their own security. So the network layer should work on supplying fast, reliable packet transport. Security belongs a higher level, out of control of the companies that deliver the packets.

Note that the most-used widely-available security package, SSL, works solely at the sender and receiver ends of a connection, and relies on the network for nothing but packet transport. And it supplies a list of encryption schemes, so if you learn or suspect that someone along the route has managed to crack your encryption, you can quickly change the scheme without the cooperation of any vendor supplying the links.

It is slowly getting through to a lot of people that the commercial Internet vendors have become a common source of data leaks, for well-understood commercial reasons. So relying on them to supply network-level security is an especially stupid idea. They will simply decode your data, and sell the contents to interested parties without your knowledge. Your only defense against this is to use encryption that they can't decode.

Translation - NSA's growing irrelevance - MS (1)

Torodung (31985) | more than 3 years ago | (#34300488)

NSA SIGINT guy, to paraphrase, claims that we really need to do something about this end-user "reasonable expectation of privacy," or my agency can collect no domestic signals intelligence, and I'm out of a job. It's just like the "Cold War!" Panic everybody.

And Microsoft stands behind him, ready to sell it, just like they were there to sell DRM/Palladium to Hollywood and the RIAA in 2000. Selling the same basic product. Trying to solve a human problem in software. How's that working out?

It is clear, however, that simplified, out-of-the-box security is the next big thing, as soon as we drum up a good reason to "need" all of it.

Microsoft is going to be a security company, not an OS vendor, in 20 years. That is, if they don't fail to deliver entirely. The "Cloud" plays into this, as it is inherently (and perhaps deliberately) less secure than storing your data on your own hardware, where you have that expectation of privacy. Just watch. Create the crisis then sell the solution. They'll have an entire campus in the National Business Park in Maryland.

I, OTOH, want my reasonable expectation of privacy. This [insaonline.org] is what the future looks like. MS is stepping up to the military-industrial complex. I encourage our government to opt-out, unless they prove they can deliver with a real respect for the law.

--
Toro

The Soviet Union does not exist anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34300578)

The Soviet Union hasn't existed since 1991. Some of the countries that made up the Soviet Union are our allies. Are we at war with them too?

Its not just the USSR... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34300850)

the communists! Actually, i think its a problem with the former soviet countries that have a low economic base, that turn to enterprises such as hacking, where there is money to be made and little penalties if your'e caught. The same can also apply to China and N. Korea, however there i think the motives may be more state sponsored. Think of the diaster the US would be in if china cut off all trade with us? Not to mention if they pentrated our finincial and corprate networks to steal money or intellectual property. You think the US is bad now...

But on a lighter side, they probally all hack away to the drumbeat of UVB-76!

War (2, Funny)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | more than 3 years ago | (#34301040)

War. War is Hell.

Cyber-war is cyber-hell. Full of cyberdemons. Bring a shotgun.

from canada (1)

chronoss2010 (1825454) | more than 3 years ago | (#34301810)

im siding with the russians....there use a opensource will be a winner....and the utter arrogance of the americans with all this IP and surveillance law will be there undoing and just shove more peeps to "others"

T.S.A. ... The Eneny Within! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34302200)

We the Collective welcome the deaths of each and every employee of The Transportation Securiy Administration.

Facts about T.S.A.:

1. T.S.A. has never identified a Terrrorist.

2. T.S.A. has never arrested a Terriorist, known or alledged.

3. Airline security has nothing to do with the Transporation Security Agency.

Why does the Transportation Security Agency exist?

T.S.A. exists for the pleasure of the President of the United States of America.

Given that the United States of America Citizens rebuked the infantile mind of Barak Hussain Obama, there is little doubt that the "Enhanced" airline passenger sucurity measures ... sexual harrasment by an agency of the Federal Government of the United States of America ... is retrobution by the President of the United States of America upon his presumed Subjects. Citizen does not equate with Subject ... Obama-kun.

Welcome to 1984.

spam (1)

mabu (178417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34302350)

I think ground zero in the security war always begins and ends with the spam industry, which seems to be at the forefront of exploitation.

Goodbye Open Internet (1)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 3 years ago | (#34303092)

Listen to that funding-generating rhetoric. We can kiss the open internet goodbye now. From now on it will be 'You can choose to have your packets x-rayed or groped.'

Disappointment (1)

dugeen (1224138) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304154)

But the Cold War is over! David Kuo told me that the US won. Say it's still so, Kuo!

Of course we practice what we preach! (1)

pinkushun (1467193) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304316)

Dickie George says the way to fight the cyber cold war is by building security into technology, making it transparent to the end user

In contrast where the NSA has had the potential to hide backdoors (since Windows 95) and make everything so non-tranparent as they work on MS Windows security.

Since the work is undisclosed no one can confirm or deny these backdoors.

Makes you wonder what they're up to now.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/885409 [microsoft.com]
http://www.nsa.gov/ia/guidance/security_configuration_guides/operating_systems/microsoft_windows.shtml [nsa.gov]

Soviet Union=Terrorism? (1)

Kit Kat100 (1945162) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304338)

I don't really see how this is like the Cold War. That would involve Soviet Russia. Seems to be closer to terrorism. Cyber terrorism...I think I've heard that one before...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?