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!

How the Militarization of the Internet is Changing Warfare

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the you've-got-war-mail dept.

The Internet 204

puddingebola writes in with a link to a New York Times article about how the militarization of the internet is changing contemporary warfare. "The decision by the United States and Israel to develop and then deploy the Stuxnet computer worm against an Iranian nuclear facility late in George W. Bush's presidency marked a significant and dangerous turning point in the gradual militarization of the Internet. Washington has begun to cross the Rubicon. If it continues, contemporary warfare will change fundamentally as we move into hazardous and uncharted territory. It is one thing to write viruses and lock them away safely for future use should circumstances dictate it. It is quite another to deploy them in peacetime. Stuxnet has effectively fired the starting gun in a new arms race that is very likely to lead to the spread of similar and still more powerful offensive cyber-weaponry across the Internet. Unlike nuclear or chemical weapons, however, countries are developing cyber-weapons outside any regulatory framework."

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

Peacetime? (5, Insightful)

highphilosopher (1976698) | about 2 years ago | (#40440063)

We have been at ware since early 2000's. It's not peacetime.

Re:Peacetime? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440129)

Wrong! The USA has been in a constant state of Emergency since 1950

Y'know, once the world calms down to pre-1950 levels of crazy I'm sure the President will give up his emergency-granted powers...

Just remember if we get to Threat-Level Puce to set your radio dial to your CONLRAD station, paint yourself white, remove your distributor cap and lie down away from windows or doors, surely this aggression will not stand...

Re:Peacetime? (5, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#40440233)

Actually, according to the Constitution, the US has fought no wars since 1945. We stopped declaring war at about the same time as we renamed our War Department the Department of Defense (after which we continued to attack foreign nations just like we've been doing throughout history).

There's no WAR here (1)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | about 2 years ago | (#40440353)

Could we stop such stupid wording? There's no war here. Nobody has died or is dying because of what they are pretending are weapons, which are in fact just a bunch of bits. This is becoming very silly, and I don't buy into this propaganda.

And by the way, instead of falsely using an important word such as "war", we'd better highlight and focus on how much Microsoft is the responsible here. Responsible in both having stupid security holes (come on... executing code in a .lnk!!!) and not doing security house keeping correctly (files signed with certs they should be in the control of in the case of flame, and windows update not being totally unsafe).

Re:There's no WAR here (4, Insightful)

DirkDaring (91233) | about 2 years ago | (#40440493)

So if the virus made the centrifuges explode and people died would you change your mind?

Re:There's no WAR here (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40441119)

So if the virus made the centrifuges explode and people died would you change your mind?

As opposed to the people who may die if they don't?

I'm okay with that.

Re:There's no WAR here (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#40441295)

So if the virus made the centrifuges explode and people died would you change your mind?

when few blocks from the same place guys are speeding on motorcycles and attaching bombs to cars.. who the fuck cares about doing the equivalent of pissing in the centrifuges.

the whole reporting on the issue is out of hand. it makes me worried that some politicians are going to pay even more silly money for silly sw - and the only guys telling that it works and reporting what it did are the same fucking guys who get paid for doing it.

Re:There *IS* WAR here (5, Interesting)

petes_PoV (912422) | about 2 years ago | (#40440633)

The United States constantly declares war. There's been the "War on Drugs", the "War on Terror" - not to mention the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan and undeclared wars in places like Somalia and Yemen - where military actions (or drone-bourne assasinations) take place regularly.

The thing is, wars are wonderful devices for a democratically elected government. They allow a "wartime" footing to be established where a lot of peacetime protections, rights and restrictions can simply be tossed aside. War is as much a state of mind as a military action. If a country considers itself at war, a lot of the things that its citizens would be permitted to do become criminalised, or at least subject to official scrutiny.

This is exactly what's happened since 2001. The problem is that now we have governments all over the world - previously responsible, western governments that were considered "enlightened" are now viewing all their citizens as potential enemies, criminals or terrorists - and are treating them according to that suspicion.

If you think that cyberspace is too abstract a place to have a war, just look out for all the critical infrastructure that is accessible on the internet. Facilities that any government would be mad to let people walk into unchallenged can (I'm told) be hacked. Whether it's by a script-kiddie or a Stuxnet wielding super-power is immaterial. It's a state of conflict and peoples' rights are being squashed in order to counter it. That sure sounds like a war - even if the enemy is us.

Re:There's no WAR here (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440703)

If this ends up like the cold war where kids are taught in class how to set up antivirus, firewalls, and how to disconnect to prevent further infection then I for one... wait, where's the downside here?

Re:Peacetime? (2)

CubicleZombie (2590497) | about 2 years ago | (#40441327)

We have been at ware since early 2000's. It's not peacetime.

I grew up in the U.S. during the 80's. Yeah, we could board an airplane with our shoes on, but there was still a pretty good chance of getting nuked. I can't even imagine what it must have been like for people in the 60's. Go back just a little farther, and the threat of actual invasion was imminent.

Internet vs USB (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440081)

I thought Stuxnet was transferred via USB.

http://www.matrixgp.com/?page_id=760

Re:Internet vs USB (5, Funny)

Hrdina (781504) | about 2 years ago | (#40440131)

I guess that makes this the militarization of the Sneakernet.

Re:Internet vs USB (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440471)

Sandalnet once it crosses the Iranian border.

Regulatory Framework? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440085)

Because nuclear and chemical weapons were developed INSIDE a regulatory framework to begin with.

And that was clearly charted, safe territory when they were built.

Oh, and let's not forget the fact that NO ONE is currently developing nuclear or chemical weapons outside of the frameworks today.

What the hell do you think war is?

Re:Regulatory Framework? (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about 2 years ago | (#40440253)

if "regulatory framework" = "laws of nature"
then $answer = 1

Unregulated (1)

redrew89 (2636451) | about 2 years ago | (#40440093)

This is probably the most troubling part. If an entity that is at odds with the US could choose to deploy malware that would affect not just military, government or corporate networks, but civilian computers and services. There needs to be a cyberspace analogue to the Geneva Convention, to prevent the cyberwarfare from causing damage to civilian networks and services. Will these regulations follow or even enforcable? Probably not, but it's a nice thought.

Re:Unregulated (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 2 years ago | (#40440249)

The Geneva convention is routinely ignored, the US constitution is routinely ignored, any UN "declaration" is always ignored, etc. What good is another set of "regulations" that will be ignored?

What needs to happen is people need to wake up and realize the constant theme of history, war creates war, violence creates violence. Only free trade and respect for human liberties create peace.

Re:Unregulated (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 2 years ago | (#40440587)

By themselves conventions aren't going to actually prevent anything. They're only useful in a situation after the fact where you can say 'well you agreed to this, and then didn't follow it' or for a higher tier of government to prevent a lower from misbehaving if it's so inclined (so the president commanding the CIA to stop torturing sort of thing).

I think the big difference with the internet and computers in general is that the whole private sector is going to have a vested interest in treating all hacking attempts as hostile as time goes forward. We can see after stuxnet and flame that security companies are viewing this as just another sort of hack to harden against. Right now it's rare enough the security companies and microsoft are pretty bad at stopping government organized hacks. But that will have to change, or else they won't have any sales outside the US.

Rules only limit the "good guys" (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 2 years ago | (#40441239)

That's the thing about wars and rules. The rules are only followed by one side, typically the losing side unless there is some major imbalance of power. I'm all for worldwide peace, but the winning side is unlikely to follow any rules we set.

Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440095)

Now maybe when somebody asks me to put a SCADA system on the net, I can tell them it would be treason.

Nah, they'll just protest they didn't understand all the way to the firing line. Hell, they'll probably send me for not quitting.

Re:Good (1)

networkBoy (774728) | about 2 years ago | (#40441253)

I just wonder, is there no way to ensure that these machines are properly locked down?
At home I run a WinXP VM that boots from a locked volume and a delta disk.
I can always diff any system files (and in fact have a script that does this) against an MD5 hash of the install files.
I can re-hash after running a windows update.
more than once I've found that the machine has changed in a way that I think is undesirable and I revert it.

I would think these SCADA systems would be relatively easy to do the same thing with, prior to boot, verify the integrity of the media, then boot if good.

I realize it is likely overkill for a home user (me), but for a country's nuclear program I would think this is part and parcel to normal operation.
-nB

Military Meet Internet... (5, Insightful)

Cornwallis (1188489) | about 2 years ago | (#40440103)

Wasn't the original purpose of the Internet to serve the military?

Re:Military Meet Internet... (5, Funny)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about 2 years ago | (#40440217)

Ask Al Gore

Re:Military Meet Internet... (1)

tom229 (1640685) | about 2 years ago | (#40440251)

Actually lol'd at my desk. Wish I had mod points for this.

Re:Military Meet Internet... (1)

localman57 (1340533) | about 2 years ago | (#40440511)

Seriously? That joke's like 10 years old. If you like that, you're gonna love these:

-ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
In Soviet Russia, Internet Browses You!
Whasssuuuup!
Don't Taze me Bro!
I did not have sexual relations with that woman!

Re:Military Meet Internet... (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about 2 years ago | (#40440571)

Don't Taze me Bro! is from 2007, which is 5 years old. Unless you are in Soviet Russia, where 2012-2007=10.

Re:Military Meet Internet... (1)

thexile (1058552) | about 2 years ago | (#40440475)

or vagina

"defense advanced research project" DARPA (2)

peter303 (12292) | about 2 years ago | (#40440497)

Part of the goals was a distributed network with no "head" could be knocked out in an attack. The 14 root name-servers are the closest thing to a head.

Re:Military Meet Internet... (1)

mraudigy (1193551) | about 2 years ago | (#40440505)

Yes, but not for a nuclear command and control system as most people think. The ARPANET was to connect the geographically dispursed defense researchers and institutions to the small number of available research computers. The survivability in the design can be attributed to the poor reliability of the switching and circuits -- you didn't need a nuclear attack to take down the network, it handled that all on its own.

Not that again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440579)

If you think the ARPANET resembled anything remotely close to what has since been achieved by millions of unique individuals and groups freely choosing to implement their ideas, you're dreaming.

The ARPANET was about as much of a precursor to the internet as this [blogspot.com] was a precursor to your modern smartphone.

Re:Not that again (1)

JockTroll (996521) | about 2 years ago | (#40441383)

If you think the ARPANET resembled anything remotely close to what has since been achieved by millions of unique individuals and groups freely choosing to implement their ideas, you're dreaming

Do you mean, throwing sheep on facebook? Yeah, such vision. Such an achievement. Millions of unique individuals, caring for their own farmvilles, forever.

This needs to stop (5, Informative)

228e2 (934443) | about 2 years ago | (#40440123)

"THE decision by the United States and Israel to develop and then deploy the Stuxnet computer worm against"

This hasnt been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Even though we all think US/Isreal are the curprits, all articles should start with an appropriate preface. This really needs to stop.

Re:This needs to stop (4, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#40440297)

This hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

And it won't be for decades. These are top-notch spies we're talking about here, with the most powerful military in human history defending them. There's as much proof that the US was involved in Stuxnet as there is that the US was involved in the Venezuela coup: They had the means and the motivation, and left some evidence behind that sure looks suspicious, but no definitive proof.

Re:This needs to stop (4, Funny)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 years ago | (#40440337)

These are top-notch spies we're talking about here

I thought there was supposed to be US involvement as well?

Re:This needs to stop (1)

chill (34294) | about 2 years ago | (#40440331)

Ah, plausible deniability. It makes me tear up every time I see or hear it mentioned in relation to computer malware and potentially criminal acts.

Re:This needs to stop (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 2 years ago | (#40440359)

This really needs to stop.

The number of pageviews the Washington Post got by running that article begs to differ.

Re:This needs to stop (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#40440451)

Truth by popularity. The oldest form of evidence.

Re:This needs to stop (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440927)

Have you read the Bible recently?

Re:This needs to stop (2)

gman003 (1693318) | about 2 years ago | (#40440613)

This isn't a courtroom. We don't need "beyond a reasonable doubt".

We have no other reasonable suspects. We have *some* evidence supporting the US/Israel hypothesis. We have motive. We have a lack of denial from the accused.

None of those alone is "proof". Even altogether, it's not "proof", but this is the Court of Public Opinion, not the International Court of Justice.

Re:This needs to stop (2)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 2 years ago | (#40440647)

when would this require reasonable doubt?

Whether it was the Israelis, Americans, both, or including Canada/France/UK/Germany/AUS/NZ/JAPAN is a legitimate question. But this isn't a legal proceeding, and the precise culpability of any particular government or branch thereof isn't really relevant to the discussion at hand.

Say what?!? (5, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#40440125)

marked a significant and dangerous turning point in the gradual militarization of the Internet.

And all these attacks coming out of Chinese universities are what, game playing?

Military takes on all mediums so it was inevitable efforts would evolve. WW III (should it come) will certainly involve a lot of concentrated attacks over the web, to bring it down, because it's far faster communication than simple radio or Television and goes around the world in milliseconds.

Re:Say what?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440235)

That was my first thought. The Chinese barely see any other practical use for the Internet.

Re:Say what?!? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#40440423)

That was my first thought. The Chinese barely see any other practical use for the Internet.

I view it as conducting research for the state. They learned something about US preparedness, while firing a warning salvo across the bow. If they really did want to cause harm, they could have. Instead they showed a sample. This means there needs to be circuit breakers on the internet for certain countries. I'm not please about it, but it is inevitable -- just as some countries are walling off their own traffic from getting out or outside traffic getting in.

Re:Say what?!? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440373)

Shhh...you'll arouse the hatred of the Chinese shills and the other Anti-Americans on this site.

Re:Say what?!? (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#40440685)

And all these attacks coming out of Chinese universities are what, game playing?

Industrial espionage. Very far from war.

Re:Say what?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40441039)

Bullshit. Unless you work for the DoD, you don't have a damn clue as to what the Chinese have done or constantly try to do. It's classified, which means the common slashtard will never know about it.

Big difference between 'cyberwar' and real war (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#40440127)

Cyberwar, at least as it's currently conducted, doesn't kill people.

Also, what makes them think that regulations matter when you're talking about war? Look at the nuclear weapons treaties - North Korea, Pakistan, India, and Israel have all flaunted them by making nuclear weapons, and the US and Israel have flaunted them by attempting to prevent Iran from researching nuclear power for civilian purposes (which is allowed under non-proliferation treaties).

Re:Big difference between 'cyberwar' and real war (5, Informative)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#40440485)

Technically, only Iran may possibly have violated the non-proliferation treaty. Pakistan, India, and Israel never signed on to it so were perfectly within their rights to develop nukes. North Korea formally withdrew before testing their nuke, though they probably did violate the treaty prior to that withdrawal.

Iran is probably violating it, since they are a signatory, have not withdrawn, and almost certainly are developing a nuclear weapon.

Re:Big difference between 'cyberwar' and real war (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440759)

Almost certainly they are NOT developing nuclear weapon, as was repeatedly confirmed by Israel [haaretz.com] and US [latimes.com] intelligence agencies, among others.

Re:Big difference between 'cyberwar' and real war (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40441285)

Under common law conspiracy, Iran would already be culpable. That's because they've already taken a substantial step, namely enriching Uranium to 20%.

Another analogy, it's sort of like Germany amassing an army on their border with Poland. They haven't decided to invade yet. And maybe they won't. But all it takes is for the leader to give the signal.

Which isn't to say that I don't think Iran should get the bomb. But if you're a nation-state opposed to that prospect, then it's sort of splitting hairs at this point to say that Iran "hasn't yet developed a bomb".

Re:Big difference between 'cyberwar' and real war (1)

DirkDaring (91233) | about 2 years ago | (#40440543)

Wouldn't need much of a change to kill people. Make a reactor go critical or spin the centrifuges so fast they explode.

What would happen if a rogue state hacked North Korea and somehow made a barrage of missiles fly at South Korea?

Re:Big difference between 'cyberwar' and real war (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 2 years ago | (#40440687)

Another difference: when Enola Gay dropped the atomic bomb didn't had megaphones yelling everywhere how to build one atomic bomb yourself. Don't show how to make weapons when you are the most vulnerable player against them.

That's Unpossible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440137)

You'd think the Internet was developed by the US military or something.

What utter tripe (5, Informative)

onyxruby (118189) | about 2 years ago | (#40440175)

What complete and utter tripe! The Chinese, Russians and any number of other countries crossed the proverbial Rubicon many, many years ago. If the submitter is so naive as to think that this was the first example of state sponsored computer hacking against another state than the submitter needs to go to Defcon or any other security convention. Get real, get a clue.

Re:What utter tripe (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#40440487)

Exactly. In addition, the internet is full of viruses and malware seeking to damage things. If you aren't securing your stuff, you're going to have trouble, and it won't matter much to you if it was a state sponsored actor or third-world thugs who just stole all the money from your bank account.

Re:What utter tripe (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440701)

and oh by the way, the Iranian government has been directly shooting at Americans (and others) in Iraq for almost a decade now.

Re:What utter tripe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40441009)

OK, could you enlighten us and share the exact year when Chinese and Russians started to attack and cripple a US infrastructure? Because mere espionage is a little bit different beast, and anyway anybody doubts US was or is behind others on computer spying front?

Cyberwafare - otherwise known as... (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about 2 years ago | (#40440211)

... idiots using a piss poor OS shot full of security holes called Windows for mission critical infrastructure end up having the computers running said piss poor OS compromised or screwed up by some software that works off an abysmal security failure of a feature called autorun.

Sorry, but this isn't Tron just yet.

Re:Cyberwafare - otherwise known as... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440411)

I tested your theory and setup two "boxen" in VMs. I exposed both to the public internet with two different public IPs. No firewall. One was running the latest version of Ubuntu Desktop 12.04. The other was running Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate with SP1 slipstreamed into the install. Neither had any updates installed.

The Ubuntu system got owned first. The Windows system never got hacked.

Re:Cyberwafare - otherwise known as... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440835)

The other was running Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate with SP1 slipstreamed into the install. Neither had any updates installed.

You are contradicting yourself.

Peacetime? (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 2 years ago | (#40440221)

Peacetime? The US has only been at "peace" for a handful of years in its history, the rest of the years it has been fighting people abroad such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. People within its own borders (Indian wars) or arming, training and supporting violence in other countries ("war on drugs"). By abolishing peacetime, the government is allowed to ransack our liberties, steal our income even more and stifle dissent. Keep in mind we are still under a state of emergency because of "terrorism" first enacted by Bush and then extended every year by Obama.

Re:Peacetime? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440363)

Arrest him!

Re:Peacetime? (1)

Phrogman (80473) | about 2 years ago | (#40440753)

I was always under the impression that the reason the US is always at war was at least in part so that it always had military personnel who were experienced in combat and thus better prepared to defend the country. Purely peacetime armies that have no combat veterans are usually pretty ineffective when they meet folks who are experienced. In a way this makes sense, sadly for the rest of the world it means someone is always going to get their ass invaded and if there is no justification for it, one will be provided. The US is without any doubt the most violent country in the world in this regard.

The other factor is of course that many many US corporations rely on military funds to survive and a lot of that money undoubtedly rubs off on the lobbyists and politicians who ensure it gets spent on the latest and greatest thing. So what if a few thousand loyal and trusting soldiers lose their lives for the corporate bottom line? :(

This did not start with Stuxnet (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440223)

It is a grossly inaccurate to state "Stuxnet has effectively fired the starting gun in a new arms race...". On the contrary, Stuxnet only makes a large percentage of the population aware of an arms race that started long ago.

Rubicon? (5, Funny)

sbjornda (199447) | about 2 years ago | (#40440229)

From the article:

Washington has begun to cross the Rubicon.

I thought Washington crossed the Delaware. When was he in Italy? Now I'm all confused.

--
.nosig

Re:Rubicon? (0)

postmortem (906676) | about 2 years ago | (#40440351)

Re:Rubicon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440905)

But that article doesn't have anything about Washington's service in Legio XIII as an Imaginifer.

Also Washington is a highlander, and he's still creeping around out there, awaiting the time of the Gathering.

Re:Rubicon? (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 2 years ago | (#40440909)

Actually, Washington Irving crossed the Delaware Memorial Bridge in a Jeep Rubicon. I can see how that might be confusing though.

Arpnet (1)

elbonia (2452474) | about 2 years ago | (#40440241)

Considering nearly every protocol and major advancement on the internet has been through DARPA [wikipedia.org] the world will probably be fine. But making unfounded ridiculousness claims is a great way to hype up a book you are going to sell in stores.

The subtley of economic cyber-weapons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440279)

If I can make your cheap chinese dishwasher implode, you may like to buy my american made dishwasher instead;
or if I can make your stock-market collapse with automated hyper-reactionary trading.
It probably is just a matter of when, and not if.

Of course if you are already in the stone age, it cannot affect you.

Misleading but essentially right (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440301)

Comparing military software viruses or tojans with chemical or nuclear weapons is totally inadequate.

Apart from that, yes, the US and Israel have set a bad precedent. Countries shouldn't just be allowed to attack other countries and get away with it, be the attack on the Net or more conventional. Apart from giving a bad example to the rest of the worlds, these kinds of "cyber" attacks are also just plain stupid, they do not make the world one grain more secure in the long run and will just encourage the victim nations to retaliate with their own "cyber" weapons.

It is discouraging that the people in charge have not learned from history or, even worse, erroneously believe that the Soviet Union fell because of the western demonstration of military power rather than by their own people and the self-collapse of communist bureaucracy and ideology.

Re:Misleading but essentially right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440737)

Do you seriously think that Stuxnet or Flame is the first example of cyberwarfare, or that Israel or the US is the first to employ such techniques?

Re:Misleading but essentially right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40441057)

No, and I also didn't say so. Time to brush up your reading skills.

Laughing out loud (3, Interesting)

Mr. Firewall (578517) | about 2 years ago | (#40440315)

...a significant and dangerous turning point.... If it continues, contemporary warfare will change fundamentally as we move into hazardous and uncharted territory....

You mean, just like when gunpowder was invented? Or when troops started using wheeled vehicles instead of horses?

Or when militaries started using... GASP!... aircraft?

Get a clue. Warfare is always changing fundamentally as it moves into "uncharted territory" made possible by new technology.

Possible story line (1)

cellocgw (617879) | about 2 years ago | (#40440319)

Combine the explosion of cyberwarfare with the advances in organic "inkjet printing" compound creation (e.g. http://www.psmag.com/health/making-medical-miracles-with-inkjet-printers-26770/ [psmag.com] ), and you get: Internet Virus Causes Home Printers to Generate Plague / Ebola / Marshmallow Fluff.
-- clearly I consider all 3 to be of equal horror --

Re:Possible story line (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | about 2 years ago | (#40440419)

... Internet Virus Causes Home Printers to Generate Plague / Ebola / Marshmallow Fluff. -- clearly I consider all 3 to be of equal horror --

I'm somewhat resistent to Plague, Ebola might be cured soon, but Gozer the Gozarian coming out of my home printer? Now, that's scary. http://ghostbusters.wikia.com/wiki/Stay_Puft_Marshmallow_Man [wikia.com]

HEY !! DUMASS !! THE NET IS THE MILITARY'S BABY !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440323)

Be glad the DHARMA initiative lets you use its network, you sorry sap !! If you don't like it, go make your own !! You got lots of camel dung, so get to work building dung burning power plants, then go from there, LOSERS !!

rules of war (2)

Spiked_Three (626260) | about 2 years ago | (#40440333)

I never understood 'rules' of war. If someone runs from (the symbolic) me into a church, I say nuke the church. If my bullets can mutilate instead of kill, and in the end bring victory, then I shoot mutilating bullets. If my biological weapon can be easily deployed into your water supply, why shouldn't they be?

The US started this war. And the rules of war, equivalent to laws, will only be followed by US law abiding citizens, not our enemy targets When we get another 9/11 level attack, don't be so naive this time, we started it (the same as last time).

Re:rules of war (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#40440531)

Rules of war exist to convince the public that war is not as horrible as it really is. This is a ploy to allow governments to engage in wars with reduced public opposition.

War Room (1)

Ashenkase (2008188) | about 2 years ago | (#40440335)

Unlike nuclear or chemical weapons, however, countries are developing cyber-weapons outside any regulatory framework.

Gentlemen. You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!

Maybe.. (2, Insightful)

AdmV0rl0n (98366) | about 2 years ago | (#40440355)

Someone should note that while everyone watches Stux and similar, the Chinese have been carrying out Cyberwar, and constructive espianage for many years now. Their aggressive war activity has netted, and continues to net them economic gains far far outstripping the silly games being played around the Iranian nuclear program.

And, further, unless its actually challenged, the price and cost of that makes the Iranian Nuclear issue peanuts.

Re:Maybe.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440761)

or owners of systems could secure them, but why do that when we could saber rattle.

F.U.D. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440357)

Hand-wringing much? Hyperbole to spread F.U.D.

Sorry, Born in '84 (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#40440367)

What is this "peacetime" of which you speak? Sounds fascinating...

Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440425)

Internet was created by the military, and after an extensive beta test by the biggest population sample possible, is now ready to deploy as a weapon.

"Peacetime" is relative... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 years ago | (#40440463)

...and I feel obligated to mention that "the internet" started out as a military entity.

"Gradual militarization of the Internet", indeed! (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about 2 years ago | (#40440465)

Am I the only one who is struck by the irony of that statement? Remember that military funding was behind the initial research and development of the Internet we use today. It's almost as if they allowed the private sector to spend their time and energy to develop and expand it for them, so they could again use it for their own purposes..

Cyberwar (1)

ka9dgx (72702) | about 2 years ago | (#40440515)

Cyberwar - When the "elite" consider security a matter of disciplining users, and the rest of the world goes along with it.

Security - when you don't trust things more than you have to... a feature not available in Windows, Mac OSX, nor Linux.

Untrue, how &/or why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440809)

"Security - when you don't trust things more than you have to... a feature not available in Windows, Mac OSX, nor Linux." - by ka9dgx (72702) on Monday June 25, @01:03PM (#40440515) Homepage

You can security-harden modern Operating Systems QUITE WELL, & it's even EASY TO DO, if you use a tool like the multi-platform + highly esteemed ( http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9018362/CIS_tool_aims_to_help_federal_agencies_check_Windows_security_settings [computerworld.com] ) based on "industry best practices" recommendations of CIS Tool -> http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000/XP%22&btnG=Search&gbv=1&sei=W53oT_jaLKbp6gGXoe3gDg [google.com]

That, along with a little end-user education (which it goes into a LOT on that note) on where threats come from, how to stop them, & to use common-sense (along with conscientious patching of OS &/or wares a user uses) goes a LONG ways...

* CIS Tool's also ready for Windows 7 + Server 2008!

However/Catch-22 (not really, & how/why) - it's not FREE like the ones for Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 were, but, it has a 30 day demo (and you can make the alterations it suggests, & then, use regedit.exe to export those changes OR .inf files to merge too, & that way? You have the settings for "security-hardening" your rig that way, forever!)

APK

P.S.=> It's gotten results like the following quoted testimonials from a fellow that does PC Repair & more, from his family, himself, friends, & clients he's applied that guide's recommendations TO THE LETTER to:

QUOTED TESTIMONIALS TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SAID LAYERED SECURITY GUIDE I AUTHORED:

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=672ebdf47af75a0c5b0d9e7278be305f&t=28430&page=2 [xtremepccentral.com]

"I recently, months ago when you finally got this guide done, had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids. My client, who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this, has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS! I haven't even had a follow up call which is unusual." - THRONKA, user of my guide @ XTremePcCentral

AND

"APK, thanks for such a great guide. This would, and should, be an inspiration to such security measures. Also, the pc that has "tweaks": IS STILL GOING! NO PROBLEMS!" - THRONKA, user of my guide @ XTremePcCentral

AND

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=672ebdf47af75a0c5b0d9e7278be305f&t=28430&page=3 [xtremepccentral.com]

"Its 2009 - still trouble free! I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008. Great stuff! My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works. Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads. APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC! Its made my PC experience much easier. Sandboxing was great. Getting my host file updated, setting services to system service, rather than system local. (except AVG updater, needed system local)" - THRONKA, user of my guide @ XTremePcCentral

---

... apk

Needs another tag: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440537)

"weak troll"

Here's my vision.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40440591)

Wars will be on the Internet. But not the way you think. It will be virtual. ALL virtual.

Yes, we'll send trooops into places to occupy zones, but the battles won't be with bullets. They'll be on the networks, playing MOFPS where the outcomes will have real strategic consequences. The virtual maps will be from realtime data, and movements will be based on who wins within the game. Of course, both parties are connected and fighting, and relinquishing ground after defeat will be honored, lest the real bullets start flying. It is a much saner, and more PC type of war. Training in the field is only matched by training at the computer. You're a weapon of death in life, and in the virtual.

Only the civilized will wage this war, as the alternative is wholesale bloodshed, with the instigator losing 99% of the time. This is the future of combat. The virtual warzone, replicated in the real world near real-time. Fought in digital space with minimal casualties, with peace, ego, new allies, and physical ground as the spoils.

Step 1. Hack North Korea (3, Funny)

DirkDaring (91233) | about 2 years ago | (#40440597)

Step 2. Fire missiles.
Step 3. ?
Step 4. Profit!

Oh wait, Step 1 should buy 'Buy stock in defense contractors'.

Terming this the militarization of the "Internet" (1)

gatesstillborg (2633899) | about 2 years ago | (#40440669)

...seems to be unnecessary flame-mongering. As I recall stuxnet was brought to a isolated (as any such industrial control system should be) intranet using an infected pen-drive.

Bottom line, if your network contains anything of critical state importance, don't connect it to anything.

Silly article! (2)

stevew (4845) | about 2 years ago | (#40440917)

The article seems to think that the US is the first to pull the "Cyber Warfare" trigger. That is just silly. The only thing different here is that the US government was silly enough to ADMIT that they were partially responsible for Stuxnet virus, etc. The US civilian industry, and military assets have been under constant attack by various "actors" for over a decade. The only difference is those "actors" haven't admitted it or been caught red-handed. Most likely (and again they haven't been dumb enough to admit it like the US), the Chinese government has been one main Cyber Warfare protagonist that is constantly assailing US assets. So everyone get off their High Horses and face the real world.

The simple fact is we chose to fire bits at em, instead of nukes! Seems like an improvement in my mind!

Re:Silly article! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40441209)

Could you please provide example of cyber warfare, where another state attacked US infrastructure with the intent to destroy it?

Rubicon? (1)

firewrought (36952) | about 2 years ago | (#40441193)

Washington has begun to cross the Rubicon...

Begun crossing the Rubicon? That's bad word choice for a cliche that refers to a definite, irreversible commitment. What's next? Gradually falling head-over-heals in love? A mild gut-wrenching pain? Tentative writing on the wall?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?