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!

Air Force Openly Seeking Cyberweapons

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the all-the-other-kids-have-'em dept.

Security 91

Gunkerty Jeb writes "The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center posted a broad agency announcement (PDF) recently, calling on contractors to submit concept papers detailing technological demonstrations of 'cyberspace warfare operations' capabilities. Among many other things, the Air Force is seeking to obtain the abilities to 'destroy, deny, degrade, disrupt, deceive, corrupt, or usurp the adversaries' ability to use the cyberspace domain for his advantage' and capabilities that would allow them to intercept, identify, and locate sources of vulnerability for threat recognition, targeting, and planning, both immediately and for future operations."

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

Good idea, after all (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41156923)

whatever could go wrong ?

Re:Good idea, after all (2, Insightful)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#41157875)

Right? I figure I can get at least $20 billion up front, another $200 billion in overruns, and about 15 years to develop a VB6 goatse "weapon" that never really works right.

I love this idea.

And just so you know... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41156943)

That “adversaries” includes us. Especially us.

Good luck knowing what is real in 10 years. Most people already have barely and self-made observations/experiences.

Re:And just so you know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41157273)

Good luck knowing what is real in 10 years.

It's been that way for the past 20 years.

Re:And just so you know... (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | more than 2 years ago | (#41157533)

That “adversaries” includes us. Especially us.

.

This is the USAF, not the NSA, CIA, FBI, DIA, TSA, etc. Three initial agencies are the ones you need to be afraid of, ;-)

Walt Kelly said it best... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41159371)

Even though the comment was intended for a different context, the sentiment reigns supreme. We have met the enemy, and they is us. [wikipedia.org]

Re:And just so you know... (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#41160753)

That "adversaries" includes us. Especially us.

This is the USAF, not the NSA, CIA, FBI, DIA, TSA, etc. Three initial agencies are the ones you need to be afraid of, ;-)

Doolittle should be spinning in his grave hearing that. What do the TLAs bring to bear? Lawyers and cops with guns, possibly rent-a-cops (TSA). What's the USAF got to compare to them? Just cruise missiles (possibly nuke tipped), stealth bombers (possibly nuke armed), UAVs, AWACS, LEO satellite surveillance and targeting capability, ...

Yeah, the TLAs are waaaaayy more dangerous than the USAF. :-P

Re:And just so you know... (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | more than 2 years ago | (#41162165)

a nuke would do to much collateral civilian-citizen damage for it to be used in country, where planted evidence and bullying is perfect for getting individuals in country. I think the three letters are more dangerous to individuals.

Re:And just so you know... (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#41162429)

a nuke would do [too] much [collateral] civilian-citizen damage for it to be used in country ...

Methinks you believe "they" care more about "us" than "they" do. Call it paranoia if you wish, but I think they're fishing around right now for ways to plausibly get away with the insane. News reports I've read (WaPo, et al) show they're desperately trying to start a war with Iran. We're easy targets in comparison.

I'm expecting neutron bombs in our future (for our own good (tm), of course).

Re:And just so you know... (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | more than 2 years ago | (#41162529)

yeah i guess i could see that, but it would be dropped on another country not on our own cities very large difference a three letter is more than willing to f you over and will with low to no collateral damage. the three letters are a scalpel to be used on us, the military is a f'ing big cudgel with spikes in it used to beat the shit out of everyone else.

Re:And just so you know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41163385)

That “adversaries” includes us. Especially us.

.

This is the USAF, not the NSA, CIA, FBI, DIA, TSA, etc. Three initial agencies are the ones you need to be afraid of, ;-)

DOD is the only one you need be concerned or afraid of, and all that falls under it.

That being said, of all branches, the USAF would be the first I would fear. Where do you think all this tech will ultimately land first...

Re:And just so you know... (1)

Kirth (183) | more than 2 years ago | (#41164709)

The "adversaries” who don't get access to the vulnerability information also includes the manufacturer of the software, its customers, and certainly ALL OTHER DEPARTMENTS. Can't have the Navy or the Ground Forces to have that information.

They're moving towards a vicious circle where everyone hoards vulnerabilities, and nobody is secure.

Unethical ? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41156945)

Give everyone else Windows install disks and free licenses. And run our systems on linux.
Might be against the Geneva conventions for torture

Re:Unethical ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41157557)

Give everyone else Windows 8 install disks and free licenses. And run our systems on linux. Might be against the Geneva conventions for torture

There, I fixed that for you - Win 8 surely has better NSA trap doors than it's predecessors...and it's just awful.

Re:Unethical ? (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#41160817)

No you didn't fix it. How old are you? Twelve? If you think Windows 8 invented suckiness, you've been asleep at the switch all this time.

Re:Unethical ? (1)

zlives (2009072) | more than 2 years ago | (#41157963)

yes but they can bypass the threat by deleting system32.exe

Re:Unethical ? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#41158677)

The joke only works if you name a system file that actually exists. Perhaps you meant ntoskrnl.exe?

Re:Unethical ? (1)

zlives (2009072) | more than 2 years ago | (#41167795)

nah man don't know how that .exe got in there :p

Any suggestions (1)

ozduo (2043408) | more than 2 years ago | (#41156977)

on creating a death star start up

Re:Any suggestions (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#41157123)

on creating a death star start up

If you live on Alderaan don't fund the kickstarter... Unless you're one of those "Alderaan shot first" cranks.

Re:Any suggestions (2)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 2 years ago | (#41157155)

If you live on Alderaan don't fund the kickstarter... Unless you're one of those "Alderaan shot first" cranks.

But they where supporting the TERRORIST! They got what was comin...

Re:Any suggestions (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#41160867)

on creating a death star start up

I think you need permission from AT&T for that.

Cool (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#41156981)

Unlike nukes, we all have access to 'cyberweapons'.

Re:Cool (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41157631)

..and ponies. I want a pony. Tell them I want a pony!

DOD talking more about cyber (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 2 years ago | (#41157015)

For better or worse, this is a new battlespace, and DOD is talking about it [wired.com]

Just ask the US President? (1, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#41157029)

I mean... He's got the Internet Kill-switch, which seems like it would qualify as being able to: "destroy, deny, degrade, disrupt, deceive, corrupt, or usurp the adversaries' ability to use the cyberspace domain for his advantage"

Ask the NSA if you want to: "intercept, identify, and locate sources of vulnerability for threat recognition, targeting, and planning, both immediately and for future operations."

If you ask me, the Air force should just focus on flying their air planes. Look, I realise that in the Age of Information traditional warfare is becoming obsolete, but does the air force really need cyber weapons? Are they planning on going to war with their own country?!

Re:Just ask the US President? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41157085)

for the matrix airforce, cyberweapons are a necessity

Re:Just ask the US President? (4, Insightful)

jfengel (409917) | more than 2 years ago | (#41157365)

The Internet Kill Switch died in committee. Even if it had passed, that's not really what they're talking about here. It would (potentially) have shut America off from the Internet, but that's only degrading the enemy's capability in the sense that shooting yourself denies them the chance to kill you.

The fact that this is being done in the Air Force is a little surprising, but there's a remarkable amount of redundancy between our branches. All of the branches do computer work of various kinds. That redundancy is expensive, no doubt, but it also creates diversity which makes it more robust.

Whether we actually need that robustness or if it's just more make-work for Congressional districts... I won't touch that. Let's just say that it's complicated.

Re:Just ask the US President? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41157847)

I thought the Internet kill switch was called BGP?

Re:Just ask the US President? (1)

bobbied (2522392) | more than 2 years ago | (#41158459)

No.. It's called EMP.. Problem is that it's a button the bad guys can push.

Re:Just ask the US President? (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161159)

I thought the Internet kill switch was called BGP?

No.. It's called EMP ...

Weird. I'd think that something showing up in the sky over D.C. capable of producing an EMP would be the bigger problem. Who cares about all the fried electronics with all the smoking corpses stinking up the place?

Re:Just ask the US President? (1)

Q-Hack! (37846) | more than 2 years ago | (#41164245)

A nuke at 300 miles above isn't likely to produce many smoking corpses.

Re:Just ask the US President? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41158485)

The fact that this is being done in the Air Force is a little surprising, but there's a remarkable amount of redundancy between our branches. All of the branches do computer work of various kinds. That redundancy is expensive, no doubt, but it also creates diversity which makes it more robust.

Why buy one when you can have five at 20 times the price?

Re:Just ask the US President? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#41158835)

"... but that's only degrading the enemy's capability in the sense that shooting yourself denies them the chance to kill you."

Hahaha! Mod up. Best line I've read in a long time.

Re:Just ask the US President? (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161223)

"... but that's only degrading the enemy's capability in the sense that shooting yourself denies them the chance to kill you."

Hahaha! Mod up. Best line I've read in a long time.

Oh please. It's called the Masada Defense, and it's been an old joke for about two millennia. "Ha! Didn't we make those Roman Legions look stupid! Nyaa, nyaa, you can't kill us because we committed suicide. Nyaa, nyaa!"

Re:Just ask the US President? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161417)

"Oh please. It's called the Masada Defense, and it's been an old joke for about two millennia. 'Ha! Didn't we make those Roman Legions look stupid! Nyaa, nyaa, you can't kill us because we committed suicide. Nyaa, nyaa!'"

So? How is that relevant to the fact that it is still the best line I have read on Slashdot in a long while?

It doesn't have to be new to be funny and appropriate.

Re:Just ask the US President? (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161685)

So? How is that relevant to the fact that it is still the best line I have read on Slashdot in a long while?

It doesn't have to be new to be funny and appropriate.

I'm trying to think of something funny in reply, but all I get is old jokes, demnit. Oh yeah, "intercontinental cybernetic missives" in the same thread/story. That's funny! Well, I thought so. No offence intended, honest.

Perhaps I'm being a bit over-critical this evening. I strive to educate at the least. I don't think Masada was anything to crow about. This [wikipedia.org] is more my style.

[No, I'm not Jewish, FYI. :-) ]

Re:Just ask the US President? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161425)

"Oh please."

Further yet, it doesn't even have to be particularly funny or appropriate to be a good line in the context of Slashdot.

Re:Just ask the US President? (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161825)

"Oh please."

Further yet, it doesn't even have to be particularly funny or appropriate to be a good line in the context of Slashdot.

Do you want to play "/. Stereotypes?"

i) We all live in our Mom's basement.

ii) We've never had a Significant Other in our lives.
iib) There are no women here or in the rest of the IT Universe.

iii) "Social skills? What're those? Bath? What's a bath?"

iv) "They're" == "their" == "there"
ivb) "Two" == "to" == "too"
ivc) "Lose" == "loose" ...

v) "What's an apostrophe?"

vi) USA! USA! USA!

Boston Red Sox 5, LA Angels (of Anaheim) 4. I'd rather be watching the Mets. I'm very glad it's not -40 [CF] today. Please, put down the knife/gun. :-)

Re:Just ask the US President? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#41182155)

Do you want to play "/. Stereotypes?"

Yes, of course that's what I was doing, in a humorous/sarcastic way. And it was pretty silly.

Having said that, I object somewhat to (iib), but I really like (v).

Re:Just ask the US President? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41162145)

Step 1: read http://www.amazon.com/America-Vulnerable-Digital-Espionage-Warfare/dp/159420313X
Step 2: return to slashdot to laugh how completely naive, uninformed, simplistic, off-target, fatuous, and intellectually lazy your own post was.
Step 3: repeat step 2 for every post you've seen here on this topic.

Suggestion (5, Funny)

Antipater (2053064) | more than 2 years ago | (#41157059)

They'll need to get to work creating something to monitor and regulate all these cyberweapons they're creating. A defense net for the Air Force, a "Net-in-the-Sky", if you will. That should work, right?

Re:Suggestion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41157699)

A Skynet if you will?

Re:Suggestion (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161119)

A Skynet if you will?

I won't, thanks. :)

Strat

Re:Suggestion (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161273)

They'll need to get to work creating something to monitor and regulate all these cyber weapons they're creating. A defense net for the Air Force ...

I wonder if they'll bother to look into making their own systems immune, just in case it kinda, sorta, comes around and decides to bite them too.

Nah. That wouldn't happen, right?

bet password will be cyberweapons12 (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41157103)

bet the password for the entire system will be cyberweapons12

Re:bet password will be cyberweapons12 (1)

zlives (2009072) | more than 2 years ago | (#41157913)

joshua5

Re:bet password will be cyberweapons12 (1)

El_Oscuro (1022477) | more than 2 years ago | (#41162169)

12345 "Thats the stupidest combination I have ever seen in my life! It is like something an idiot would have on his luggage!"

Re:bet password will be cyberweapons12 (1)

Q-Hack! (37846) | more than 2 years ago | (#41164265)

Remind me to change the combo on my luggage.

Air force? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#41157119)

I think they misunderstood what space we are talking about in cyberspace.

Re:Air force? (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 2 years ago | (#41157263)

I think they misunderstood what space we are talking about in cyberspace.

Cyberspace: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the cybership FreeEnterprise.

So will the JPL be replaced with a CPL? Are we in a new CyberSpace Race? Are people going to start manufacturing stockpiles of intercontinental cybernetic missives?

At least holodecks and replicators actually exist in cyberspace....

Re:Air force? (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161365)

... intercontinental cybernetic missives ...

Now that's funny! I sent one of those to a friend in Europe this morning. I sure hope they didn't suffer.

At least holodecks and replicators actually exist in cyberspace

They do not. Since when was Hollywood cognizant of cyberspace? Have you seen the dreck they put out? Jeebus. Hollywood should stick to baseball movies.

The way to go (1)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | more than 2 years ago | (#41157137)

Cypernetic weapons are en vogue again. Probably part of the Air Force's steampunk efforts. Next: Attack Zeppelins!

Re:The way to go (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 2 years ago | (#41157321)

You mean something like this? [networkworld.com]

Re:The way to go (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#41169303)

Thought the same thing as soon as I read the parent. Wish I had mod points today.

air force sees earmarked money for cyber threats (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41157241)

Air force just wants a bigger piece of the huge bloated military budget.

Cyber warfare? We do that. Now give us the extra Billioooons of dollars.

Fucking waste of money. We can defend our country with volunteers if we are ever attacked (see how well Iraq and Afghanistan held back the US military with just poorly armed volunteers defending their homes and families from the invading army). A standing army is just for imperialist wars, and tyranny against the population.

Re:air force sees earmarked money for cyber threat (1)

Antipater (2053064) | more than 2 years ago | (#41157531)

(see how well Iraq and Afghanistan held back the US military with just poorly armed volunteers defending their homes and families from the invading army).

I know, right? The Iraqis held the Americans off for 21 whole days [wikipedia.org] !

Re:air force sees earmarked money for cyber threat (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161369)

I know, right? The Iraqis held the Americans off for 21 whole days [wikipedia.org]!

Well, "held off" is a bit of an overstatement anyways, don't you think?

More like: "It took us that long to haul enough ordnance to the place and to unload it again into the Iraqi Republican Guard given the finite number of soldiers/weapons we had there."

It takes a bit of time to destroy/kill that much/many, you know. Weapons have cycling rates and reload times. Soldiers need meals and sleep. Vehicles/armor have a limited speed, especially if traversing rough terrain. Slower heavy supply/support transport has to catch up.

I almost miss "Baghdad Bob". He was the closest thing to "comedy relief" I've ever seen or heard of in an actual military conflict that wasn't with the USO. :)

Strat

Re:air force sees earmarked money for cyber threat (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161589)

(see how well Iraq and Afghanistan held back the US military with just poorly armed volunteers defending their homes and families from the invading army).

I know, right? The Iraqis held the Americans off for 21 whole days!

... then continued to bleed you (and them, and civilians) until Dec. 18, 2011 [wikipedia.org] despite it all being "over with" in 21 days. Some people will never understand Stalingrad (suckers) or the VietNam War (suckers^2). How long did it take to actually find Saddam again? "Most significantly, Saddam Hussein himself was captured on December 13, 2003 ..."

Hmm. "March 20, 2003 to December 18, 2011 ..." I think that's a bit more than 21 days. In fact, I'm fairly sure March 20, 2003 to December 13, 2003 is quite a bit more than 21 days.

You display an astonishing facility for avoidance of reality. You should be careful of that. It's a dangerous condition. [wikipedia.org]

Re:air force sees earmarked money for cyber threat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41157613)

Good luck with your volunteers defending their homes after a chemical or biological attack.
The need for these cyber weapons is to defend or stike against hostile nation states such as China. They have HUGE initiatives along those lines and we NEED to step ours up as well.

Re:air force sees earmarked money for cyber threat (1)

gtall (79522) | more than 2 years ago | (#41163665)

Get some perspective. Cyber is cheap compared to all the hardware and personnel costs for running a military. The Air Force just doesn't want to get caught with their pants down, and doesn't want to depend upon another service to provide them cyber capabilities.

Okay Then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41157297)

I'll send them right now. Just click the link and you'll get all the cyberweapons you can handle.

I am a geek... (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | more than 2 years ago | (#41157315)

But sadly I have no cyberweapons to sell.
Chemical weapons decanted intestinally from last nights taco fest I have in abundance.

Wanna Cyber? (1)

ilikenwf (1139495) | more than 2 years ago | (#41157471)

We just need to get some of those "eWhore" bots together and use them in coordinated ddos and spam campaigns. Since most foreign people as well as Americans can't resist the urge of nice boobies or wood, all computers would be rendered useless within a few hours of having adware and spyware porn viewers installed.

Do what the Chinese have done (1)

sackofdonuts (2717491) | more than 2 years ago | (#41157575)

Subsume the production of all commodity computer equipment in the world. Then introduce firmware that can do all sorts of things with the hardware, hence you would have complete control over your enemy's equipment.

blimps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41157587)

ok, how about some blimps, drop'n sharks with lazers.

WinNuke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41157651)

I'll send em a copy of WinNuke

They need the Kuang Grade Mark 11 (1)

VAXcat (674775) | more than 2 years ago | (#41157823)

He slotted the Chinese virus, paused, then drove it home. `Okay,' he said, `we're on..." `Christ on a crutch,' the Flatline said, `take a look at this.' The Chinese virus was unfolding around them. Polychrome shadow, countless translucent layers shifting and recombining. Protean, enormous, it towered above them, blotting out the void. `Big mother,' the Flatline said.

Oh, I'd say this does the job/fits the bill nicely (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41157845)

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74 [start64.com]

Per the definitions of requirements given of:

Among many other things, the Air Force is seeking to obtain the abilities to 'destroy, deny, degrade, disrupt, deceive, corrupt, or usurp the adversaries' ability to use the cyberspace domain for his advantage' and capabilities that would allow them to intercept, identify, and locate sources of vulnerability for threat recognition, targeting, and planning, both immediately and for future operations."

Since it does the following:

---

1.) Destroys, denies, degrades, & disrupts the adversaries' ability to use the cyberspace domain for his advantage

2.) Deceives them into thinking their attacks still would work (when they're COMPLETELY nullified by its abilities)

3.) Allows intercept, identify, & locate sources of vulnerability for recognition, targetting, & planning vs. the adversaries' immediate and future operations (since it stores what nullifies present AND FUTURE attacks in the custom hosts file it creates with ABSOLUTELY current data).

---

* So, in short? I've already BUILT, long ago, what they're looking for... & it helps typical normal/regular end users do the same!

APK

P.S.=> Yes, folks - I have to tell you this: It is NOT EASY, being "World-Class" like me - being able to see the future & what-not, decades ago, on this very front (since I began doing defensive hosts files back in late 1996 here & they DO work for the requirements above, albeit, more in a "defensive posture capability")... lol!

... apk

Re:Oh, I'd say this does the job/fits the bill nic (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#41162077)

You're a legend in your own mind.

Legend also "blew you away" before, troll (lmao) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41165357)

On Exxon-Mobil running their domain on Windows fool http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2772023&cid=39608239 [slashdot.org]

* Let's see, what was it you said there? Ah, yes:

"BTW, ca. 80% of the web runs on FLOSS. ExxonMobil uses it, FFS!" - by tqk (413719) on Saturday April 07, @02:59PM (#39608009)

Hmmm, well - Let's see what NETCRAFT has to say in response to THAT utter bullshit:

EXXON-MOBIL: Runs their domain on Windows IIS -> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.exxonmobil.com [netcraft.com]

(So much for your usual bullshit, tqk... I'll always burn you!)

APK

P.S.=> LMAO - and, You said they used "Open 'SORES'", and downmodded me for it though you were wrong?

Normal people do NOT downmod those who are correct, so it's VERY OBVIOUS you did it... 1 of 2 ways:

---

1.) Yes - it's obvious that You're the typical "SOCK PUPPET" using asshole around /., nothing more (multiple registered 'luser' accounts galore to mod your opponents DOWN with (when you are caught with your pants down, and of course, each of your multiple guises UP, even when wrong - and, you were MASSIVELY WRONG above, no questions asked)

or

2.) Downmod, logout to preserve your cookie state on your registered tqk account, troll by ac afterwards

---

Take your pick, either way? You STILL failed, badly, vs. "yours truly"... and you KNOW it, I know it - now? Everyone else reading here can too... lol!

... apk

You're a legend who's out of his mind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41203365)

Failing so badly to apk it's now legendary http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3078649&cid=41162077 [slashdot.org] LMAO!

Re:Oh, I'd say this does the job/fits the bill nic (0)

f3rret (1776822) | more than 2 years ago | (#41163043)

you're not apk

Up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41157897)

Up an atom!
Up and at them!
Up an atom!
Up and at them!
Up an atom!
Up and at them! ...Better

Cyberspace does not mirror physical warfare (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | more than 2 years ago | (#41158123)

Listening to these people they are all assuming there is some sort of analouge to physical reality to be had when no such thing exists.

"Resources" are meaningless. Your advasary does not need aircraft carriers, subs and tanks. A dialup modem is just as capable of bringing down power grids as is a well connected multi-gigabit pipe at every IXP.

One smart, board or lucky person located anywhere can cause you just as much grief as an army of lesser such people.

Denial of capabilities means nothing when those capabilities have already been used against you and you just don't know it yet. In fact any useless attempt to disrupt networks or capabilities could very well trigger a failsafe response. The only way to deny capabilities is to help your side secure their shit.

"Mapping of networks" Oh yea cause if you know where an attack is coming from you can turn it off and that will fix everything... knowledge of network topology is meaningless.

"Access to cyberspace domain, information, networks, systems, or devices"

Its called hacking. If you ask nicely a three letter agency might share their cache of 0-days with you...but my guess they will refuse to waste their precious capability on "cyber war" bullshit.

"Denial of service on cyberspace resources, current/future operating systems, and network devices" ...

All you need is a low orbit ion cannon, a few rofolcopters on your lolz craft carriers and nobody will mess with you... Denial of service is more military thinking with no useful analouge to any useful property of "cyberspace".

"Data manipulation"
Notepad..

"Ability to control cyberspace effects at specified times and places"

As if time and space mean anything in cyberspace.

"Situational awareness capabilities that give an operator near real-time effectiveness feedback in a form that is readily observed by the operator."

These are humans you are at war with. There is no neat satellite imagry detailing the effect of delivered ordinance, to think otherwise is dangerous self dellusion.

"Technologies/concepts for developing and assessing cyberspace capabilities while disconnected from the operational cyberspace domain (the Internet or communication networks) including IO modeling, simulation, and capability, and operational and performance assessments."

More military resource bullshit having no actual analouge to "cyberspace"

"Situational awareness capabilities that give an operator near real-time effectiveness feedback in a form that is readily observed by the operator."

See RFC 3514.

"Technologies/concepts for developing capabilities to assess and visualize non-kinetic cyberspace domain effects."

They were attacking us so we broke the Internet and therefore we won because nobody can attack us anymore.

"Cyberspace technologies/capabilities employing unique characteristics resulting in the adversary entering conflicts in a degraded state"

More useless military thinking... you assume the adversary has anything to loose or is capable of being "degraded" ...

Unless the airforce also has a real working "Stealth" quantum computer they are not telling anyone about its time to wake up and get real.

Re:Cyberspace does not mirror physical warfare (1)

f3rret (1776822) | more than 2 years ago | (#41163067)

Wow. You sure got it all figured out, guess USAF will shut down its program now.

Backwards vocabulary, backwards thinking (1)

Talennor (612270) | more than 2 years ago | (#41158445)

They're using their existing airforce vocabulary. Which means they're using their existing airforce thinking.

You don't "intercept", "locate", "target", or "plan" with information technology the same way you do those things with enemy aircraft. We do have problems with information security and systems security, but they're not the same kinds of problems as bombers flying overhead. And we have solutions, too, which just don't detect or respond or work in the same ways. They need to find someone in the field and ask questions about what they should be looking for before setting their goals.

Got the idea from watching Apples Lawyers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41158605)

I guess they'd been watching the Patents and the actions of Aapl's Lawyers!

Termination clause (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41158831)

They left out the part where Franky and Bubba make you dissappear in the desert upon project completion, before the drug cartel, mafia, Xe, etc. recruit you.

Re:Termination clause (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#41162523)

They left out the part where Franky and Bubba make you dissappear in the desert upon project completion, before the drug cartel, mafia, Xe, etc. recruit you.

I've been trying to write a book about a down and out (unemployed!) IT geek trying to sell unbreakable crypto (GnuPG) to the Medellin or Cali Cartel, but since the Zetas showed up, it's not that fun anymore. !@#$

Windows 95? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41159137)

Has been very effective so far.

Re:Windows 95? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41162303)

Malware on a disk.

Cyberwar: Many ways to lose. No way to win. (1)

dweller_below (136040) | more than 2 years ago | (#41159483)

Nobody at the US Air Force seems to be thinking strategically.
  • There are 2 major problems with offensive cyberwar:
  • The USA has the most to lose. We are the most dependent on the Internet. It doesn't matter who initiates a cyberwar act, the USA will take the most damage. And, any cyberwar act by the US legitimises all other cyberwar activity. The USA has nothing to gain and everything to lose by offensive cyberwar preparation. This is why Schneier is advocating cyberwar treaties: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/06/cyberwar_treati.html [schneier.com]
  • US offensive cyberwar preparations make the US internet more vulnerable. The NSA calls this effect the "Equities Issue". In order to create an offensive capability, we have to rob resources from our defence. In order to have an attack surface, we have to weaken our defences to create a vulnerability. For example, in order to have a "0 day" vulnerability, we have to chose to not disclose or fix it.

Granted, we can do some things to improve our defences without destroying ourselves. But, attempts at creating offensive cyberwar capability are careful and meticulous preparations for suicide. Any clear-thinking opponent will swiftly realize that they have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

Mel Brooks gave a good summary of our current situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_JOGmXpe5I [youtube.com]

Miles

Duh!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41160177)

It's somehow news that the US Government is looking at this stuff? Wow! What insight. Let's see - this is just one Air Force organization, and there's a whole Cyber Command out there that also does this stuff! There are three other services looking for the same kinds of stuff (check fedbizops.gov sometime). Plus, this was released, PUBLICLY, in FEBRUARY!!!

I don't rant often on Slashdot, but the fact this one made it through the crap filter disappoints me.

What could possibly go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41160885)

http://www.moviesoundscentral.com/sounds/playgames.wav

Not seeing it (1)

tpstigers (1075021) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161421)

In theory, the purpose of our military is to protect us. As such, they would be failing this job if they DIDN'T look into this kind of stuff.

In practice, our military supplies a LOT of jobs for a lot of people. I don't see any reason why this shouldn't include the technologically inclined.

In reality, we have far less to fear from the Air Force than we do from a host of other government agencies, all of which are probably already up to their asses in this.

I'm just not seeing any reason to feel concern here.

Re:Not seeing it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41162371)

In theory, the purpose of our military is to protect us.
In practice, the purpose of our military is to protect the military industry's profits.

Fix'd.

Psssst, wanna buy a web war kit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41162019)

I hear the Russians and several other East European countries may have whole kits for sale. Ready to go, just negotiate a good price.
History reference - how the USA agreed to leave the Mob alone to gain access into Sicily in WW2.

Sure (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#41162223)

Tell them to give us the Stargate tech they're hiding in Cheyenne Mountain, and we'll talk about cyber-weapons.

Air Force openly seeking more pork (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41163421)

There fixed that for ya.

Easy (1)

CDMan (247297) | more than 2 years ago | (#41170093)

Get them to switch over to Time Warner Cable Broadband Internet...

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?