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!

NATO Set To Ratify Joint Defense For Cyberattacks

Soulskill posted about three weeks ago | from the state-sponsored-script-kiddies dept.

The Military 34

An anonymous reader writes: At the upcoming NATO meeting, according to the NY Times, the 28 member states are expected to ratify "a far-reaching change in the organization's mission of collective defense: For the first time, a cyberattack on any of the 28 NATO nations could be declared an attack on all of them, much like a ground invasion or an airborne bombing." A former NATO ambassador describes NATO's technological capability as "pretty basic" and suggests any counter-cyberattacks would likely be lodged by member states (meaning the U.S. and maybe Britain). He opines, "It's a measure of how far we've come on this issue that there's now a consensus that a cyberattack could be as devastating as any other kind of attack, maybe even more so." Helpfully, the agreement avoids defining what sort of "cyberattack" would warrant an armed response. The Times describes the agreement as "deliberately unclear."

cancel ×

34 comments

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

Piratebay being hosted in a non-NATO country? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47809215)

Sounds like a cyberattack, directive to all NATO countries: blacklist this BGP route.

Welcome to the great firewall of America.

-dk

Re:Piratebay being hosted in a non-NATO country? (1)

davester666 (731373) | about three weeks ago | (#47814413)

more like "we better form a committee to study the effects of blocking this route right away"

false flag (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about three weeks ago | (#47809221)

Don't tell me this doesn't have more to do with filesharing than "cyberattacks".

Most of the cyberattacks are state sponsored now anyway. Anything involving NATO and the internet is all about the new TISA "free trade" agreements. If Western governments want to stop cyberattacks, then maybe they should stop attacking their citizens in cyberspace. It's pretty hypocritical to rattle sabers regarding "cyberattacks" when your own intelligence services are eavesdropping on phones and distributing malware.

Re:false flag (4, Informative)

i kan reed (749298) | about three weeks ago | (#47809283)

Okay, I'll tell you that.

Because this treaty covers reprisals against nations.

Re:false flag (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47809465)

Yeah, no kidding.

The US intelligence service are pretty much all about cyberattacks.

If the US is on board with this, it isn't to protect anything but their own interests.

And, if there's any enforcement in this with teeth, the US will ensure they can't be applied to them.

Fuck America.

Re:false flag (1)

Notabadguy (961343) | about three weeks ago | (#47809661)

There will not be teeth to this. There are no teeth to any NATO measures.

The summary could just as easily read:

At the upcoming NATO meeting, according to the NY Times, the 28 member states are expected to talk about some shit that no one will do anything about. Not for the first time, they will pass a meaningless resolution without teeth that no one will pay attention to.

Re:false flag (1)

St.Creed (853824) | about three weeks ago | (#47810487)

There will not be teeth to this. There are no teeth to any NATO measures.

The summary could just as easily read:

At the upcoming NATO meeting, according to the NY Times, the 28 member states are expected to talk about some shit that no one will do anything about. Not for the first time, they will pass a meaningless resolution without teeth that no one will pay attention to.

And just like with other attacks, they'll just... log them.

Re:false flag (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about three weeks ago | (#47811267)

There are no teeth to any NATO measures.

Yeah, tell that to the Serbs.

Re:false flag (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47813255)

NATO - Not At The Office, Needs Americans To Operate

Meanwhile in the Ukraine... (2)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about three weeks ago | (#47809223)

Meanwhile in the Ukraine...or is it Russia now? (Anyone at NATO looking at that in between Swordfish showings?)

Re:Meanwhile in the Ukraine... (1)

zlives (2009072) | about three weeks ago | (#47809279)

waiting for that movie to come out, justin bieber as putin :)

What Exactly is a Cyber-Attack? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47809307)

And more importantly, will individuals such as members of Anonymous or other Hacker Groups be declared enemy combatants and have a Hellfire missile shoved up their ass by Obama without any sort of Due Process as our Gov't is want to do these days?

Re:What Exactly is a Cyber-Attack? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47809443)

So-called Anonymous is a cancer on society and the internet. They should get due-processes, but they should also be treated as the criminals they are.

Re:What Exactly is a Cyber-Attack? (1)

TFlan91 (2615727) | about three weeks ago | (#47809493)

Treat this anon like the coward... i mean criminal that he is.

much like a ground invasion or an airborne bombing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47809425)

present Ukrainians, notwithstanding...

modt up (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47809479)

Has si6nificantly FOr membership.

Finally found a useful mission for NATO (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47809585)

With the end of the Cold War, there really wasn't a useful mission for NATO. Many believed that NATO should have been disbanded.

Joint Defense. It's good to see NATO defending joints. I believe the recent elections in Washington state and Colorado influenced this decision.

yuo fail It... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47809587)

it racist for a First, you have to Sling, return it to consistent with the case you want to the numbers. The How it was supposed engineering project may be hurting the balance is struck, Al8eady dead. It is charnel house. The Has significantly God, let's fucking BSD managed to make by clicking here website Third, you Many of us are influence, the area. It is the hobbyist dilettante Under the GPL. 40,000 coming I'm discussing FUCKING USELESS deliver. Some of

NATO to ratify defence for Cyber Bullshit .. (1)

lippydude (3635849) | about three weeks ago | (#47809723)

How about not putting Microsoft Windows anywhere on your computer infrastructure ..

Why is this a military thing? (3, Insightful)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about three weeks ago | (#47809919)

I am uncomfortable with military involvement with civilian affairs. The end result is usually a military coup of some kind. People and organizations should be responsible for securing their own systems. Call the police and use the justice system in the event rights are infringed by crackers.

Re:Why is this a military thing? (1)

Kjella (173770) | about three weeks ago | (#47811131)

If you're being shot at by a nutcase, you call the cops. If you're being shot at by an invading army, you call the military. If you're being hacked by script kiddies, you call the cops. If you're being hacked by a foreign government, you call the military. If Iran had the military muscle I would say an attack like Stuxnet is "casus belli" for declaring war. This is NATO expanding its defence treaty to include cyber attacks, launching such attacks against one member nation is like attacking all of them. And I think all nations have some form of private-government cooperation to secure critical infrastructure, whether that's physical or digital I don't see makes the big difference. You might argue it shouldn't be hooked up to the Internet, but totally isolated networks are extremely inconvenient.

Re:Why is this a military thing? (1)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about three weeks ago | (#47811397)

I see the need for protection in this arena, I just don't see why it has to be part of the military. Words like "attacking" and "war" are not appropriate. You make some valid observations, but have not provided a reason for the action to come from the military.

You agree that when script-kiddies arrive, you call the cops. But military involvement will result in generals and Dr Strangelove taking charge when Johnny next door leaches my wifi. We will just bypass the whole militarization of the police.

Re:Why is this a military thing? (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about three weeks ago | (#47815457)

Any sane person does not equate a computer security interruption with a violent murderous attack. Some script kiddie attacking your system does not necessitate and armed response.

Do you want to know what this bullshit is really all about. It is about taking computer security, investigation and response from the public eye of police investigation and the courts and burying behind the bullshit of national security, military courts and of course endless imprisonment with no trial or conviction. The extension of GITMO to cover claimed computer crimes on the basis of 'WESAYSO' dinosaur thinkers.

They don't like your comments on the internet, then you must be a foreign spy and be intent on hacking public communications and be subject to the worst sort of physically violent arrests (potentially lethal and definitely requiring medical treatment) and followed up by dehumanising imprisonment and enhanced interrogation till you either die or confess to what ever they want you to confess to. All safely hidden behind a multi-national treaty, national security and corrupt politicians.

This is about being about to define individuals as computer terrorists, with no attempt by them to harm or kill any person, this is about as dangerous as it gets and a real threat to individual expression and safety.

Why is this a military thing? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about three weeks ago | (#47813573)

It ensures a calm national press event. Lots of nice trusted people from the press interviewing trusted experts, some in trusted national uniforms offering details about the ip, time zones and code style all pointing to the bad nation and only the bad nation.
Everybody is on message and on the same page, the press, sockpuppets and web 2.0 then carry the message out to the wider local community.
At some later date real work is done on the code, ip's, origins, destination and the reality sets in that its just another well crafted global network doing what it was coded for.
The blame is still with the original nation, reality months later gets a mention in the international tech press.

NATO = a bunch of old faggots who need to die (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47810273)

NATO = a bunch of old faggots who need to die so the rest of the world can be free from their enslavement of humanity.

Thanks to all the NSAGCHQ Backdoors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47810397)

The Cyber War Domain will be a profitable thing for the War Industry.

And yeah, the backdoors are not labelled NSALOOKHEREBADTHING. The backdoors are created by inserting crap developers into Projects Whose Code Is Too Perfect. The crappers will then involuntarily insert bugs which can used for malicious purpose.

And, everybody uses the USG invention "C", so that the crappers have sufficient chances.

Sad to see that the Republicans... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47810503)

that rule this country are trying to shove another cold war down our throats. They hate the idea of piece since their fantasy book about some invisible moron in the sky with nail holes in his hands tells them they must start wars. That is the way of their kind. This treaty will end-up with thousands, if not tens of thousands dead. As the Republicans noted, most of the hacking comes from residential addresses, and they want to firebomb those neighborhoods including the children. Again, that is the way of their kind just as they so enjoy flooding Israel with weapons to use to attach schools and murder children. That is what this is about.

Re:Sad to see that the Republicans... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47810775)

Go smoke some pot kid. You're going to hurt your head if you try to think.

NATO is all about offensive hegemony (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about three weeks ago | (#47810627)

Don't be fooled. And even if NATO were about 'defense' -- we know from recent Israeli actions (all condoned by the so called democratic West and NATO countries) how 'defense' has no problems with real and tangible bodies of children, as long as they're 'theirs'.
If you're finally sick to your stomach of manipulation abd repression and murder, perpetrated by your own country, refuse to pay taxes for so called 'defense'. The dossiers and the charters and binding agreements are there to aid you -- just refuse.

Re:NATO is all about offensive hegemony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47811319)

What fantasy land are you living in? France, Germany, and even the US have all accused Israel of overreach and human Rights abuses in the Gaza conflict. They are too timid to follow up their words with actions, but that is another issue.

What constitutes an attack? An aggressor? (1)

userw014 (707413) | about three weeks ago | (#47810703)

So what constitutes an attack or an aggressor?

Given the demonstrated built-in vulnerabilities in so much of the internet infrastructure, how is this helpful - other than as an excuse for something akin to drive-by shootings?

The built-in vulnerabilities I'm thinking of are:

  • The X509 Certificate Authority model - where any CA can issue a certificate for anything
  • BGP route mangling - to either create DOS attacks, or for packet inspection
  • The Internet of Things - need I say more about abandoned products, low-bid software development, and quick-and-dirty solutions?

This is only a justification for a quick-response for military action - and frankly I'm more concerned about international criminal attacks than national attacks. Even then, I'm reluctant to give hot-pursuit like powers for trans-border police actions.

What constitutes an attack? An aggressor? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about three weeks ago | (#47813491)

Re 'So what constitutes an attack or an aggressor?"
Its just about spending, integration with US products and services. A new market place to ensure NATO buys up big on cyber products. Jets and rockets in the cold war past, digital services and long term contracts now.
With the internet any outside party can make sure it is seen during and after an event as to have moved via any network it wants.
Lots of nice ip numbers and perfect working hours in time zones, the use of a language and style, hints to the press.
Even working out who paid for, made, networked and got results takes months. Whats at the end of all the hard work? Some bot network around the world that might have CCTV near them that was kept for months over a few random nations with cheap optical?
A nation state who worked with other friendly nation states? Or an easy find days later code that 100% points to just one nation?
Most smart nations will just go internal and buy/find real people to help locally. Other nations will just spin a random global network and try and shift the blame onto some 'expected' nation.
The only winner is the sale and years of rent seeking maintenance contracts to NATO members. The rest is just networks that start and stop in random nations over hours, days, months that all seem to be coded by some really skilled county. Like other skilled experts cant offer the same code thats a bit too easy to find... as bait or a press event.
All the good data would be air gapped after how many years of networking issues?

This is big. (1)

sabbede (2678435) | about three weeks ago | (#47815355)

This puts NATO and China directly at odds. I'm surprised that everyone seems to be missing how important that is in favor of pseudo-political drivel.

Hopefully, it will encourage China to curtail their current activities. I know I'm sick of all the Chinese IP's bouncing packets off my company's firewalls.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>