Beta

×

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

Thank you!

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

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

The Real Impact of the Estonian Cyberattack

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the mad-world-it's-a-mad-world dept.

Security 172

An anonymous reader writes "News.com offers up an interview with Arbor Networks' senior security researcher Jose Nazario. He takes stock of the denial-of-service attack against the Baltic nation of Estonia, and considers the somewhat disturbing wider implications from the event. 'You look around the globe, and there's basically no limit to the amount of skirmishes between well-connected countries that could get incredibly emotional for the population at large. In this case, it has disrupted the Estonian government's ability to work online, it has disrupted a lot of its resources and attention. In that respect, it's been effective. It hasn't brought the government to a crippling halt, but has essentially been effective as a protest tool. People will probably look at this and say, That works. I think we're going to continue to do this kind of thing. Depending on the target within the government, it could be very visible, or it could not be very visible.'"

cancel ×

172 comments

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

How insightful! (5, Funny)

Cutie Pi (588366) | more than 7 years ago | (#19309107)

Depending on the target within the government, it could be very visible, or it could not be very visible.

Yep, that pretty much sums up the possible outcomes.

Re:How insightful! (3, Funny)

iONiUM (530420) | more than 7 years ago | (#19309235)

hey HEY! I was thinking there could be a third option, translucently visible, or like visible only on the 3rd moon of the 18th month of the 22nd year after the year of the tortoise.. this narrowed it down a lot.

Re:How insightful! (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 7 years ago | (#19309319)

Come on, there are an infinite number of ways to hold your tounge and squint.

Re:How insightful! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19309479)

Come on, there are an infinite number of ways to hold your tounge and squint.

On the other hand, there are not an infinite number of ways to spell "tongue".

Re:How insightful! (2, Funny)

HiggsBison (678319) | more than 7 years ago | (#19310203)

Come on, there are an infinite number of ways to hold your tounge and squint.

On the other hand, there are not an infinite number of ways to spell "tongue".

Yes, but 'e was clearly spelling "tounge", then, wasn't 'e?

Praline: The cat detector van from the Ministry of Housinge.
Man: Housinge???
Praline: Yes, it was spelt that way on the van. I'm very observant.

Possible Outcomes (3, Insightful)

Nymz (905908) | more than 7 years ago | (#19309335)

Unless some magical solution presents itself, then cyber-warfare will most likely continue. The difference will be in how we respond. Should starting up your own cyber-attacks be an acceptable form of retaliation? or will more cyber-attacks only lead us down the path to a conventional-attack?

Re:Possible Outcomes (3, Insightful)

cosinezero (833532) | more than 7 years ago | (#19310641)

If impact is merely economic - how then does it differ from other games countries play to crush economic interests? I mean, where you see "Denial of Service", I see "Sanctions" and wonder, in the grand scheme of things, what's the difference?

Re:Possible Outcomes (3, Insightful)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 7 years ago | (#19311399)

The key difference is that sanctions and traditional methods are (generally) open and aboveboard - you know who is doing what to who, as it is announced widely beforehand and very visible in operation. DoS attacks however, are none of these things. In addition, while Country X may impose various forms of sanctions/tariffs/etc... on Country Y - that does not effect (directly) either the internal operation of Country Y, or it's intercourse with Country Z. DoS atacks can, and do - as well as have an immediate and direct impact on individuals.

Re:Possible Outcomes (1)

cosinezero (833532) | more than 7 years ago | (#19311691)

"The key difference is that sanctions and traditional methods are (generally) open and aboveboard"

-->Oh boy.

Countries (including the US) raid and detain maritime vessels - shipping, scientific, etc - for a wide variety of reasons... not all of them overt.

I see a number of parallels from a cyberattack on a country to the US detaining money from shipments of sugar from brazil to russia calling it suspect for the drug trade. We can call it "Social Engineering", if you will, but the picture remains the same - countries have a variety of ways to wage war - economic, sociopolitical, psychological, even religious - without ever pulling a trigger or killing a soul.

Sadly the Bush Administration has nearly forgotten how to continue that fine, delicate art form, but there was once a time where we waged war entirely out of the realm of above board and open - not to say that the latest endeavours have been such either, but at least everyone knows it's the Americans killing people.

Re:Possible Outcomes (1)

Deadplant (212273) | more than 7 years ago | (#19312457)

The key difference is that sanctions and traditional methods are (generally) open and aboveboard



That is the funniest thing I've heard today.

Re:How insightful! (4, Interesting)

rs232 (849320) | more than 7 years ago | (#19309435)

Yep, that pretty much sums up the possible outcomes

Would this distributed DOS attack be possible without a vast army of compromised desktops being used as part of a botnet. Is it tecnnically possible to design against such attacks, or at least make it more difficult to compromise the desktops and route the rogue traffic. After all the Internet is supposed to be designed to be resistant to a nuclear attack. (I know Vint Cerf remembers it different)

Re:How insightful! (2, Informative)

Vancorps (746090) | more than 7 years ago | (#19312227)

It would be easier to defend against these attacks if companies would standardize on techniques. Cisco and HP are two examples I know of that offer different methods for defending DDoS attacks. Cisco has a number of methods not all of which are compatible with each-other. Perhaps more importantly, Cisco's methods almost always require Cisco products for them to work effectively. HP is a little better about standards these days but their methods are still rather solitary to their Procurve platform. Lately HP has made a huge change dropping Cisco support from at least some of their products in favor of standards that will work with the Nortels, Adtrans, and even Netgears of the world. It is a step in the right direction.

It seems simple, if ISPs can restrict traffic so that forging addresses is impossible then filtering DDoS at the ISP level before its aggregated should be easy. Even then, once it is aggregated it would be chunks of traffic which could easily be identified and blocked either temporarily or permanently allowing others to continue as normal.

I think not. (1)

nsebban (513339) | more than 7 years ago | (#19309805)

It could also be somewhat visible. Yes, some attacks are somewhat visible indeed.

Re:I think not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19310003)

Has no one seen the Ghost in the Shell Anime series? In particular the 2nd season (2nd Gig). They show interesting concepts of hacking hardware in real time. Targeting systems for sniper rifles, communications systems. When stuff gets small enough where it'd actually be nice to have on the battle field, it could also be considered a point of weakness.

We already have developing technologies in that direction. Blue tooth, WiFi and such are great for short range, personal networks as well as team based LANs.

Multicast theories (4, Interesting)

packetmon (977047) | more than 7 years ago | (#19309205)

You know... I thought about the possibility of a Multicast worm/attack [infiltrated.net] ... Just haven't had time to document it... Would work similar to the following... For those who use IM clients that have annoying streaming advertisements... If you didn't know, those are multicasted to your machine... My theory was to re-inject packets at the router level (avoiding Reverse Path Forwarding when possible) to make your machine believe my spoofed host is a valid source to get your images from... Only thing is, the image would be corrupted forcing an infection on your machine... This would in turn replicate via broadcast from the infected hosts... It was a theory of mine while studying DoS attacks for the CCIE security exam and a lot of variables would have to be met... Anyhow, the reason for this post is, I believe those committing DoS attacks are halfclued as to what a real attack could potentially do... For instance Border Router Attack Tool [infiltrated.net] is another theoretical tool to break BGP neighboring. You of course have to know enough about a topology to even get it to work but under a unified stream, you could cause massive route flaps which lead to neighbors disconnecting. Its only a matter of time before someone takes it to the extreme and breaks connectivity between huge AS'

no reason to get overly complicated (4, Interesting)

JeanBaptiste (537955) | more than 7 years ago | (#19309265)

just do this [icir.org]

Re:no reason to get overly complicated (1)

packetmon (977047) | more than 7 years ago | (#19309371)

Again, it was a theoretical based study for security labs... Its possible but highly complicated and only a matter of time before someone throws something together to do that and worse

Re:Multicast theories (5, Interesting)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#19309377)

While I'm not sure your idea would work or not, I do know that there are many ways to compromise the nice-play Internet that we all think it is. Some of them are being used right now and we just haven't figured it out yet. DDoS is but one of those ways and might be *ONLY* a distraction while surreptitious malware or spyware is installed in government facilities. This in fact could be a test of the new Chinese cyber-warfare units in order to demonstrate what they are capable of...

Just a thought from the 'stay in your happy place group' (TM)

Re:Multicast theories (0)

packetmon (977047) | more than 7 years ago | (#19309447)

Give me some DARPA funds... I'd throw together the mother of all attacks to take out that great wall of China ;)

Re:Multicast theories (2, Insightful)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 7 years ago | (#19310249)

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the DOD had just such a tactic in place.

I mean think about it, one of the things a party at war always tries to do is get the civilians of the opposite side reading "subversive" material. One of the first things we did with airplanes in war was pamphleting. We still attach pamphlets with aid drops. Would it be so strange to see the US send email to every Chinese address that looked like this [wikipedia.org] ? How about a flood of anti-communist text messages? Doesn't seem very far fetched to me.

mod parent down (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19309505)

Only thing is, the image would be corrupted forcing an infection on your machine...

Sure dude... So on, say, Linux, you'd have to exploit supposedly a buffer overflow to gain local access *then* you'd need to exploit a local root exploit to gain root privileges. Multiply this by the number of Linux distros out there and the number of different IM clients and suddenly your pet theory falls flat. Or maybe you were talking about rooting Vista boxes? Cancel or Allow?

You've posted links to this lame "infiltrated" website several times... This website is full of random babbling and misinformation, all the "exploits" look exactly like: "type sudo root apt-get install trojan" or "type sudo root rpm -Uvh trojan.rpm". See the flaw?

You predicted a major Un*x worm coming in the next 9 months... As a regular Un*x user bragging about your OS of choice using "uname -a", you really should know better about how Un*x OSes are working.

Your "tripwire on steroids" is plain laughable... But you mentionning Tripwire raise an interesting question: should people run your "Proof of Concept" [sic] backdoor using "sudo root" (how else could you execute root commands on a system you plan to attack? Wait, even without needing root, how do you plan to run your "Proof of Concept" backdoor on someone's computer?), how would you defeat people unmounting the drive and scanning it from a known clean system running an integrity tool like Tripwire?

Methinks you *pretend* to know something about security but you're actually just at the very beginning of your long journey (your MD5 + SHA1 + ... checksum for your "poor man tripwire" is pathetic).

It is really completely dumb to pretend to have a "Proof of Concept" backdoor for Un*x systems that needs to be installed doing "sudo root something".

I've got here at home one Debian etch (custom-compiled kernel), one old Fedora Core 4... And one OpenBSD box. Care to explain how from here to nine months those Un*x machines will get infected by a major Un*x worm/trojan/plague whatever?

For either you explain it or you accept you, and your website, are full of sh*t.

To moderators: that guy has been modded as troll previously, he doesn't know jack, put him in your "-1" list.

Simpler solutions ... (1)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 7 years ago | (#19309619)

  1. Just slashdot them, silly!
  2. Set up proxies to help employees of the government you want to bring down get past blocks to their personal MySpace pages.
  3. Move ThePirateBay there and watch their internal network melt.
  4. Send Celine Dion there as a good-will ambassador (ok, that's really an act of war ...)
  5. Have Dick Cheney invite their leaders out for a friendly weekend get-together and hunting trip.
  6. Offer international aid - through FEMA.

Re:Simpler solutions ... (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 7 years ago | (#19309685)

"Send Celine Dion there as a good-will ambassador (ok, that's really an act of war ...)"

Accompanied by Brian Adams and Alanis Morissette, it could be the crushing first strike on the way to Canadian global domination.

Optimus Prime? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19309213)

Damn my Asperger's. I thought we were under attack from Cybertron...

Backbone QOS? (2, Interesting)

dattaway (3088) | more than 7 years ago | (#19309217)

Isn't the backbone capable of metering connections to an attacked country? I haven't noticed the providers to be politically spineless (except for AT&T) but can't they help a poor country out?

Re:Backbone QOS? (4, Insightful)

packetmon (977047) | more than 7 years ago | (#19309327)

What would QoS do at this level except overwhelm your processor? Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding [cisco.com] would be the better solution nowadays. Cat 6500 [cisco.com] info... If networks were built correctly from the ground up, these attacks wouldn't even happen as much. If three networks were connected and all had uRPF or filtering in place, no three networks would be able to spoof addresses and cause attacks. They'd be forced to attack using a valid address on their network which would make tracking easier...

Re:Backbone QOS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19309647)

What would QoS do at this level except overwhelm your processor?

The Cisco Guard, Arbor TMS, and Cloudshield all have some pretty large/specialized processing power and are designed to filter DDoS attacks of just these kinds.

Re:Backbone QOS? (1)

phayes (202222) | more than 7 years ago | (#19310983)

TFA isn't detailed enough to tell us all how much of the attack was spoofed from sources in Russia & how much was from botnets. In any case the use of a large enough botnet with bots distributed throughout the internet will neuter URPF. When bots use their own IP addresses (or addresses from neighboring machines on the same LAN), URPF loses it's utility.

Re:Backbone QOS? (1)

Vancorps (746090) | more than 7 years ago | (#19312339)

That wouldn't be the case if the ISP at the source in question had also implemented the technique before they peer with another provider. At that level the aggregate is a lot smaller and much easier to pin down. The real problem is coming up with a non-Cisco proprietary solution. Something not encumbered with copyright and patents which I believe is what is holding up a lot of development in anti-DDoS techniques.

HP and a few others have been learning this lesson trying to implement standards wherever they can. The bonus for the Cisco people is that you usually get the standards with Cisco proprietary on top so it doesn't kick them out of the play area. Move to standards and get every ISP to implement them perhaps with tax incentives and the problem becomes a lot smaller. Of course the major ISPs already receive a lot of tax dollars so maybe we just specify how that money is spent as currently it looks like there is no accountability.

Re:Backbone QOS? (1)

phayes (202222) | more than 7 years ago | (#19313113)

There is precisely zero chance of it getting implemented on a wide enough scale to be of any use unless DDOS attacks come back in force & start affecting more than a minor corner of the net like Estonia. Unless DDOS attacks become such a problem that heads of states need to get involved it'll never get deployed widely enough. Even it the US used it globally, the Net has grown so far beyond it's US centric origins that that would be a mere finger in the dike.

Given that botnet "owners" earn more spamming, I don't see it happening.

Re:Backbone QOS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19309383)

Many cyber attacks against Estonia were blocked thanks to ISPs around the world. So they really do help COUNTRIES.

Typos much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19309231)

[...] has essentially been effective as a protect tool.
Protect tool? Or protest?

Attacks.. (1)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#19309263)

For 3 years straight I've been getting hit by Viagra and Penis enlargement e-mails/ads about 30 times a day. Maybe they can use that for their own defense just to irritate the piss out of them.

Re:Attacks.. (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 7 years ago | (#19309427)

Irritated Piss is a sign of a Urinary Tract infection, or kidney stones. Please consult a physician immediately. And lay off the Viagra and Penis Enlargements.

How to stop that spam (1)

Nymz (905908) | more than 7 years ago | (#19309455)

For 3 years straight I've been getting hit by Viagra and Penis enlargement e-mails/ads about 30 times a day.

If you purchase those items, then they will stop targeting your email. That's what a friend told me.

Re:Attacks.. (1)

Weedlekin (836313) | more than 7 years ago | (#19310455)

I get lots of them, together with several daily messages telling me about how great life would be if only I lost weight. The puzzling thing about it is how all those people know that I'm morbidly obese, and have a tiny, flaccid todger...

help us!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19309273)

It isn't cyber attack here in France that's the killer! It's something worse! Save yourselves, stay away!!!!!!

IN SOVIET RUSSIA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19309279)

In Soviet Russia, Estonia cyberattacks you!

Fi8st (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19309333)

Implementation Failure (2, Informative)

RealProgrammer (723725) | more than 7 years ago | (#19309375)

That a whole country could be DOS'd is evidence of someone doing a bad network install. The network should never be down.

Lots of companies have a root-and-branches approach to Internet connectivity, too, thinking that each site (or the whole corporate intranet) needs only one gateway to the outside. Put all your eggs in one basket, and watch the basket. For the family baked bean recipe confidentiality that's good, but for availability that's bad.

The "right" way to do it is to have multiple redundant shared trunks with neighbors. That word "shared" is scary to network administrators (or rather, to their pencil-pushing mentors). It means they'll have to carry outside traffic on their pipes (that's a metaphor, Senator), and that has risks: it costs money, and it has the potential to allow someone to see inside the network.

However, the rewards for sharing bandwidth are enormous: multiple ISPs mean allowing TCP/IP to do its job, routing traffic to avoid disasters like DOS attacks, hurricanes, and nuclear bombs. The ISPs and other bandwidth partners know they have an interest in helping to protect your network. The technical risks can be mitigated simply by routing and tunneling.

Is the above realistic? Nope. Not in a corporate environment, anyway. I'd be really surprised if anyone outside academia or pure ISP does shared trunking anymore.

But it can also happen at the leaf nodes: you and your neighbors share cable broadband and DSL connections, routing through wifi. That violates most subscriber agreements, but it's the way the protocols were designed to work. Your network should never be down.

Never.

Re:Implementation Failure (3, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#19309577)

That a whole country could be DOS'd is evidence of someone doing a bad network install. The network should never be down.

This is a DDoS attack. The first "D" stands for "Distributed." When you have thousands of remote machines located in different places sending traffic to your network, preventing an outage relies upon being able to figure out which traffic is legitimate and which is illegitimate, and then filter the illegitimate. Having more diverse pipes does not really make a huge difference. Either legitimate and illegitimate traffic can come in over a pipe or they can't. If it can, the attack is blocking things. If it can't you just DoS'd yourself.

The real trick here is the availability of clean or protected access from ISPs with the capability of detecting illegitimate traffic and filtering it, without stopping legitimate traffic. Many ISPs have this capability to one degree or another and a few have formally brought it to market as a differentiator for their service. I'm guessing the big ISPs in Estonia might be a bit behind in that regard, and are thus working with more capable peers to try and filter the attack further away in the cloud.

Thanks, Bottles. (1)

RealProgrammer (723725) | more than 7 years ago | (#19310289)

The first "D" stands for "Distributed."

Thank you for your charity in not calling me stupid.

There is a huge difference between being totally shut down by a DDoS attack and being 90% shut down. If you are shut down, there is fear; if you are limping along, you become angry. In a fight, anger is better than fear.

Having multiple points of entry helps in the effort to stay up, no matter what the cause. The reason DDoS's work is that Internet connections are leveraged: a small number, usually one, address per resource. In the case of a network gateway, there is one address for lots of resources.

Now, if the goal of the botnetter is to take down one speciific host, there's not much to be done except switching hosts, and repeating until one of you gets tired.

But if the problem is defending a whole country, then it's the gateways that must be defended. That problem is very hard if you only have one gateway, since the botnets only have to be aimed at one address. But if you have multiple addresses, while it's more work for you, it's very much more work for the attacker.

Also, having multiple gateways to defend gives more information about the sources of the attack.

In effect, having multiple gateways changes the game from a many-on-one attack to a many-on-many attack, which makes it more likely that you will succeed at least in a limited way, which is the goal.

Re:Thanks, Bottles. (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#19310445)

In effect, having multiple gateways changes the game from a many-on-one attack to a many-on-many attack, which makes it more likely that you will succeed at least in a limited way, which is the goal.

In the case mentioned here, it is government servers/services under attack. Regardless of how many different gateways lead to those servers and services, if the attackers use the same way of getting there as users, then either the attacks will get through or legitimate users won't. I do see where multiple gateways can be useful in two ways. One, if you have some vital service white-listed and of higher priority than anything else, you can blackhole all other traffic to keep it up and using a dedicated gateway can hide it from an attack targeting other resources. The other way I can see it helping is if a specialized attack, takes down a server not through just bandwidth from the attacker, but through manipulation. For example, if an attack was making http requests then dropping the session and doing it over again, some Web servers will DoS themselves and clog the router in the process. Using a separate gateway could prevent that from DoSing other services at the same time (more so than simply increasing overall bandwidth).

Re:Implementation Failure (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19310007)

Did you check some facts?

Estonia: population 1,324,333 (less than 1,5 mio.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia [wikipedia.org]

I would like to see some municipalities in USA of the size of Estonia to withstanding such cyber-attack.

Do you realize that the number of adult inhabitants in Estonia is less than a number of employees at the biggest employer of USA? (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2 003-11-10-walmart_x.htm)
Estonia is like New Hampshire or Maine or Idaho population wise. And than cyber-attacks are lounched from IPs of Russia government institutions.

Russia once again showed who they are.

And by the way: those Soviet soldiers buried near "Bronze soldier" ware killed 3 days after Nazi army left Estonia during WWII. Hint needed? They were killed in fights with local Estonians who wanted reinstate independence. So no "liberators from Nazis" only occupation power.

The sad think EU depend so much on Russian gas and oil that little is done or said about all this.

Government-orchestrated and encouraged (4, Interesting)

mi (197448) | more than 7 years ago | (#19309389)

Decent well-connected countries would not engage in this sort of things. Russia — busily turning itself back into an Evil Empire — denies "officially" organizing the attacks...

Whether it did officialy organize them, or not is irrelevant — so many things in the country happen unofficially (including the unofficial salaries — in dollars — paid to top government bureaucrats to keep them from leaving for the private sector), that the government's claims may even be nominally truthful this time.

What is important is the government's official reaction. For example, a Russian health official is on record concerning the health hazards of the Estonian sprats. Those who follow the region would recognize the tactics already applied against Georgia's major exports. Georgia's most excellent wines are now called "alcohol-containing liquids" in Russia and their import is banned "on health grounds".

Sprats are safe for now — unlike Georgia, Estonia is an EU (and NATO) member. But Russia — in sore need of something glorious in its sorry past (we liberated Estonia, not reconquered it, you see) — is still enraged. In a decent country such rage wouldn't be enough to break law and order, but Russia is another story. There is no doubt, the cyber-attacks against Estonia used Russian governmental resources, including hardware and human ones — these will most certainly not be prosecuted.

Re:Government-orchestrated and encouraged (1, Troll)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 7 years ago | (#19309497)

Georgia's wines were CRAP. 90% of it was counterfeit made from 'wine-containing liquids' (the rest 10% was really good, though). The same goes for Polish meat.

Of course, decision to 'notice' that was political.

Oh, ans as we speak about global economics - why can't Poland sell their meat to other countries. Maybe because it substandard?

Re:Government-orchestrated and encouraged (1)

Vo1t (1079521) | more than 7 years ago | (#19309969)

It's a bit offtopic, but next time do some research before you actually claim that something is crap. I can bet it's better than anything that's sold in the Western Countries - simply because it has less chemicals in it.

As for Russian and them finding out that Polish meat is crap, well if you'd googled, you'd found out that those accusation are total political bullshit. The meat is fine, and was tested by many independent labs. It's typical of Putin to create embargos with fake evidence and blaming it all on to others. Same with Estonia.

Re:Government-orchestrated and encouraged (1)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 7 years ago | (#19310401)

Ok, I know nothing about this particular drama, but less chemicals? Really, is that why Georgian wines are good? Compared to what exactly? The French, who can afford fungicides so their grapes don't rust on the vine?

Personally, I'd take the ppbs of residual chemical on the grape skin than the couple of percent of mildew infested grapes that get through in a country that doesn't use chemicals.

Re:Government-orchestrated and encouraged (1)

Vo1t (1079521) | more than 7 years ago | (#19311441)

I admit the case of Georgia wines has not been researched by me. However, main point of my post was about Polish meat that Russia told was bad and didn't meet their standards, and even though audits did not confirm thouse rumours, Russia continues to use it as a political argument.

Re:Government-orchestrated and encouraged (0, Troll)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 7 years ago | (#19312857)

What 'audit'? Have auditors checked all Polish farms?

Russia offered Poland to create mixed auditor teams to certify each farm in Poland. Poland refused.

And I repeat my question: why can't Poland export meat, say, to Germany or France?

Re:Government-orchestrated and encouraged (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 7 years ago | (#19312819)

Georgia wines were found to contain large doses pesticides. And a lot of wine was counterfeit.

WTF, even a Georgian _minister_ said that: 'One could sell even fecal masses in Russia'.

I surely googled and yandexed (Yandex.ru - a Russian search engine) - there WERE well-known problems with Polish meat. I remember a couple incidents when meat from England (during BSE scare) was rebranded in Poland and exported to Russia.

Re:Government-orchestrated and encouraged (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 7 years ago | (#19310081)

Why, exactly, is the parent modded "Informative"? There's not a single reference to back his claims, and googling mostly gives links to Russian sites - hardly unbiased.

Re:Government-orchestrated and encouraged (1)

Moskit (32486) | more than 7 years ago | (#19310321)

You did not bother to put facts in your post.

If you are not aware - there was an official investigation to find out the origins
of the low quality meat. Using shipping records it has been traced back: bad meat
was shipped by sea from USA to Klaipeda in Lithuania and then to Moscow in Russia.
Counterfeited certificates of Polish origin were then used at the Russian border.
The meat itself was not from Poland, it didn't even transit Poland.
After Polish investigators gave all the details to their Russian colleagues
there was no further progress that I know of.

The funny thing that allowed Russians to check that certificates were falsified
was that they were done most likely by a person using Russian as their native language.
There were silly mistakes in spelling, common to Russians using Polish.
A certificate was posted on the web when the problem started, but since then
the issue has become political and a few people remember what was the cause.

Except for the complex political factors (which I ignore here) of "me boss, you not"
the main real problem that Russia signalled was that certificates are too easy
to counterfeit.

And BTW - Poland does sell meat to other countries instead of Russia.

PS: can't comment on Georgian wine, as I didn't drink it.
I guess you've had your share ;)

Re:Government-orchestrated and encouraged (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 7 years ago | (#19313053)

I can't find good references in English. Lots of links in Russian. Here are few about meat smuggling in Europe: http://www.eubusiness.com/Food/bonemeal-foodwatch. 92/ [eubusiness.com] http://www.deutsche-welle.de/dw/article/0,2144,180 8099,00.html [deutsche-welle.de] Besides, Russia is not in WTO and have all rights to ban import of some goods for whatever reasons. US does this for Russian steel (heavy tariffs), for example.

Re:Government-orchestrated and encouraged (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19312147)

if they are indeed crap then why not just leave it to consumers to make the choice themselves?

Re:Government-orchestrated and encouraged (2, Interesting)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 7 years ago | (#19309599)

BTW, Russia's past is indeed glorious. Let's see:
1) USSR won in WWII (destroying 80% of German military manpower).
2) USSR was the first country to launch a satellite.
3) USSR was the first country to launch a man into space.
etc.

It's Estonia that is like a small dog barking at a great elephant.

The facts (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19309931)

Without a 2 front war you would be speaking German, make no mistake. Let's face it, the US mostly whipped the world into shape in WWII. Why we allowed Stalin to retain power, I'll never know. We should have given Patton an army of rearmed Germans to finish you off.

Yes, you launched a satellite, and yes you launched a man into space. Your efforts were greatly assisted by German rocketry (as were ours). You lost the big enchillada, the moon landing. Your empire no longer exists. Indeed you are surrounded by enemies.

Also, your economic warfare against Poland and Estonia are against WTO rules, a US invented organisation that you grovelled to join. Expect to be dropped from the G8 soon.

Your past is shit, as the Estonians so poignantly demonstrated.

Re:The facts (1)

Minwee (522556) | more than 7 years ago | (#19310085)

The moon landing, of course, was only possible because the USA's German rocket scientists were almost as good as the USSR's German rocket scientists.

Re:The facts (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 7 years ago | (#19310273)

Indeed you are surrounded by enemies.
The saddest part to this is that the enemies are only those Russia made herself. It wasn't like that in the 90's, and, with the right choices, Russia could become a proper European country... but the imperial ambitions remaining from the Soviet days were too strong, and won the day.

Re:The facts (0, Offtopic)

m50d (797211) | more than 7 years ago | (#19311263)

Without a 2 front war you would be speaking German, make no mistake. Let's face it, the US mostly whipped the world into shape in WWII.

Utter bollocks, as any high-school student of history outside the US knows (And no, I'm not Russian, nor do I have any love for their country)

Why we allowed Stalin to retain power, I'll never know. We should have given Patton an army of rearmed Germans to finish you off.

Stalin stayed in power because had the US tried to force him out of it they would have lost. Plain and simple.

Yes, you launched a satellite, and yes you launched a man into space. Your efforts were greatly assisted by German rocketry (as were ours). You lost the big enchillada, the moon landing.

It was only the big one if you get your targets from the US. Winning the first 2 out of 3 rounds sounds like a Russian victory to me.

Your empire no longer exists. Indeed you are surrounded by enemies.

How's your empire-building going, USA? Your enemies might not border you but they are more numerous and growing by the day.

Also, your economic warfare against Poland and Estonia are against WTO rules, a US invented organisation that you grovelled to join.

Enjoying your international criminal court there? Oh wait

Re:Government-orchestrated and encouraged (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#19310019)

"1) USSR won in WWII (destroying 80% of German military manpower)."
After first helping train the German air force, and helping it invade Poland.
Lets not forget that the USSR received a lot of lend lease aid from the US. Thousands of aircraft and many many tons of other supplies where sent to the USSR from the US.
The USSR didn't win WWII. The allies won WWII. Of course it is nice to forget that Stalin was Hitler's friend right up till the time Hitler attacked Russia.

Estonia may be a small dog but it has big friends. NATO and the EU are not to dismissed so easily. That is why NATO was formed. So that Russia couldn't push around the smaller European countries.

Re:Government-orchestrated and encouraged (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19310135)

Talking about Stalin. Being friend to Hitler is one thing. Stalin killed more people than Hitler did. All the countries occupied by soviets suffered enormously and what about famine in Ukraine orchestrated by Soviets.

Winners are never judged, that's why so little is widely known in western world about Soviet atrocities compared to Hitler's "games".

Re:Government-orchestrated and encouraged (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#19310829)

I think the most telling thing was that Hitler respected Stalin. I have heard that Hitler thought it was a shame that he would have to kill Stalin when he conquered Russia. He would have loved to have Stalin run it for him.

Re:Government-orchestrated and encouraged (0, Flamebait)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 7 years ago | (#19312723)

Ah, typical western ignorance about WWII.

Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement#Reac tions [wikipedia.org] about reasons of Molotov-Ribentrop pact. In short, western democracies ceded Czechoslovakia to Gitler - Stalin was ready to send army to support Chechs, but Poland had not allowed them to pass. Stalin was a realist and he did not believe that USSR and Nazi Germany could coexist.

Also, Poland occupied parts of USSR (yes, you read correctly - in was Poland who occupied parts USSR) in 1921 and Stalin merely liberated USSR territory. Besides, Poland destroyed about 80000 of captured Red Army soldiers and officers...

Also, for 'allied victory' - USSR was the biggest 'ally' in size and manpower.

Re:Government-orchestrated and encouraged (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 7 years ago | (#19310165)

You forgot:

4) USSR was the first country to slaughter its own population by millions (yes, before Nazis started to implement their "Final Solution").

As for winning WWII, yeah that was quite a feat. Especially the part about replacing the Nazi totalitarian puppet regimes with Communist totalitarian puppet regimes throughout Eastern Europe. Way to establish good relations with your neighbours.

Re:Government-orchestrated and encouraged (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 7 years ago | (#19312921)

Hmm...

I thought it was United States and Britain Empire who invented modern genocide.

Re:Government-orchestrated and encouraged (1)

UncleOwl (1016926) | more than 7 years ago | (#19310245)

To continue your nice metaphor: the small dog barks after seeing the huge load of elephant dung dropped to his backyard.

Russia's past might be glorious. Pity that the present is not.

Re:Government-orchestrated and encouraged (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19312087)

Glorious indeed, too bad your probably to young to remember what communist reality actually looked like with empty store shelves and people waiting in lines for hours to buy toilet paper. Somehow the ussr was able to build rockets, airplanes and ships capable of fighting the worlds most technologically advanced nations but wasn't capable of producing washing machines or vacuum cleaners. And let us not forget to mention the soviet terror (though during my youth that was already receding).

Quite frankly I find absolutely terrifying when people only a few years younger then myself go around trying to rehabilitate the soviet regime with the help from the very top might I add and the siege mentality.

Re:Government-orchestrated and encouraged (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 7 years ago | (#19312957)

Yes, I remember Soviet reality.

I don't say that communism was all roses. I'm saying that Russians do have things to be proud of.

Government-orchestrated? Please (2, Insightful)

saikou (211301) | more than 7 years ago | (#19309867)

Given how "well" Russian Government organizes things it'd be an utter failure. Please remember, there are many people and groups in the whole world that are quite capable of doing it by themselves. What, do you think the government has nothing else to do than to issue covert demands for every dial-up user to ping particular Estonian servers?
Estonia (and some mass media) simply find it useful to blame everything on Russian government now. Russian companies refuse to buy their products because customers stopped buying them? Blame Kremlin. If a giant meteor were to strike the capital right now, there'd be a couple of experts saying that "Nobody can prove it wasn't a covert Kremlin operation".

Of course you also have to think about it from the other point of view. If there was a symbol for all US soldiers that died in combat, that marked their graves in another country, and that country would then decided to just move it somewhere else, because they want to put a highway on top of that last resting place... Would Americans grin and bear it? No? Loud screams from politicians asking for sanctions? Regular people doing everything they can to protest it? Net bot herders making statement and then bragging about "squashing the embassy N servers" between themselves?
Would the US government have to encourage people to do it?

Now tell me, what's the difference?

I would think the more important thing would be Pentagon's readiness to bomb the source of cyberattacks [networkworld.com] , which means that a group of bot herders can decide which country Pentagon will be bombing next.

Re:Government-orchestrated? Please (1)

mi (197448) | more than 7 years ago | (#19310987)

Given how "well" Russian Government organizes things it'd be an utter failure.

I think, you are a bit too dismissive of the Russian Government's ability to organize certain things. Ending drunkenness may not be among them, but killing or imprisoning detractors they can do. Pressuring a neighbor economically? Sure — I remind you of the "alcohol-containing liquids" again... A cyber-attack? Yes, they can — far easier than putting polonium into somebody's tea in London.

If there was a symbol for all US soldiers that died in combat, that marked their graves in another country, and that country would then decided to just move it somewhere else, because they want to put a highway on top of that last resting place... Would Americans grin and bear it? No? Loud screams from politicians asking for sanctions? Regular people doing everything they can to protest it? Net bot herders making statement and then bragging about "squashing the embassy N servers" between themselves? Would the US government have to encourage people to do it?

US government would not encourage people to do it. Russian would. That's my point.

Re:Government-orchestrated? Please (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19311021)

If there was a symbol for all US soldiers that died in combat, that marked their graves in another country, and that country would then decided to just move it somewhere else, because they want to put a highway on top of that last resting place...

I can't be arsed to seriously reply to your other stupid points, but here are some "minor" problems with your analogy:
The people buried near the Bronze Soldier DID NOT die there, there were no WW2 battles in Tallinn. Also the Bronze Soldier WAS NOT a mark for the graves of dead. Their graves were unmarked and there were was nothing pointing out that there were graves there. Also it was your glorious USSR that buried them right under a fucking trolley stop. BTW they were not just moved "somewhere" they were reburied at the same military cemetery where the statue was moved.

Re:Government-orchestrated? Please (2, Informative)

phayes (202222) | more than 7 years ago | (#19311723)

If there was a symbol for all US soldiers that died in combat, that marked their graves in another country, and that country would then decided to just move it somewhere else, because they want to put a highway on top of that last resting place... Would Americans grin and bear it?

No, they would pay for the repatriation of the bodies so that they could be buried on US soil just as they have been doing for the past 40 years in VietNam/Cambodia/Laos. If The country where they died is willing to keep the war graves & family in the USA do not want to repatriate them, the USA pays for part of the upkeep of the cemetery as they have been doing for the last 90 years for WWI & WWII war graves in western Europe. When, as has occured in a number of instances here in France, some graves need to be deplaced (A few of the WWI war graves were small & in inconvenient spots -- the remains were moved to a larger war cemetery or once again repatriated), the US has helped pay.

Contrast that with your reaction to the deplacement of a Russian war hero statue that Russia installed in a foreign countries heart. Russia's reaction is one of revanchism where you want to reconquer the "lost" territories much like France did from 1870-1918.

Re:Government-orchestrated and encouraged (2, Insightful)

antv (1425) | more than 7 years ago | (#19310683)

Well, your big mistake is assuming this sort of thing is somehow centrally organized.
Remember an incident with US spy plane and Chinese fighter jet [wikipedia.org] ?
It resulted into a hacking contest [bbc.co.uk] between US and China without any "official" guidance.

In case of Estonia an asshole named Anders (Estonian leader - my sincerest apologies to all other assholes for the comparison) referred to buried WWII veterans as "marauders" on public TV, before trying to move the statue. Quite obviously, people got pissed off. Some teenagers wrote graffiti on the streets in Tallin, others threw eggs onto police cars. The more nerdy ones arranged DDOS attacks. Blaming this on Russian government is is kinda like like saying that Tony Blair is responsible for soccer fans fighting each other.

The only real question here is why the hell Estonian government doesn't have a dedicated network outside of Internet.

Let's get real.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19309399)

"... there's basically no limit to the amount of skirmishes between well-connected countries that could get incredibly emotional for the population at large..."

Come off it! The population won't give a drop of gnat's piss. They don't depend on computing for anything. So their e-mails go a bit slow - there's nothing unusual there if you use Microsoft. Given how much people put up with anyway, I can't see them noticing!

Russia - cybercrime capital of the world (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19309483)

I'm seeing a shitload of spam and SSH scanning from Russia. There's also stuff like the excellent Nginx web server, no reason to doubt the authors motives but at what point would he cave to mafia threats and insert a back door?

The situation in Russia isn't helped by the fact that the mafia are basically the state (Putins FSB). Europe will eventually rely on these villains for natural gas, what can the west do about the situation before it's too late?

Re:Russia - cybercrime capital of the world (4, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#19310025)

Russia - cybercrime capital of the world

According to the site [arbor.net] mentioned in the article, Russia comes in at #17 in the attacks by country breakdown at the bottom of the page. It covers scanning, fingerprinted attacks, and DDoS attacks (no spam). The number 1 country is the good 'ole USA. We're #1! We're #1!

Re:Russia - cybercrime capital of the world (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19310369)

Few attacks originating in Russia could be traced back to Russia, some of the best crackers in the world come from St Petersburg.

Remember this? [zdnet.co.uk] What about other high profile attacks at that time? [nytimes.com] These people haven't vanished, they just got serious and learned not to draw attention to themselves.

Re:Russia - cybercrime capital of the world (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19311087)

#1 the US is, but only depending upon how you look at it. The US is #1 in that it holds a fair chunk of the worlds computers and more then a few of those computers are zombies. As a result, 'attacks' generally have a large US contingent in the form of zombied US computers. I also wouldn't be surprised to learn that the US takes the lions share of the spam market.

When it comes to extortion though, I would be surprised to find that the US ranking very high. Conducting extortion in the US against US companies is a very risky thing. The uglier cyber crimes out there have ring leaders that tend to say in other nations with weaker law enforcement against things like extortion.

Re:Russia - cybercrime capital of the world (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 7 years ago | (#19310191)

what can the west do about the situation before it's too late?

Put the robber on their most productive hex, and surround them with roads?

Sorry. I was playing Catan on XBox Live, like, all weekend.

that's the biggest problem with this warfare (3, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#19309519)

say you had two countries simmering over some stupid feud: land or machismo or even a soccer game [marrder.com] . in such a situation, any cross border incursions or launched missiles can get back to a matter of accountabilty: what comes from your territory is your responsibility, and the fact that something came from your territory or not is pretty straightforward. the side where the incursions came from can even make excuses, but the other side can still say: "look, these guys came from your territory. clean it up yourself or we'll clean it up for you." that provides some straightforward safeguards right there

however, things are too nebulous on the web. no accountability. the russians that attacked estonia can not be found by russia and suppressed easily, because no one knows who they are. well, obviously there can be some intelligent detective work done (who purchased the botnets for rent, for example), but my point is, any group of teenage assholes can do this sort of thing, from any botnet in the world, and so it renders obvious lines of accountability all nebulous and unresolved

and so it is sort of like terrorism, in that there is no one easy and big to blame. no state or governmental entity. it's vague and undefined. and in the end, therefore, these sorts of wars/ crimes are really the defining characteristic of conflicts in the 21st century. for the most part, wars of nation against nation and obvious straightforward battlefields seem to be a dead era. today's conflicts are all about shadowy organizations ready to do nefarious things in the name of nebulous agendas, and finding and stopping who or what or how is simply a task without any clear goals or clear yardsticks of progress

some people would use this fact to say that therefore there is no war or conflict at all, that say, the "war on terrorism" isn't real. no, wrong. the threat is still very real. something like 9/11 is not a phantasm of a neocon's imagination

it's just that the enemy is opaque and made of fog. but because the enemy is hard to pin down, does not mean there isn't nefarious intent out there you need to protect yourself from. yes, that vagueness can be used to amp up fear and provoke overreaction. but, in a way, doing nothing is still worse than overreaction (unless overreaction consists of taking the war to targets that should not be targets)

we live in a difficult era folks. do nothing, you're damned. do something, you can be damned worse. you need to be clever and constant and precise in your efforts, and you'll still screw up and get blowback anyways, and you must still soldier on nonplussed nonetheless, against cyberenemies, against terrorism, with no real yardstick of progress, with no real verification of success or failure, with nothing but the fog for miles and for years, and then a plane in a skyscraper, or a bomb in a disco, or a flood of emails, or a DoS for seemingly no rhyme or reason... and then gone again like a fart in the wind, until the next mass murder. it's psychologically debilitating, and yet constitution and fortitude are your best character qualities needed in order to beat back these shadowy enemies

Re:that's the biggest problem with this warfare (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19310041)

Your comments are spot-on, but only under the assumption
that internet packets are untraceable and anonymous.

They are that way given the standard TCP/IP stack, but
they would not have to be in some future replacement
for it.

I think that internet anonymity comes with an economic cost.
As long as the cost is reasonable, people will continue with
the current state of affairs. But if the cost becomes widely
perceived to be unreasonable, then we'll see some infrastructure
progress towards a solution.

"All you can do is live with the status quo" is not the only
alternative.

anonymity (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#19310147)

has pluses and minuses. an internet where there is no anonymity is also the autocratic oppressive regime's best friend

Re:that's the biggest problem with this warfare (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 7 years ago | (#19310397)

what comes from your territory is your responsibility,

Seems well enough to work for the Lebanese government. Of course when you are at the brink of civil war... You really don't have control over what goes over your border.

well yeah (2, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#19310525)

not having responsibility for what goes on inside your borders is not an acceptable state of affairs. because neighbors will begin to get angry about it because of the rats and vermin making incursions from your lands, and then they will go in and clean things up themselves, and this of course is an escalation. that's why being responsible for what goes on inside your borders is the most imperative thing for a country to have. if they don't have it, there is only war and misery to be had with everyone who lives on the borders of such countries as assholes capitalize on the anarchy to further their mayhem

Yowza... (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 7 years ago | (#19311181)

the russians that attacked estonia can not be found by russia and suppressed easily, because no one knows who they are.

Typically, if someone _needs_ to be prosecuted, "round up the usual suspects" applies. That you think otherwise is folly.

and so it is sort of like terrorism, in that there is no one easy and big to blame. no state or governmental entity. it's vague and undefined.

This is a half-truth used to create a fearful population and justify egregious limitations to your personal freedoms.

today's conflicts are all about shadowy organizations ready to do nefarious things in the name of nebulous agendas
and finding and stopping who or what or how is simply a task without any clear goals or clear yardsticks of progress


Exclusively associating this with the "terrists" is sadly inappropriate. The American intel community certainly does the same thing. The terrists didn't just appear out of the clear blue sky. As an example, please review the history of Afghanistan from, say 1970 to present.

the "war on terrorism" isn't real. no, wrong. the threat is still very real. something like 9/11 is not a phantasm of a neocon's imagination

No. It's a direct result of Western foreign policies. Except Americans don't pay attention to what their Government does, much less other super-powers that screw the regions up.

it's just that the enemy is opaque and made of fog. but because the enemy is hard to pin down

Wrong again. "the enemy" is a strategic result of a horrible event in American history that was a direct result of decades of bad foreign policy. The strategy justifies and accelerates sodomizing many of the founding principals of American Government. For example, the balance of powers.

If you didn't read 1984 by George Orwell, go to your local library and check out a copy today.

you are a genuine idiot (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#19312157)

how the hell in your mind does the malintent and bigotry of someone against you become your fault is utterly beyond my comprehension. sir: if i think i am superior to you because of race/ religion, that is an original sin on my part, which i am only accountable for

nothing, absolutely NOTHING i ever did or could ever do to you justifies or explains my own bigotry against you. al qaeda is not fighting the west because of che guevara, or the kyoto protocols, or walmart, or nike sweat shops in indonesia. al qaeda is fighting the west because al qaeda HAS AN AGENDA ALLL OF IT'S OWN. it believes it's version of sharia law should apply all over the middle east, and against every and all infidels who dare meddle. and by "meddle" i mean any retarded rationale they cook up to justify mass murder far beyond their borders

for example, what is the great crime that the hindus of bali perpetrated on the muslim world to justify the disco bombings there after 9/11? guess what: there is none. the target was valid because al qaeda's goal is the creation of a pan-islamic state in southeast asia. being a member of some other religion automatically justifies your qualification for mass murder. this is the way of the bigot: i am muslim, or i am white, or i am chinese, or i am baptist, whatever: just that fact alone makes me worthy of life and everyone else worthy of death

how the HELL in your mind does that original sin on the part of al qaeda members become the fault of the usa, or ANYTHING the usa EVER did in your mind? it's breathtaking your leap of logic over that one

if you apply your logic equally to the west and the middle east, then based on 9/11, the usa has every right to invade iraq. hell, based on 9/11, i as a westerner have a right to go to egypt and kill women and children. BASED ON YOUR RATIONALE it would be acceptable for me to go kill civilians in egypt because of 9/11. all of the rationale you use to say the usa deserved, or should have seen 9/11 coming applies equally to me going to egypt to commit mass murder because of 9/11. do you believe i am justified? of course you don't, and of course you would be wrong if you thought 9/11 justifies invading iraq

BUT THIS IS EXACTLY HOW YOU EXCUSE WHAT AL QAEDA DOES: the usa did (xyz) along time ago in the cold war in pursuit of goal (abc), where both (abc) and (xyz) HAVEN'T GOT ONE FUCKING THING TO DO WITH COMMITTING MASS MURDER ON CIVILIANS BY ANY LEAP OF LOGIC OR REASON

how the FUCK can you support that rationale and in ANY conceivable way consider yourself to be a proponent of peace, of having a human conscience, of having any intellectual or moral coherence? you're just a reflective partisan hater of the usa. you are intellectually and morally bankrupt. an empty signal. that's the beginning and ending of you. you're completely empty and bankrupt

i say fuck the usa. who cares about the usa, the usa does plenty of bad in the world. did you fucking hear me?

i repeat: FUCK THE USA

i do not need nationalism or ANYTHING PRO-USA to support my views of you and to shut you down. because my view is NOT PRO-USA. my view is ANTI-PREJUDICE.

listen to me closely you prejudicial ignorant fuck: if i am going to condone or excuse evil in this world FAR worse than whatever the usa has ever done in the name of hating the usa, then i have become utterly devoid of intelligence or morality or a human conscience

because the usa gave osama bin laden a stinger missile in 1982... means the usa should have seen 9/11 coming? wtf is wrong with you? seriously, your delusion is huge and almost impossible to understand

let me tell you the truth about your retarded worldview: the truth is you are ethnocentric and a racist.

you don't see people in the middle east as your equal. equality implies equal amount of human rights... and equal amount of human responsibilities

but that's now how you think of middle easterners. you think of them as children. in your eyes, when someone in the middle east does something wrong, the usa is to blame! incredibly condescending and patornizing!

the people in the middle east are not shark attacks or lightning strikes, you ethnocentric fool. the people in the middle east are HUMAN BEINGS deserving of equal RIGHTS and equal RESPONSIBILITIES

THEY ARE NOT CHILDREN

BUT YOUR WORLDVIEW THINKS OF THEM THAT WAY

you condescending racist ignorant prick

Re:that's the biggest problem with this warfare (3, Interesting)

alexgieg (948359) | more than 7 years ago | (#19311247)

William Lind [lewrockwell.com] , a scholar on the subject of this new style of war, which he calls "4th Generation of Modern Warfare" (to distinguish it from the other 3 common types of military organization: organized battlefield; top-down order-based hierarchic army; and blitzkrieg) as a shortcut for something that is fast-paced, non-centralized, stateless, guerrilla-based, multi-polar and simultaneously global, international and local, says that the best way for one to defend himself from it is by doing two things:

a) Focus inwardly, trying to be on the smallest possible number of 4GW organization target lists. The less people hate you, the better you are;

b) Focus locally, building your defensive strategy on fast deployed forces stationed where they act and, if possible, made up of residents of the area, as well as lowering the dependency each area has on resources deployed from too much away. The more centralized and distant and your military force is, the weaker you are. The more dependent you are on goods and services coming from other cities, states and countries, the weaker you are. (Note that this isn't the same as neglecting a strong and big army. It's more of the way said army is built.)

USA fails on both aspects. It fails "a" miserably by making its presence felt all over the world, thus entering the list of almost everyone. And it fails "b" by encouraging a false sense of security on its population, when it should be making local militias and weapon usage proficiency as much widespread as possible, as well as by having an absolute, complete, all-embracing dependency on foreign natural resources, goods, services and work.

On a 4GW world, this is a recipe for disaster.

Re:that's the biggest problem with this warfare (1)

Vancorps (746090) | more than 7 years ago | (#19312075)

If you have no way to measure success then you need a new approach. Treating headaches again and again with Advil sure will get rid of the pain, but eventually you're either going to have a stroke and possibly die or you'll experience kidney or liver failure.

If stress of the job is causing the headaches then you need to find a way to cope with the stress or get a new job. Continuing on course is not the correct action, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

Countries certainly can control what leaves and enters, except that its not countries that do control the Internet. Instead, private entities like AT&T, MCI, Sprint, or any of the other carriers that peer with other countries should be implementing systems to prevent these kinds of attacks from spreading not just from country to country but internally as well. The technology exists to prevent DDoS attacks, they just need to implement them. Given the number of tax dollars these companies receive I don't think it's out of the question to get them to implement some basic protections while maintaining anonymity.

Even worse, in the case of a multi-national company like AT&T they peer with themselves to cross borders so they are even more to blame for allowing this type of behavior to occur. Of course I'm looking at it from a U.S. perspective. Estonia's infrastructure may be very different but I'd be willing to bet if their neighbors had similar mechanisms in place then this wouldn't be a problem. It works as great PR for a country when they can support this type of technology but perhaps more importantly if everyone is implementing it then you can't be attacked with those methods. Of course that also means you can't attack with such methods but if you're relying on DDoS then you're probably not a military.

but there's a conflict here (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#19312265)

that you are not identifying: control versus freedom

all of the changes you propose are basically the wet dreams of authoritarian censoring oppressive governments everywhere

it is very much in the name of freedom to leave the internet devoid of such control... and an internet devoid of controls leads to this sort of anarchic bullying by shady forces

negatives with both approaches, pluses with both approaches

it all boils down to that familiar schism... control or freedom/ security or liberty: the ideological conflict of the 21st century

Re:but there's a conflict here (1)

Vancorps (746090) | more than 7 years ago | (#19312527)

Perhaps you missed the part I wrote about maintaining anonymity? Preventing DDoS is very easy without needing to identify people. I also said that most countries don't control the Internet because corporate entities do. I was not advocating this be changed. Only that we provide guidelines to those entities that peer with other providers. If you implement some basic techniques at the peering locations then you can prevent the vast majority of DDoS attacks because it can be aggregated enough to cause problems. Then the regional personnel can handle the problem with whatever policy they see fit, whether it be through shutting off the subscribers bot infested machine or just simply ignoring the problem. As long as it doesn't go past the next peering point then the problem won't become an aggregate problem and DDoS will be gone and no government has any new way to censor beyond their current abilities.

Control and freedom are not mutually exclusive, everyone at my office can go to whatever website they like. My firewall will filter out 99% of any malware they encounter. Local access privileges restrict the last 1% from actually causing any harm so my users can do what they like without worry, plus they don't have to see myspace ads. I don't have to track them to provide a little control over them. I'm getting rid of the bad while allowing them to continue on their merry way.

In short, I fail to see how anything I said that would appeal to an authoritarian regime as it would prevent them from launching DDoS attacks on their neighbors. That's the whole point, it is nothing but a net gain so I don't understand why there would be any resistance to something like this [cisco.com]

well said (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#19313121)

i should have qualified my statements. there are plenty of security versus liberty dichotomies which are actually false and are presented by demagogues. that being said, there are also some fundamental security versus liberty choices people need to make on a daily basis. and these choices are always being revisited in times when some people abuse their freedoms in order to inflict harm on others. the idea is to limit freedoms in limited ways for limited time periods at targetted systems/ individuals, such as with DDoS attacks as you aptly demonstrate, not blankly take away everyone's freedoms on the justification of one indiscretion by one malcontent

however, oppressive regimes do exactly that for exactly those reasons. so the dichotomy between freedom and security may be false, but the excusing of taking away freedoms in the name of security is done all the time and is very real nonetheless

So has anyone implicated the Russians? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19309527)

I understand that the Russians are essentially harassing countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union, most notably they have been trying to interfere with the Ukraine. I wonder if they have anything to do with this DOS attack on Estonia's government network.

Re:So has anyone implicated the Russians? (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 7 years ago | (#19310157)

I understand that the Russians are essentially harassing countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union, most notably they have been trying to interfere with the Ukraine. I wonder if they have anything to do with this DOS attack on Estonia's government network.

Enjoy your Polonium soup, Anonymous Comrade.

Maybe it's just me... (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 7 years ago | (#19309981)

...but every time I see a story about Estonia, I always think Elbonia [wikipedia.org] . My apologies to both Scott Adams and the people of Elb^h^hstonia.

Re:Maybe it's just me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19311879)

Your apologies should be to the people of Estonia, actually...

Internet Death Sentence (0, Troll)

jd.schmidt (919212) | more than 7 years ago | (#19310247)

Frankly, because of stuff like this, we need to be prepared to use a variation of the old Internet Death Sentence. Hostile nations could be removed from the routing tables (i.e. we don't route traffic to or from them). With international cooperation attacks like this *could* be stopped dead in their tracks, with the side benefit that the offending nation would have a high priority desire to clean up the attacks.

Just another tool you need to keep in your toolbelt.

Re:Internet Death Sentence (2, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#19310357)

Frankly, because of stuff like this, we need to be prepared to use a variation of the old Internet Death Sentence. Hostile nations could be removed from the routing tables (i.e. we don't route traffic to or from them). With international cooperation attacks like this *could* be stopped dead in their tracks, with the side benefit that the offending nation would have a high priority desire to clean up the attacks.

I don't think that stopping routing from a country would make much practical difference. There are millions of vulnerable and already compromised Windows boxes scattered across the world. You can rent time on them from a Web interface. A big part of the usefulness of DDoS attacks is it is easy to make it impossible to attach them to an individual or country since the actual traffic comes from all countries. Most of the compromised machines known to be attacking as part of a botnet are within the US.

Botnet? (2, Funny)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 7 years ago | (#19310395)

A trivial threat compared to posting the major web addresses on Slashdot.

"Protest tool"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19312537)

One person's "protest tool" is another's "terror attack". In this case I'd say the later because transfer of information was denied. If say, web pages were added to sites promoting a view I may consider it a "protest". By making sites inaccessible is no different than blowing up a bridge or building.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>