Separating Cyber-Warfare Fact From Fantasy 111
smellsofbikes writes "This week's New Yorker magazine has an investigative essay by Seymour Hersh about the US and its part in cyber-warfare that makes for interesting reading. Hersh talks about the financial incentives behind many of the people currently pushing for increased US spending on supposed solutions to network vulnerabilities and the fine and largely ignored distinction between espionage and warfare. Two quotes in particular stood out: one interviewee said, 'Current Chinese officials have told me that [they're] not going to attack Wall street, because [they] basically own it,' and Whitfield Diffie, on encryption, 'I'm not convinced that lack of encryption is the primary problem [of vulnerability to network attack]. The problem with the Internet is that it's meant for communication among non-friends.' The article also has some interesting details on the Chinese disassembly and reverse-engineering of a Lockheed P-3 Orion filled with espionage and eavesdropping hardware that was forced to land in China after a midair collision."
Re:Separating Fact From Fantasy (Score:3, Funny)
It does if you find the right woman :)
And don't call me Shirley.
And now fantasy (Score:5, Funny)
Security is best outsourced entirely to a company with a metal effect logo and lots of padlocks on their website.
The most important aspect of security is the visualisation shown to the end user.
All workstations should be protected by at least a green spinning cube.
Voice recognition or hand print scanners are the way forward.
Light your server room from above very slow spinning fan blades.
Factor in around one henchman in black, per 100 servers.
Have web access to all critical systems. input[type="password"]{ font-size:1000%; }
Have a physical self-destruct (as in a bomb), to destroy all your unencrypted data, if you simply get overwhelmed by Russian hackers in quasi-futuristic clothing.