Israel Faces Escalating Cyberwar 200
New submitter 9re9 writes "The NY Times describes what may be the beginning of an actual cyberwar between a pro-Palestinian group and Israeli companies, specifically El Al and the Tel Aviv stock exchange. From the article: 'A hacker identifying himself as oxOmar, already notorious for posting the details of more than 20,000 Israeli credit cards, sent an overnight warning to Israel's Ynet news outlet that a group of pro-Palestinian cyberattackers called Nightmare planned to bring down the sites in the morning.' Though the article is skimpy on technical details, the group appears to have engaged merely in a DDOS attack. Hamas praised the attack as opening 'a new resistance front against Israel.' Is this the first acknowledged cyberwar?"
"Cyberwar" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"Cyberwar" (Score:5, Insightful)
Disagree.
If a nation-state or organized political entity orchestrates a campaign over time to destroy an enemies assets, be they economic, social or military, it's a war.
Note that I don't include the war on drugs in that definition - that's just a massive black market. It would be a different matter if a foreign power was feeding us cheap drugs in order to put the nation into a stupor, but we're doing that ourselves.
Nor do I include the War on Terror as a bonified war - in that case, it's too general, and it fails the first part of the definition ("organized political entity"). Now, you can have a war on al Quaeda, but not on terror in general.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that 'bonified' could reasonably be taken to be the past participle of 'bonify [webster-dictionary.org]', which has fallen out of use, but means, roughly, "to convert into good." So this guy either means 'bona fide' or he's making a far more subtle point than first inspection would indicate.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going with option one based on Occam's razor, however I *really* want to believe option two.
Re: (Score:3)
Mea culpa.
For some reason, I thought that it could mean "legitimate"; this does not appear to be part of the definition. Learn something every day, I guess.
Also - yeah - sometimes, I type too fast, and wind up with attempted phonetic spellings.
Re:"Cyberwar" (Score:4, Informative)
The English dictionary is a product of the English language, not the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
Pity. I think "bonified" would be a fine word to have.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, certainly I hear the term "bona fide bug" thrown around a lot in the workplace, meaning "actual, legitimate, proven to exist bug" - perhaps technically a misuse, but a pretty common one...
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I'm seeing a lot of people writing "allot" when trying to write "a lot." Now you're just making up fucking words that phonetically match what you're trying to say.
Idiots in this upcoming generation.
rant..FAIL
allot is a word.
Go back to sleep, idiot.
Yeah, but to his credit, in this sense it is incorrect in context. Allot and 'a lot' do not mean the same thing.
Re:"Cyberwar" (Score:4, Insightful)
Disagree.
If a nation-state or organized political entity orchestrates a campaign over time to destroy an enemies assets, be they economic, social or military, it's a war.
So when a nation or nations implements sanctions (for instance the sanctions on Iranian oil), you would consider that war? I think you definition of war is way to liberal.
Also, if you disagree with me I will recognize that as an act of war on your part for trying to destroy my intellectual assets.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll start by stating my bias. I'm an Israeli. I also happen to believe that the sanctions on Iran are the best alternative of the three (the other two being attacking Iran and letting it develop nuclear weapons). I am also not the original commenter to whom you were replying.
So when a nation or nations implements sanctions (for instance the sanctions on Iranian oil), you would consider that war? I think you definition of war is way to liberal.
Yes. I think the sanctions on Iran are an act of war. I also happen to think that GP's definition sounds fairly accurate.
Anticipating your next question: If Iran now attacks a US aircraft carrier, would that be just a continuation of t
Re: (Score:2)
In this case I'd say that yes attacking a US carrier would be a natural continuation of the conflict because the suggested sanctions would essentially mean economic death and the loss of a lot more lives than say the sinking of an aircraft carrier and its entire crew.
For example I don't think the US response if OPEC put sanctions against the US
Re: (Score:2)
If you disagree then please answer this.
What do you think the US reaction would be if for example OPEC decided to deploy sanctions against the United States and forbid all oil exports to the United States? Would the United States take that as an act of aggression?
Re:"Cyberwar" (Score:5, Insightful)
If a foriegn entity is able to grind your nation's economy to a halt or eliminate communications or cripple your electrical infrastructure you are potentially more screwed than if there are some deaths through violence. And it can be done with relatively minor risk by a very small group.
Re: (Score:2)
Hamas will soon make major donations to the IDF as restitution for the Palestinian script-kids.
Cyberwar can be very asymmetrical, my advice, look before your leap of death defiance.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Are you really saying attacking a nuclear weapons enrichment program, whose sole end purpose is the creation of WMDs, is just like attacking a desalination plant, whose end purpose is clean water? Really?
Also, that is not what "ironic" means.
Re:It could be if.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you really saying that it's a weapons enrichment program, contrary to our own CIA and national security reports? Also keep in mind that civilian generation of nuclear power is within their rights under the IAEA?
I mean, if you have some evidence, please produce it. Fear doesn't count.
Also, at this point, with a foreign hostile nuclear power fighting wars of occupation on both sides of their country, I would want a nuke too.
Re:It could be if.... (Score:5, Informative)
nuclear weapons enrichment program, whose sole end purpose is the creation of WMDs
Now this is just parroting bullshit western propaganda. Can you please finally get your head out of your arse? No fucking proof they are creating weapons grade fissile material or even want to do that, while Israel [gag, puke] threatens with nukes it really has.
is just like attacking a desalination plant, whose end purpose is clean water
Attacking desalinization plant is worse. That's actually mass destruction.
Re: (Score:3)
No fucking proof they are creating weapons grade fissile material or even want to do that
The Iranian government has released or allowed to be released photos of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad touring enrichment plants with many rows of centrifuges. The numbers on the floors below the centrifuges seem to indicate that there are hundreds or even thousands of centrifuges. Now, I'm no expert, but from what I've read the most likely explanation is that the centrifuges are being used in a cascade fashion to enrich substantial quantities of Uranium well beyond what is required for power plant operation (between
Re:It could be if.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone knows what they (the Iranians) are doing. The Americans know it, the Europeans know it, the Russians know it and yes the Israelis know it too
Yes we all see it. They're minding their own business. Which happens to be nuclear power. So, lets hear again why shouldn't Iran have nuclear power, military or otherwise?
I'll anticipate the answer: "Why, because they are Islamic fundamentalists and raving lunatics and they'll use it to wipe Israel off the map!!!!111!!"
Let's see, they are 1) Islamic fundamentalists - I don't see the problem, so is Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. (and to a much worse degree), but they're considered good friends of the US. I wonder why... Anyway, Islamic fundamentalism has never got in the way of being on the good graces of the West. 2) They're raving lunatics - well I wish the whole world was raving lunatic like they are, given they haven't invaded any country in centuries. Don't see why that would suddenly change now. 3) They want to wipe Israel off the map - ahh, now we're getting somewhere aren't we. But, in fact, that is completely baseless and pretty much amounts to deception. What the president of Iran said, was that Israel should disappear from the maps. The 'we'll wipe it off the map' thing was a (deliberate) deceptive translation from Farsi by MEMRI which is a shill for Israeli interests and provides translations of Muslim media, carefully tailored to their master's objectives. It is, by no means, an unbiased news source. And even if it was, their translation is wrong.
The question now is: Do you see what the US and Israeli elite are doing? Everyone knows. Anyone who cares to look can see this. They're leaving a pretty unmissable breadcrumb trail, and it passes through Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq and Pakistan. Except they're not using breadcrumbs. They're using cluster bombs.
I don't know if you're American, but if you are, they're using your tax money for it while at the same time claiming they can't pay for your healthcare. Anyone can see this. For a lot of people indeed, it was the last thing they ever saw. Why can't you?
So, how long until we see an attempt.... (Score:4, Insightful)
... at security classification for programming, networking, system administration, etc.
Or limits to who can take college classes. Or access web sites with that sort of information. Or own a non-registered compiler.
I used to love the cyberpunk novels about the underground cowboy devs outsmarting the global security nets. Now that we may be heading towards that sort of thing in reality, this old dev isn't quite so enthralled by the scenario...
Re:So, how long until we see an attempt.... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, FWIW, the Department of Defense already requires IT-2 and IT-1 certification for anyone accessing their bits. IT-1 is the equivalent to Top Secret, in that it requires an investigation of the past 10 years of your life plus your current credit rating, a criminal records check dating back to the dawn of time, etc. Be thoroughly prepared to discuss in detail any breaks in your employment, any divorces you may have had, and a whole cornucopia of little details similar to that.
In other words, trust me - it's already here, and has been for some time.
(Disclosure - I have an IT-1 clearance from a previous job back in 2006. A colonoscopy would have been less invasive.)
At least .... (Score:3)
you probably earned a genuine clearance that stays with you if you switch jobs!
That's one of the big rip-offs I've seen in recent years with regard to "security clearances". Many times, an employer will require obtaining a clearance, but they'll say it's "provisional", and add on a stipulation that the clearance is only valid for the length of time you're employed with them.
A good friend of mine applied for a (low paying) job handling government records, some years back (I believe it had to do with health
Re: (Score:2)
A colonoscopy would have been less invasive.
Don't worry, the Israelis have taken care of that too:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/01/15/2317219/mri-powered-pill-sized-robot-swims-through-intestines [slashdot.org]
Bringing down the websites (Score:5, Informative)
Corrupt, don't bring down (Score:5, Insightful)
Fixing a non working system is easy.
Corruption can't be fixed. If you want to cause real damage, you corrupt data, you don't delete it. Corruption, is very difficult to recover from, and the longer the corruption goes on unnoticed, the worse it is to recover.
Taking down a system denies the use of the system as an asset. Corrupting the data or processes on the system makes that system work against it's owner. It becomes worse than useless.
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that data that is corrupted can be restored just as if it was deleted, right?
Not if the corrupted data seems legit, and has been mixed up with legitimate data over time. Say, sensor data from a processing plant. Your backups would contain the same corrupted data, you can't trust it, nor can you resample it, and it's effectively lost. People might have made bad decisions based on that data, and it can be a huge mess to tidy up. Mr. Smith got his +5 Insightful for a reason.
Old news: (Score:5, Informative)
This has been going back and forth on pastebin.com for some time. The usual posting of claims and counterclaims. Lots of posting of alleged Israeli/Arab credit cards and facebook accounts, etc.
It's only now hit the media due to the Tel Aviv stock exchange being a target.
They've done quite a bit of attacking themselves (Score:5, Informative)
Israel has a very developed a very advanced cyberwarfare infrastructure [reuters.com], capable of both defensive and offensive attacks. And it's widely believed that they're the ones behind Stuxnet and other attempts at sabotaging Iran's nuclear program.
And that's just what they do in cyberspace. You get a LOT worse treatment [huffingtonpost.com] from them if you happen to be an Iranian nuclear scientist.
Rest assured that Israel dishes it out at least as well as they get it. They're hardly innocent babes in the woods.
Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, and to what effect? Iran's nuclear program has, by all estimates, been accelerating with every attack. Which is, frankly, no great surprise -- nuclear powers don't get messed with nearly as much as non-nuclear powers, so one should expect nations that consider themselves under threat to become nuclear powers as soon as possible. Whilst the Libyan situation is extremely complex, absolutely no dictator is going to go away with the message that they should reform - dictators don't think that way, even when they do think. Dictators will see that Libya has been attacked by foreign powers with the exception of one period - the time when Libya had weapons of mass destruction.
Cyber warfare won't make any difference. Israel has made it clear in the press that it doesn't distinguish between targeted killings and targeted website attacks, which means we can expect to see people fall over from sudden lack of organic essentials like brains, a heart, etc. This will lead to physical reprisals and another spiral of attacks and revenge. Limited wars NEVER stay limited, again as demonstrated in Libya. It is the nature of warfare of any kind to escalate beyond the control of one or all parties involved.
In the end, cyber warfare or physical warfare, there are no winners. You lose less badly than your opponent, that is all. Sun Tzu himself stated that the best strategy for warfare is to not be in one.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you haven't read his work, it's no wonder you lose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve (Score:5, Informative)
But we're evolved enough now to believe in a kinder gentler politically correct warfare that extends for decades, kills millions, an improvrishes many more.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but he also stated that you shouldn't destroy infrastructure in the process (since the victor ends up having to rebuild it anyway and rebuilding efforts weaken you), nor should they be any greater of a drain on you than absolutely necessary. The "shock and awe" tactics used in Iraq 2 were a direct violation of this stipulation, with consequences that were entirely predictable as a result. Sun Tzu did not advocate total destruction, he advocated very surgical destruction.
However, I agree completely with
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Diplomacy is important - both Iran and Israel might like to try it for a change. Israel has badly damaged itself by continuous sabre-rattling. Had it genuinely bothered with diplomacy up to now, the world would have little objection to it launching a surgical war. Even if the world did verbally object, it wouldn't be strenuous. The problem is that Israel has been way too busy being a pulpit bully (and sometimes a physical bully), which means it has little diplomatic credibility. You don't get clean hands by
Re: (Score:2)
This would only be possible if your military is capable of doing this to your enemy. Wonder what he had to say about the situation of facing an enemy who's military greatly outmatches yours...
Re: (Score:2)
"In the end, cyber warfare or physical warfare, there are no winners. You lose less badly than your opponent, that is all."
That is considerable. Would you rather be on the worse end of a war or the better?
There isn't much historic record of "winners" crying themselves to sleep over "not losing"/
Re: (Score:2)
You'd be surprised at the number of winners who have indeed cried themselves to sleep over Pyrrhic victories. You'd also be surprised at the number of "losers" of a war who have been ultimately unchanged by that war, supplanting the "winners". (The DNA traces of the Normans in Britain essentially don't exist. Nor do the DNA traces of the Romans. The Celts and the Saxons comprise 95% of the population by genetic marker.)
Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve (Score:5, Insightful)
Rest assured that Israel dishes it out at least as well as they get it. They're hardly innocent babes in the woods.
I'd like to nominate that as the understatement of the year.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What they get are children suicide bombers exploding themselves in crowded public spaces. Israel doesn't descend to that level, not even close...
I wonder how hard you would have to come down on someone to make them think that blowing themselves up is a better choice than living. You'd have to make their lives a living hell, for sure. Probably have to take their land away from them, do all sorts of nasty stuff, and make sure that they just can't see any end to their suffering or the suffering of their children. If you take away their future, then I guess some people would chose to blow themselves up and take as many of the enemy with them as possible
Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve (Score:4, Interesting)
You'd have to make their lives a living hell, for sure.
Not at all. You'd just have to feed them toxic religious bullshit and then look for weak-minded individuals to take advantage of. You know, kids, the mentally unstable, etc. Most suicide bombers are recruited when recruiters notice their mental state.
The people doing the recruiting, of course, are coldly calculating and sane. They probably don't even believe the religious bullshit they peddle to their victims, the suicide bombers.
Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve (Score:4, Insightful)
You'd have to make their lives a living hell, for sure. Probably have to take their land away from them, do all sorts of nasty stuff,
lets see, for hundreds of years longer, we have been doing this to the native americans ('indians').
when was the last time you saw an american indian suicide bomber, other than some caricature on tv? maybe an old western movie? but IRL? not really.
through out history, people have conquored others and land has shifted ownership. why is this somehow different? and if you go back farther in time, that land certainly has had many owners. to whom do you give it, then?
why stop there? so many other places in the world where X has taken Y. no matter what country you are from, in your history someone has taken someone's land or there is a dispute about its ownership in some way.
I fail to see how 'palestinian' is any more special and why this argument applies to them and not every other people who fought and lost?
israel fought many defensive battles, gained land and then gave it back. but that's still not enough, is it?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but the Native Americans got casinos in the bargain. The last laugh may be on the palefaces.
Re: (Score:3)
israel fought many defensive battles, gained land and then gave it back. but that's still not enough, is it?
To those that hate Israel? No it's not enough, because the only way they'll be happy is when every Jew and Israeli citizen(that includes arabs, and other minorities) are dead.
As it stands now, it'll be another war especially with the rising tide of Islamic supremacist screaming going on, and the brotherhood gaining a foothold. People like to say "oh they've changed, they're not blah blah blah pro-toss women back to the dark ages" yeah, give it a year and get back to me. Anyway, you can bet that within 5
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think the Native Americans wouldn't have strapped on bomb vests if they had them available? Especially toward the final conflicts? Nobody likes being conquered. Now you just have more wonderful tools and free easy-to-get weapons knowledge to wage guerrilla warfare almost indefinitely. Just because your underfunded and running low on options doesn't mean you no longer have the right to resist.
You have a right not to be conquered and use any means at your disposal to repel an enemy or make his s
Re: (Score:3)
You're repeating an infamous misquote [mohammadmossadegh.com]. In short, the American version of the phrase is "regime change." In other words, neither am I pretending Iran is a friend of Israel.
Cyberwar (Score:2)
Is this the first acknowledged cyberwar?
yes.
As Lem put it short: Every new invention puts civilization forward and has a good and an evil usage. I'm surprised it took this long for media to notice what is really happening on cyber-front. Remember a recent /. story about cyber-insurances? http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/24/1254250/cyber-insurance-industry-expected-to-boom [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the open acknowledgement that's new, not the concept. The concept existed as soon as computer a was able to talk to computer b.
Re: (Score:2)
No. It is about the 15 millionth "cyberwar." Ignoring for the moment the significant questions surrounding the dubious term "cyberwar," the internet has been a battleground of malware for decades. This may be a new incident, but it's not new.
The folks who define the term "cyberwar" limit it to nation-state actions, to make it analogous to traditional war. Certain folks use this term with a very specific agenda: to justify expanding the scope and budget of military activities to include computer and computer network defense/offense. Most malware exists for vandalism or theft/fraud. From the perspective of jurisdiction, that means most malware falls under law enforcement rather than the military. As such, most malware is not in scope for "cy
Lesser Evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think ultimately the point is to know exactly where to put those car bombs...
Re: (Score:2)
A good cyber attack (Score:2)
Would have the bombers hit the wrong target.
Re: (Score:2)
It won't stay limited, that's the problem. A DDoS or other cyberattack can shut down a reservoir (a major issue in a place like the Middle East) or disrupt other critical computers that should not be online but are. A stupid decision by a power station or an airport could result in major anger. And in a region where anger is usually accompanied by automatic weapons fire, rockets and mutilation of the enemy, it wouldn't take much to trigger a major confrontation.
It wouldn't need to be that major. A DDoS agai
Re: (Score:3)
"when elephants do battle, the grass suffers." -- african proverb
=/
Go for the greater evil: (Score:2)
"I'd rather see cyber war between Palestine and Israel than real war."
But what about the combination. Think of the possibilities.
Blow up the wrong target. Then make them think someone else did it. When the others end up bombing each other post a troll face.
Then you can post "You mad, bro?"
Re: (Score:2)
with the new laws on the books, both israel AND palestine can be sent to gitmo.
so, you two better behave! you don't want me to call papa.
Unfortunately for oxOmar (Score:5, Informative)
Seems to me the likely way for the Israelis to handle a threat like this is to track down the attackers in meatspace, and kill them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously (Score:5, Insightful)
Taking down someone's web page is a cyberwar now? When two countries (not companies vs script kiddies) start destroying actual (not virtual, potential or imagined) property within each other's borders and killing actual people, with the goal of conquering or annihilating each other, then maybe it'll be a cyberwar.
Re: (Score:2)
you call that serious? as someone already pointed out, what you're describing is war, not cyberwar. and re: war, they're kinda already doing that. doing it on another level doesn't take away from that, it's supposed to have some kind of synergy effect (of suffering and stupidity, but that's besides the point).
lastly, data is not virtual or imagined: it takes time and resources to collect/compute, and has real-life uses and implications I cannot even be arsed to enumerate right now, because really, just heh.
Re: (Score:3)
No, cyberwar, if it's to mean anything, is regular old war using computers as a weapon. Just like mechanized war is still killing people, but using machines. Mounted warfare is on horses. Trench warfare is from trenches.
Yes, if you destroy data that actually has real world consequences, in terms of real property or real lives, as I described, then you're engaging in war. Taking down someone's web page does not, and is not.
Re: (Score:2)
war is "armed conflict". I cannot see "killing people" anywhere in any definition, and you yourself fall back to "or property" in the next paragraph, so there ;) and information is more and more becoming important property. and not just recently, think "enigma code", or even "theoretical physics", if you catch my drift.
and hey.. let's say, if you could create a virus that would make another nation mindless slaves, without killing anyone, that wouldn't be war why, exactly? after all it'd just be skipping to
Re: (Score:2)
We don't necessarily go to war with the goal of conquering or annihilating our enemies.
Re: (Score:2)
No? Name some exceptions. And when I say conquering, I don't necessarily mean occupying their country and enslaving them. Conquering includes making helpless.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the standard definition of conquering. Conquering means expanding the empire through conquest.
Re: (Score:3)
They DDOSed the web page. They didn't take down the stock exchange.
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders (Score:3)
Really. Those guys (and gals) dont play fair.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh. I never realized war was supposed to be "fair."
Re:You fell victim to one of the classic blunders (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I never realized war was supposed to be "fair."
this is not bowling but it still has rules.
its the rules that stop mega-powers from just crushing their opponents. if the US did not hold back, it would have levelled half of the ME in retaliation. brutal and extreme, but maybe it would have been the one and only event in our 'gulf war 2'. instead, our war on fear and terror has lasted longer than the very real world wars 1 and 2, combined.
we pussyfooted around in the gulf wars. we held back (significantly)
Hmmm poor form (Score:2)
I would wish the hackers good luck if only because they are the underdogs.... I suspect they'll be getting a knock at the door any moment now. They should probably avoid motor vehicles for the foreseeable future as well. Oh an
Better than killing people (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
two words for you: false dichotomy.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're gonna threaten your neighbours... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're going to, as a nation, threaten your neighbours, arm yourself with nukes and the best military technology money can buy while oppressing and condemning a minority within your population (the Palestinians). If you're going to talk the talk about "peace" while continuing to invade and build on the occupied territories in dispute and supposedly under negotiation at peace talks. If you're going to take hundreds of millions in "Aid" dollars from someone your neighbours see as the "Great Oppressor".
Well, if you do these things, don't be surprised if cyber terrorism is the least of your worries.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
while oppressing and condemning a minority within your population (the Palestinians)
If by "Palestinians" you mean Israeli Arabs, well, these are probably much better off living in Israel rather than in the neighbouring countries. In Israel, they have at least some political power (proportional to their votes).
Re:If you're gonna threaten your neighbours... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Flamebait" my ass. The truth hurts. Bend over and TAKE it.
Score: Israel 1, attackers 0 (Score:2)
http://www.elal.co.il is up and running happily. http://www.sama.gov.sa/ [sama.gov.sa] and http://www.adx.ae/ [www.adx.ae] are both down.
innovate their way out (Score:3, Insightful)
As Israel has always done, and must always do, they will innovate their way out of the situation. Reducing the threat they face, while making a name for themselves in the cyber security market and profiting immensely.
One would think this is fairly easy to defeat (Score:2)
without state backing I don't see how some small band of hackers is going to make any difference.
On the bright side, the threat of this will likely motivate the banking industry to finally close some giant security holes in their system.
Many businesses don't change slowly. They change in bursts typically as a result of some sort of trauma or unlikely opportunity. Nothing changes and then everything changes all at once.
So... maybe this will be the catalyst.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well... to be relevant the state backing it would have to have enough resources to make a difference. I don't know if Iran has the abiliity to wage as cyber war and I know Palestine doesn't.
It takes a technological society to back a cyber war. China, Japan, South Korea, many countries in europe, or the US... that's about it. If your country doesn't have an information economy then you can't wage cyberwar anymore then a per-industrial society can wage mechanized warfare. You can't build tanks without factori
Re: (Score:2)
You dont need massive amounts of technology to wage a cyber war. You need only a small number of very intelligent and very talented individuals, and being from a less developed nation precludes neither. Motivating those individuals can be done in any number of means, ranging from turning them into religious zealots, or threatening their loved ones.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that the Ukraine is more a target then a source for such things and that source is actually Russia.
You do have a point... though both Russia and Ukraine have information economies. There are fairly large software companies and industries in both countries.
Again, possibly Iran has one too. I really don't know that much about their economy. Though it would surprise me.
In any case, I'm pretty sure Israel's information economy could stomp Iran's... so I'm not too worried about it.
He who... (Score:2)
He who lives by the hack, dies by the hack...
Oops Omar's been Oxed (Score:2)
Two guys on a motorcycle just attached a magnetic bomb to his hard drive platter. Don't fool with Mossad.
Israeli Hackers already retaliating (Score:2, Informative)
Israeli hackers took down the Saudi Arabian exchange website, and have also been leaking Facebook, Email, and CC information of Saudi citizens. Follow
Hannibal's posts on pastebin:
http://pastebin.com/u/hannibal
Hardly a war (Score:2)
Methinks Yoni Shemesh exaggerates. It's one thing for the NYT to publish that quote, but Slashdot submitters should know better than to take it seriously.
Re: (Score:2)