Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security The Internet

Israel Faces Escalating Cyberwar 200

Posted by Soulskill
from the i'm-sure-it'll-be-over-soon dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Israel Faces Escalating Cyberwar

Comments Filter:
  • "Cyberwar" (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Cyberwar is a construct of politicians and government contractors to justify spending lots of money. War is war. This is not war.
    • Re:"Cyberwar" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by forkfail (228161) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @03:58PM (#38728676)

      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)

        'bonified' isn't a word. maybe you're thinking of 'bona fide' (in good faith, sincere) but that doesn't really make sense in the context either.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by chaboud (231590)

          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.

          • I'm going with option one based on Occam's razor, however I *really* want to believe option two.

        • by forkfail (228161)

          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.

        • by rolfeb (1218438)

          Pity. I think "bonified" would be a fine word to have.

      • Re:"Cyberwar" (Score:4, Insightful)

        by JumperCable (673155) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @09:55PM (#38733430)

        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.

        • by Sun (104778)

          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

          • by Elldallan (901501)
            I disagree, whether attacking a US carrier would be a natural continuation depends not on any "domains of war" but on what impact the sanctions would have on Iran.
            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
        • by Elldallan (901501)
          It would certainly be an act of aggression/war.
          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)

      by Feyshtey (1523799) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:17PM (#38728948)
      If your neighbor hacking into your computer, stealing your financial information and destroying your critical files, you're going to be as much or more impacted than if he's making his dog shit in your yard and spray painting your car. As a matter of scale the former is ultimately more harmful than the latter.

      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.
    • by OldHawk777 (19923) *

      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.

  • by forkfail (228161) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @03:55PM (#38728624)

    ... 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...

    • by Penguinisto (415985) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:01PM (#38728706) Journal

      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.)

  • by afidel (530433) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @03:56PM (#38728640)
    Big deal, call me when they can bring down the booking system or actual order processing system of the stock exchange. Saturating someones bandwidth or connection pool limits on their load-balancers is childs plays if they aren't specced to handle it.
    • by Colin Smith (2679) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:19PM (#38728962)

      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.

  • Old news: (Score:5, Informative)

    by Hartree (191324) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @03:57PM (#38728648)

    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.

  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @03:58PM (#38728670)

    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.

    • 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.

      • Does Sun Tzu also advocate running in fear when war comes to you? Perhaps it's wise to be submissive, hmm? Sometimes you don't have a choice but to defend yourself. Often, the cost of doing so means killing the aggressor. Not to say Israel is innocent here, but Hamas is extremely gleeful when rockets kill innocent Israeli children.

        • by jd (1658)

          If you haven't read his work, it's no wonder you lose.

          • You dropped his name with regards to a topic that's non applicable. Presumably with a holier than thou righteous attitude. I don't accept the premise that conflict can be avoided. Prolonged sure, but never avoided. This Middle East conflict has been going on far longer than and most likely started from the most mundane of reasons hundreds of years go. People, groups, etc tend to gunny sack grievances to the point of full out warfare. Eventually, the innocent and damned get caught in the fog of war until at

      • by Feyshtey (1523799) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:59PM (#38729474)
        Sun Tzu also stated (paraphrased) that if you find yourself in a position where war is final option, you expend every ounce of your military force from the first moment and crush your enemy absolutely, demoralizing them and ending the conflict forever. The reasoning being that conservative encounters prolong the effects of war, ultimately causing more death and pain for both parties unnecessarily. You kill 1 million on day one to prevent the deaths of another 5 million over time.

        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.
        • by jd (1658)

          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

          • by Feyshtey (1523799)
            Israel (and Iran for that matter) cannot politically be surgical in the sense you describe. They cannot do what is necessary to end the conflct. Any aggression at a level required to bring the on-going war to a close would be vilified by the rest of the world. It's true in every stage on which hostility is currently being played out. If either side chooses to embrace being the aggressor and finish the engagement in as short a period as is possible (and minimize civilian or infrastructure destruction) as Sun
            • by jd (1658)

              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

        • by mpe (36238)
          Sun Tzu also stated (paraphrased) that if you find yourself in a position where war is final option, you expend every ounce of your military force from the first moment and crush your enemy absolutely, demoralizing them and ending the conflict forever.

          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...
      • by couchslug (175151)

        "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"/

        • by jd (1658)

          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.)

    • by Tsingi (870990) <graham.rickNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:19PM (#38728956)

      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)

      by Baloroth (2370816)
      What they get are children suicide bombers exploding themselves in crowded public spaces. Israel doesn't descend to that level, not even close. No, they are not innocent by any means, and I am not justifying what they do, just pointing out how hyperbolic your claims really are (which is, in a word, "very"). They have also been repeatedly attacked by nearly every one of their neighbors, and many of them have expressed a desire to wipe Israel from the face of the Earth. Again, just to put things into the prop
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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

        • by dskoll (99328) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @05:03PM (#38729526)

          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.

        • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @06:08PM (#38730592)

          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?

          • by amiga3D (567632)

            Ah, but the Native Americans got casinos in the bargain. The last laugh may be on the palefaces.

          • by Mashiki (184564)

            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

          • by El Torico (732160)
            The US did it the old fashioned way and nearly annihilated the Native Indian population. Have you ever heard of the phrase "Carthaginian Peace"?
          • by ogdenk (712300)

            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

  • 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]

    • 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.
      • by Synerg1y (2169962)

        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.

      • by Morty (32057)

        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)

    by omganton (2554342) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:01PM (#38728708)
    I'd rather see cyber war between Palestine and Israel than real war. The can DDOS each other all day as long as it keeps them away from car bombs.
    • by Synerg1y (2169962)

      I think ultimately the point is to know exactly where to put those car bombs...

    • by medv4380 (1604309)
      That's what you say now but what will you say when one side makes a Skynet Virus?
    • Would have the bombers hit the wrong target.
       

    • by jd (1658)

      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

    • "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?"

      • 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.

  • by russotto (537200) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:03PM (#38728732) Journal

    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.

    • I'm sure their on it. It'll give some poor chemical engineer schmuck in Iran a few more minutes to find a better hiding place.
    • by cshark (673578)
      They will. Or they'll hunt them down and make them stand trial. These are people who can find nazis in ohio fifty years after the fact. And you're going to piss them off? Yeah, good luck with that.
  • Seriously (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ceoyoyo (59147) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:03PM (#38728738)

    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.

    • 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.

      • by ceoyoyo (59147)

        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.

        • 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

    • by Khashishi (775369)

      We don't necessarily go to war with the goal of conquering or annihilating our enemies.

      • by ceoyoyo (59147)

        No? Name some exceptions. And when I say conquering, I don't necessarily mean occupying their country and enslaving them. Conquering includes making helpless.

        • by Khashishi (775369)

          That's not the standard definition of conquering. Conquering means expanding the empire through conquest.

  • by Kenja (541830) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:05PM (#38728760)
    The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never get involved in a covert war with an Israeli opponent".

    Really. Those guys (and gals) dont play fair.
  • Announcing your intended crime to your victim before you actually accomplish anything.... Kinda like a comic book villain plot? Cower in fear and behold our power to reveal your credit rating!!! Now you'll get spammed to death! High interest rates for all!!!(cue maniacal laughter...)

    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

  • If I had to choose, I think I would prefer having my CC posted on the net over being blown to bits by somebody with a vest full of semtex and wood screws mixed with rat poison.
  • by benjfowler (239527) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:08PM (#38728818)

    when they're getting blown literally to pieces with real weapons. Might school them in reality.

    • And thus Israel becomes seen as the agressor for being the first to start shooting. Or worse, given the age of many script kiddies, they are caught killing children. No, Israel wouldn't be that stupid: So long as the hackers don't start getting into anything like military systems, they'll fight with improved security... and maybe the odd counter-DoS.
  • by msobkow (48369) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @04:25PM (#38729038) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • 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.

  • by schlachter (862210) on Tuesday January 17, 2012 @05:42PM (#38730178)

    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.

  • 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.

    • by Feyshtey (1523799)
      You assume there isn't state backing?
      • 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

        • by Feyshtey (1523799)
          The Ukraine isnt exactly known as a technological powerhouse, and yet botnets and malware consistently originate there. (Yes, they are often identified but...)

          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.
          • 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 lives by the hack, dies by the hack...

  • Two guys on a motorcycle just attached a magnetic bomb to his hard drive platter. Don't fool with Mossad.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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

  • A 19 year old aiming a DOS attack at a couple of websites is as much an act of war as if someone stood outside the airport or outside the stock exchange shouting that he really didn't like these institutions and maybe harrassing passers-by a bit.
    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.

Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it. Geniuses remove it. -- Perlis's Programming Proverb #58, SIGPLAN Notices, Sept. 1982

Working...