Is Cyberwarfare Fiction? 205
An anonymous reader writes "In response to calls by Russia and the UN for a 'cyberwarfare arms limitation treaty,' this article explains that 'cyberwar' and 'cyberweapons' are fiction. The conflicts between nation states in cyberspace are nothing like warfare, and the tools hackers use are nothing like weapons. Putting 'cyber' in front of something is just a way for people to grasp technical concepts. The analogies quickly break down, and are useless when taken too far (such as a 'cyber disarmament treaty').'"
... or Trick? (Score:3, Funny)
In response to calls by Russia and the UN for a "cyberwarfare arms limitation treat"
And then we can all dress up as h4x0r3z, maybe call the event Geek-o-Ween.
Re: (Score:2)
Warning, noobish question ahead. (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the common claims regarding "cyber warfare" are attacks against the power grid. What I'd like to know is this: why is the power grid accessible to any outside system?
Re:Warning, noobish question ahead. (Score:5, Interesting)
So that someone somewhere (probably higher up) can work from home.
Probably, anyways. You know how it is.
Re: (Score:2)
So that someone somewhere (probably higher up) can work from home.
It might also be a question of distance and scale - transmission lines that run hundreds of miles cross-country.
Re:Warning, noobish question ahead. (Score:4, Insightful)
why is the power grid accessible to any outside system?
Because using the Internet is way cheaper than building your own intranet.
Re:Warning, noobish question ahead. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it is because there are remote installations that need to be operated from a single location.
The power grid is a lot of generators (scaling from enormous powerplants to small scale wind/solar and other types of production, including stuff that can be switched on and off all the time such as gas engines).
Someone has to control the whole lot of it in order to balance power production and consumption.
I see no way that we can do that without actually connecting the whole lot to a network. It would be awesome if it was a completely independent network - but the internet is there anyway... why no use it in a secure way?
(Note: I am no expert - I just expressed my opinion, which happens to contain a lot of technical assumptions)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
the internet is there anyway... why no use it in a secure way?
Simply put because there isn't really yet such a thing as a "secure" way. Our current systems are too new, too complex and put together too quickly to make them anything approaching what you would mean by "secure". First let's start by defining secure. I'll put it as "you would have to invest 10% of the cost of the network in order to destroy it". That's an arbitrary and quite low value. I should probably have used about 30% and talked about the value of the dependent systems, but it's still a good sta
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, given that any part of the power grid is part of the power grid because somebody laid big fat power cables between it and something else, one suspects that a matching data network could be added(at least whenever a line is replaced/upgraded/added) for relatively low cost. My understanding is that, already, a nontrivial amount of "power line" actually includes a strand or strands of f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According the the Apple Guy in Live Free or Die Hard (not a porn, but an action movie with Bruce Willis), the power grid isn't on the internet which is why the bad guys had to fly a helicopter, kill all the guards, and hardwire into the system to cause problems.
It's all right there in the screenplay...
Re: (Score:2)
Many people have written many articles as well as a significant number of books about this subject.
There are valid reasons, though the short answer is because they don't know any better. Really.
These networks are supposed to be separated from the office. However, real security is hard. All it takes are one or two dreamy eyed, lazy idiots on the office side, wanting access to all that delicious data "in real time" so that they can surf it and "discover new paradigms." They nag the IT department, and before y
Re: (Score:2)
people have survived relentless bombing of their cities and that didn't destroy their society or will to fight. i doubt turning someone's lights off is going to be very devastating.
Re: (Score:2)
i dont think it may be intentionally connected to the internet, but that thanks to every computer being a potential router, any computer that can access both will be a gateway to the power grid control network.
we're slitting our own throats. (Score:2)
I've read that these systems are accessible from the internet so that support staff can remotely diagnose problems.
Maybe not today but in the future. (Score:5, Insightful)
When millions of people in key positions have artificial hearts, limbs, microchips in their body, nanotechnology with RFID in their clothes, then cyberwarfare becomes something physical.
If hackers can stop the artificial heart of somebody important, this is no different than assassinating the person.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, how many people are walking around with artificial hearts, again?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Dick Cheney for one. The only real hearts he has are the ones hes eaten.
Re:Maybe not today but in the future. (Score:5, Funny)
Dick Cheney for one. The only real hearts he has are the ones hes eaten.
I am very offended by this remark. Dick Cheney has never eaten a human heart. He's cut them out, certainly, but the only hearts he's eaten are puppy hearts.
Please retract your statement.
Re: (Score:2)
With artificial hearts - 0
With VADs - hundreds
With pacemakers or internal defibrillators - tens or hundreds of thousands
I don't think any of these are accessible via the internet (yet), but most newer pacemakers are accessible wirelessly.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When millions of people in key positions have artificial hearts, limbs, microchips in their body, nanotechnology with RFID in their clothes, then cyberwarfare becomes something physical.
It's times like this that I really wish I hadn't spent all that money in the 1990s on Internet-enabled toasters... My bagel came out overcooked this morning and I just know it was because of cyber-warfare!
Re: (Score:2)
If someone is stupid enough to get an artificial heart/pacemaker/defibrillator with a built-in webserver, they should be given an instant Darwin Award.
There are somethings that don't belong on the Internet now or in the future.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are aware that you're talking about people who put their private life in the hands of Facebook and the like, yes.
But hey, maybe that's the cyber version of Mendelian selection.
Re:Maybe not today but in the future. (Score:5, Informative)
You are years behind. Pacemakers with remote connectivity began being installed in 1999 and DefCon addressed the issue back in '08.
http://venturebeat.com/2008/08/08/defcon-excuse-me-while-i-turn-off-your-pacemaker/ [venturebeat.com]
Welcome to a brave new world, one where your pacemaker can be disabled or instructed to deliver a fatal shock to your heart...remotely.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
People already have artificial body parts; the lens in my left eye is artificial, and is on struts so it can focus (I wrote about it here) [slashdot.org]. I know people with artificial knees and hips, and there are people with heart pacemakers. There is an RFID chip in my work's security card. However, these implanted devices aren't connected to the internet, and I can't see them being connected to the internet in the future.
I found Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom a good read, but I just don't see optical implants to co
Re: (Score:2)
a pacemaker that can call for medical aid if the heart stops responding?
maybe some combo that can also monitor the patients blood pressure and other vitals and transmit them to the doc for evaluation without having to stop by the office ever so often?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, those seem like good reasons, but I would think that the information would go one way only -- outwards. Why would one need inwards communication with the devices?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nanotech weaponry. (Score:3, Funny)
Anyone who does not take cyberwarfare seriously is not envisioning a world where nanotechnology is everywhere in everything. Where the enemy can create a bomb that you shallow in a pill, or that is sprinkled on your food. Where the enemy can use nano bots too small to see to kill people, or hack into or reprogram, etc.
It's definitely not fiction, it's reality. The technology to do this already exists and for all we know governments could be launching their attacks as we speak. Whoever controls the nanotech weapons will control the future.
Nano bots too small to see? What , like bacteria? (Score:2)
"you shallow in a pill, or that is sprinkled on your food"
Newsflash - thats been around since people first figured out how to poison others.
Take your pick from poisons, bacteria or viruses. You've been reading too much sci-fi
because biology got there a few hundred million years before William Gibson.
Nothing to see here, move along please.
There is a difference between "war" and "terror" (Score:5, Interesting)
No you haven't; at least not in the sense that matters. Even if there is a country stupid enough to connect it's "off switch" to the internet, all they have to do is pull the ethernet cable and switch it on again. Even if you can break a small proportion of power stations, the rest will come on again. You are a "cybervandal" not a "cyberwarrior".
The real serious cyberwarfare people would do both. A disable the off switch (force it on) and b) drop a graphite bomb at a key place to do weeks worth of damage. That's proper "cyber" warfare.
Cyber"warriors" know the exploit for the radar station and disable the air defences as they fly in with real bombs.
Cyber"guerilla"s mess with account numbers in the fund transfer excels of most of the big companies in the place they target.
There's a whole load of resources which are needed for this stuff. Real test suites where you actually have the control systems of your enemies nuclear power plants; actual buildings where you can try messing up the air conditioning system, people who can actually write serious, fully EAL7 compliant defence systems. People who can write EAL7 compliant versions of exploits (have you seen the state of security software????). etc. etc. etc.
If you think your country's military doesn't have a valid role to play in a "cyberwar" then you haven't understood the difference between a "cyberterrorist" putting an "easter egg" into a flight control system and a "cyberwarrior" diverting all your civilians into the area where his nukes can strike them most effectively.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if you can break a small proportion of power stations, the rest will come on again.
Many large power plants need quite a bit of energy to jump start from an 'off' condition (normally they never go 'off' just in lower power mode). Turning off all power plants at once would be a much bigger mess then you think. I don't think you ever could do it because of fail-safes, but if you could you would start a big mess.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Many large power plants need quite a bit of energy to jump start from an 'off' condition"
Coal fired plants maybe. Pretty much everything else just requires someone to press an on button. Gas turbines are easy to start, nuclear never really goes off even with the rods in and hydro is as simple as opening the sluice gates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nuclear plants won't run without an external power source. It's a safety feature. If the plant can't get power from the grid, the reactor shuts down automatically.
Sir –
You're right that nuclear power plants need external power to operate as a safety feature - to keep the water pump providing coolant flowing so the reactor doesn't melt. However, the need to be connected to the grid differs from my experience working at nuclear power plants. At the plant I worked at (a CANDU reactor) if the reactor itself wasn't operational there was a grid-backup, a diesel backup, and a battery backup. The battery was the most impressive. The plant could be started and was desig
Tiny malfunctions w Gigawatts of power do go boom (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
(my emphasis) - you need to work out the right trick to cause a failure; you need to work out how to get that trick to happen through the control system; you need to integrate your software with the particular configuration of the control system in the particular power station you are attacking. Most of all, you need to repeat this whole process across many different installations all o
Re: (Score:2)
Pinch???? Google doesn't seem to help me here. A HANE [wikipedia.org] above such sites would definitely be a counterpart for cyber-warfare guaranteeing much longer recovery times. For a true "cyber" part, wait for the US to launch satellites with nuclear weapons (for stopping "terrorist states"); then, during your cyber attack, take control of the satellite and use the bombs from that to cause your HANE.
That's really interesting and quite resource intensive; to get a practical attack on a nuclear equipped satellite now
no different from other metaphors (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't you mean Information Warfare? (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyone who puts the word 'cyber' in front of something should probably be shot.
Moving along to more immediate activities, we are actively seeing 'Information Warfare' being executed on the Internet. The latest widely heard event was the Israeli-flotiilla debacle, and subsequent dis-information campaign from every possibly side. Ask someone who has stated they have been following it, and see what factual information they can give you, and have them list multiple non-governmental independent investigatory sou
Russian government with a foot in the mouth (Score:4, Interesting)
This is not the first time Russian government reveals its unique idiotic approach to technology. As a former Russian citizen I am following the drama of Russian government politics in technology, which, synthetically speaking, is a laughing stock of Russian technoblogging community.
Basically, the technology policy of the Russian government does not differ much from:
1. New exciting promising technology discovered!!
2. ???
3. Profit (get recognition, re-establish mother Russia as a world superpower, look wise, etc)
Replace ??? with "flood zillions of roubles into this technology without any sense of balanced budget" (which was the case of "nanotechnologies") or in this case "propose a treaty to curb technology".
One would think that smartass KGB spy would do better than idiot Khruschev, but no... the result is the same: embarrassment and ostracism of Russia on the international level.
Re: (Score:2)
One would think that smartass KGB spy would do better than idiot Khruschev
Well, to be fair, at least he didn't take off his shoe at the UN and bang the table with it screaming "WE WILL BURY YOU!!!!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Russian government may be totally incompetent - but I think this is exactly the point the author was making in his article. It isn't the Russian government that's th
it's real (Score:3, Interesting)
In the same sense that nuclear war is real, cyberwar is real. We've seen both only in limited fashion. We know the technology exists and works. We've just never seen two well-armed adversaries thoroughly go at it.
There's a lot of fiction about full-scale nuclear war. That doesn't mean nuclear war itself is fiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There was not "large scale" nuclear exchange in WWII. There never has been. That was small-scale one-sided, as the Estonian cyberwarfare was small-scale, one-sided.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please (Score:2)
Nuclear war: Large area are vapourised, even larger areas poisoned for centuries. Result - everyone and everything larger than a bacteria dies.
"Cyber" war: Someone deletes some files on some computers and causes others to crash. Result - ethernet cables are unplugged and machines are restored from backups.
Get a sense of perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
You falsely indicate that I claimed they were equivalent in severity. You are wrong.
You are also wrong about what damage would result from a cyberwar. Communications and telecommunications infrastructure would stop working for days. Food would rot on trucks undelivered. It would be much worse than "someone deletes some files."
It's a very useful fiction... (Score:5, Insightful)
The term "cyberwar" quietly implies that virtually any net-connected system is a potential or actual combatant. From here, it's just a hop, skip, and a jump to applying military/wartime standards for such niceties as atttacking systems, or requisitioning access. Even better, since "cyberwar" is, for suitably nebulous definitions, something that occurs pretty much constantly, among a wide variety of state and nonestate actors, with various levels of covertness, the mandate covers basically everybody, everywhere, and is of unlimited duration(See also: "Global war on terror").
Who needs bullshit like "warrants" or "due process" when any computer system can simply be declared to be an "enemy combatant" or "materially supporting an enemy combatant"? If you think the notion of charging an object in order to avoid procedural restrictions is absurd, be aware that it is already standard practice in the context of "asset forfeiture". (which makes for some rather ridiculous case names [wikipedia.org]...)
Mod author "Overrated" (Score:2)
Point 1, "Hacking is opportunistic."
For civilians, yes, it certainly is. When you have operational forces at your command, however, it can get notably less-so. You could, for example, develop a virus and compel Microsoft to include it as a Windows Update. Or get a CIA operative to smuggle it in, conduct a raid on a connected node and have the soldiers upload it, duplicate the hard drive of a dignitary and implant it there, etc, etc, etc.
This point is basically saying that because small arms don't have ki
cyber is a dumb name but it is real (Score:5, Insightful)
Sticking a stupid name on something and overblowing what it means isn't the same thing as it not existing to begin with. Computers are vulnerable. People who don't like us can exploit those vulnerabilities. But this is really just another arena of non-shooting conflict, all under cloak and dagger.
The CIA has a long history of trying this sort of thing, sometimes successfully, many times not. There's directly funding revolutionaries, slipping agents into countries, running guns, sponsoring assassination attempts, economic sabotage, infrastructure sabotage, spying with human intelligence, electronic intelligence, satellite intelligence, etc. The CIA has a history of over-promising and under-delivering but this doesn't mean they won't still try.
The Russians have traditionally been much better at running spy rings. The beauty of hacking is you don't even have to put your own assets in-country and risk their capture.
On one hand, I don't think we'll ever get to the point where it can be Die Hard 4 info-Armageddon with hackers blowing up power plants at will. I think that public screwups will force a higher level of security and more rigorous design so that we are less vulnerable to external attacks. On the other hand, the BP fuckup shows that reason and logic are poor tools for explaining the behavior of large organizations. BP should have taken drilling seriously. They should have realized that they had no good plans for capping an uncontrolled well so if they were going to drill, the only option would be making sure they would never, ever, ever have an uncontrolled well. All the internal warnings they had in the months leading up to the disaster should have been their opportunities to stop the disaster before it happened. And we can see how it turned out.
CyberWar/Law.... (Score:2)
I know that there can be an economic/legal impact, but CyberWar (I think) is used by businesses/C*Os to deflect legal responsibility and by governments to oppress public/citizens rights.
Yes there can be CyberWar, but CyberWar as a word/term can and (I think) is too frequently misused to fear-exploit and express faux-responsibility of the culpable and innocent.
I guess, I could be wrong, but... you cannot convince me (on this topic); So, BOOOWho?
Crap "article" (Score:2, Informative)
Printing up counterfeit currency during WW2 by the Germans to destabilize Britain's currency certainly was part of the war and pieces of paper certainly aren't weapons in the killing and blowing up of things. They certainly are weapons in the sense of destroying the economy. So from that point of view any cyber attacks which aid in destabilizing the economy could be part of a war and would be weapons.
As far as there being some sort of treaty to prevent this, that's probably the most stupid thing I have ev
Real War (Score:2)
Any action that weakens an economy or makes a resource more difficult top obtain can be an act of war. The perfect example is the deliberate destruction of oak trees that were normally used for barrels essential to Spain's military fleet. Without good oak barrels gun powder and food could not be kept at sea resulting in the destruction of the Spanish fleet.
Just as we can never be totally certain that the oil rig in the Gulf was not destroyed b
... in bed. (Score:4, Insightful)
Putting 'cyber' in front of something is just a way for people to grasp technical concepts
... in bed.
The analogies quickly break down, and are useless when taken too far
What are the "cyberwarfare" people talking about? (Score:2)
The article was interesting in discussing the use of nationalist youth groups, and suggesting that hackers may act in the same way.
I'm left wondering: if several national governments, including the US, and the UN, are devoting significant resources to the problem of "cyberwarfare," wouldn't one of these entities have detailed what they mean, exactly? I saw the point of the analogy of the bigger catapult to the bigger tunnel-sniffing dog, but what, then, are the cyberwarfare people actually proposing to do?
American cyberwarfare (Score:2, Interesting)
SunTzu: The Art of CyberWar (Score:2)
So, to summarize, the idea of nation states waging cyberwar (may be SunTzu, Ideal) with cyberweapons (DDOS, buffer overflow, worm, spoof/snoop, EMP...) is not fiction.
It's an analogy we might use to describe some things that are virtual/conceptual that can cripple military/government ability to respond to emergency/threat incidents that are not in cyberspace, which triggers an excessive misdirected reaction. It's not what really goes on in cyberspace, but if a small-degree of fire-sale is possible that woul
Keep the theme going . . . (Score:4, Funny)
No matter how ridiculous it sounds, we should do our best to keep up the whole "cyber-war", "cyber-weapons", "cyber-attack" theme.
That way, we can invoke the Second Amendment when the government tries to restrict strong encryption, copyright circumvention software or whatever other "cyber-weapons" they find threatening. Sorry Feds, you were the ones that started this whole theme about electronics and software being "weapons", and as such, you have no power to restrict the citizens from owning them.
This just in (Score:2)
The Atlantic things otherwise. (Score:2)
"When will China emerge as a military threat to the U.S.? In most respects the answer is: not anytime soon -- China doesn't even contemplate a time it might challenge America directly. But one significant threat already exists: cyberwar. Attacks -- not just from China but from Russia and elsewhere -- on America's electronic networks cost millions of dollars and could in the extreme cause the collapse of financial life, the halt of most manufacturing systems, and the evaporation of all the data and knowledge
Re:The only new thing is the UN (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They are all FBI Agents.
Re:The only new thing is the UN (Score:4, Funny)
Hmm... an incoherent, constantly squabbling group of people who spend more time fighting amongst themselves than getting their act together and working for the common goal, self absorbed and hardly in touch with reality, dreaming up pipe dreams of greatness while at the same time accomplishing nothing...
Call me a conspiration crackpot, but could it be that they're sitting in congress?
Everything will be internet connected. (Score:2)
And in a world where everything is connected, and everything is nanotechnology, and everything can be hacked, the dangerous are entirely different.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Elaida, is that you?!
Re: (Score:2)
don't forget.. (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They ARE thinking of the children... didn't you read the summary? Russia wants to give out "cyberwarfare arms limitation treats" to all the good little girls and boys who do their homework, listen to their parents, and most importantly do *not* start DDOS attacks or run password guessers against random hosts in the .mil domain.
What better way to make the world a peaceful place than to start with the children? Here's hoping they haven't fixed that typo by the time my comment hits!
Re: (Score:2)
We gotta do it before the cyberterrorists cybernuke our cybernets!
Think of the cyberfallout! Cybercancer, cyberbirthdefects...we better sink some cybermoney into our cyberdefences!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Think of the children!
I really don't want a visit from a partyvan.
Re:Cyber warfare: FUD for vendors. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're flat out incorrect here. First, not only can the power be shut off, but generators can be made to explode. Second, if you mess with the supply chain electronically, it's possible to do some really interesting stuff with medical supplies, parts for just in time manufacturing, etc. Could go on - but the overall effect is direct, substantial life threatening consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Disable the safetys and feed line power to a generator out of sync. It will blow up quite spectacularly. I saw this happen to a old Civil Defense 2000KW generator.... the safety systems failed and the generator kept drifting away from the line because the motor was trying like hell to turn at more than 60 cycles. the boom was heard for nearly 1/4 mile in every direction and is ripped open the Semi trailer like it was tinfoil.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They also run on their own closed-circuit network, so good luck causing trouble without physical access or making yourself pretty obvious digging up the cables.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They also run on their own closed-circuit network, so good luck causing trouble without physical access or making yourself pretty obvious digging up the cables.
Or find out that the closed-circuit network was not that close as you thought...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They also run on their own closed-circuit network, so good luck causing trouble without physical access or making yourself pretty obvious digging up the cables.
They also have fixed electromechanical failsafes. I think that most electrical engineers are sufficiently aware of the fact that computers go wrong not to put protection solely in the hands of software.
Re: (Score:2)
No they dont. Most of these idiots put the SCADA systems on the internet.
I know of two water filtration plants that the SCADA system is protected by "PC anywhere" they have a PC that bridges both the private network and the internet.. and it's a FRICKING WINDOWS PC running PC anywhere.
This is not uncommon. and usually due to complete idiots that make up the management of the operation wanting to dial in and monitor employees.
Re: (Score:2)
You're flat out incorrect here. First, not only can the power be shut off, but generators can be made to explode.
Not if they're designed correctly.
Which is why you need to buy latest, greatest, cyber-warfare-proof generator from Safe-Generators, Inc. Seek out your nearest vendor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cyber warfare: FUD for vendors. (Score:5, Insightful)
whatever they're afraid of is nothing like having a bullet penetrate someone or a bomb going off
I'm not confident that you fully understand the perceived danger on the part of world leaders. The issue is that people with an inordinately high ability to compromise computer systems might have access to information. Consider information like troop movements, secret bomb/nuclear supply facilities, infrastructure weak points, and financial information (account balances, passwords, etc). While compromising a system with this information may not kill somebody directly, the information could most certainly be used to kill many people, or perhaps to temporarily stunt or even cripple entire economies.
Re: (Score:2)
Troop movements, secret nuclear bombs, who gives a rats about cyber warfare, you just set the world up for global thermo nuclear warfare and your worried about PC security, too late already.
Cyber warfare is just the new money black hole to make up for the loss of the cold war.
Oh my, pull the plug, the war is over, is that really so hard. It is is mission critical and absolutely doesn't need to be connected to the internet, than don't connect it to the internet. If you running a system that lives depend
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Cyber warfare: FUD for vendors. (Score:4, Funny)
But that was just possible because the Soviets were stupid enough to use something that was created in the western world. We'd never be so stupid to use electronics made in... oh... umm... well...
Next question?
Re:Cyber warfare: FUD for vendors. (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe, but probably not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_pipeline_sabotage#Hoax.3F [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I was really hoping you were going to end that sentence with, "There's an app for that."
Re:Cyber warfare: FUD for vendors. (Score:4, Insightful)
Think: no mains power, the backup generators can only sustain so much equipment for so long. Since the fuel pumps don't function either, you can't hop down to the gas station to buy some more fuel, and it will eventually run out. Then what? Production grinds to a halt, administration is disabled, communication services non-functional.
All you need then is one act of terrorism. No ambulances, no firefighters, as nobody can call for help. If someone does make it to the hospital, no X-ray, no life-support, no vital monitors, no defibrillator.
And this is just one scenario. Use your imagination!
Re:Cyber warfare: FUD for vendors. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Please, knocking out the power grid or making all the red lights turn green or whatever they're afraid of is nothing like having a bullet penetrate someone or a bomb going off - it's almost impossible, if not impossible to kill someone by hacking into a computer."
What the hell are you doing on Slashdot?
Turn all the traffic lights green in even a small part of Los Angeles, and I think it's likely someone will die in an accident caused, proximately, by the hacking of the traffic control system. Simple enough.
Crippling a cell system might result in the failure of any number of people to make contact and deliver critical information, resulting in accidents, mistakes, lack of care, and those could result in needless deaths.
If your definition of 'warfare' must include deadly force, then much of what we think of as 'cyberwarfare' doesn't meet that definition. Emptying bank accounts, DDOS attacks, defacing websites, etc. probably don't quite rise to the definition of deadly force. But I have only the one example of traffic control. Oh, another one - disabling at least some of the electrical grid seems to be possible, and blackouts can easily result in deaths.
There's plenty of hype around 'cyberwarfare'. Now to listen to the hype around 'smart grids', and how people will feel when their refirgerators get turned off during the day, or the furnace runs continuously on 103 days. Or any number of interesting nuisances that aren't fatal (except for your plants, pets, and bed-ridden grandmother) but are sure a pain.
Oh yeah. Grandma. She might not think it's to hot until she's too faint to reach the phone.
Food for thought. Go smart grids, go!
Re: (Score:2)
dont need them to all go green. just turn them off. 99% of the population has no clue as to what to do when approaching a dead traffic light.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Any color will do. Yellow may be the most confusing of all...
they're cost-cutting meausures! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup.
So remember that the day they charge some 16 year old from Kentucky with high treason for having and deploying a Weapon Of Mass Destruction because his toy virus got loose and deleted every *.doc and *.xls file on windows computers across most of the globe.
Re: (Score:2)
War affects everyone, even when rules are put in place to limit it to uniformed combatants. Civilians back home lose loved ones, and suffer from redirection of resource
Re: (Score:2)
Please, knocking out the power grid or making all the red lights turn green or whatever they're afraid of is nothing like having a bullet penetrate someone or a bomb going off - it's almost impossible, if not impossible to kill someone by hacking into a computer.
Shut something life threatening down or screw it up by hacking into it? There's backup or work around.
"Cyber warfare" is a small threat and not worth all the time and money spent on it. We should be spending the effort on ground surveillance and other means to reducing life threatening issues.
Rome sowing the fields of Carthage with salt didn't directly kill anyone either, but it was still devastating and ruined chances for any meanigful growth or recovery. You do not have to kill anyone to do irreparable harm. Nor does an act of war always neccessarily have to involve killing.
Re: (Score:2)
offtopic is about the most retarded mod that could have had (for anyone that read the title anyway)