Reply From: jeradonah lives <jeradonahat_private> >Think tank warns of cyberterrorist plots > >Research suggests that America needs to prepare for Net warfare. >December 18, 1998 >Web posted at: 10:00 PM EST >by Nancy Weil > >(IDG) -- Cyberterrorists are plotting all manner of heinous attacks ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ i had not recognized that law enforcement, consulting and security firms had been able to 1.) either read the minds of their potential adversaries or 2.) infiltrate "cyberterrorist" cells (yes, cells. after all, the internet makes the existence of a large-scale organization irrelevant to the nature of the task) in order to make these assertions. if it is the latter, i think it would be appropriate to publish more information as to the nature of the infiltration so that we can judge the credibility of these kinds of assertions... otoh, if they have merely detected the rantings of a few kids, i would suggest prudence, because all young envision how they would take over the world and history records very few of them actually doing so (alexander being the last one i can think of -- napoleon and hitler if you are western-centric)... >that if successful could "destabilize and eventually destroy targeted >states and societies," according to a gloomy new report from the >Center for Strategic and International Studies. this is an interesting report to come out of georgetown university. i am actually shocked at this. it shows how little high technology is understood by social "scientists." that should frighten us even more, given the respect that politicians and policy-makers have for such things... >Consider this: "Information warfare specialists at the Pentagon >estimate that a properly prepared and well-coordinated attack by fewer >than 30 computer virtuosos strategically located around the world, with >a budget of less than $10 million, could bring the United States to its >knees." yes, this assertion is taken directly from the testimony that l0pht gave before congress. no one seems to understand that by the time hackers achieve this level of virtuosity they have gained respect for not only the medium (the internet) and its users (even the stupid ones), but also a more sophisticated concept of right and wrong than is possible if one works with or for the government... >"Such a strategic attack, mounted by a cyberterrorist group ... would >shut down everything from electric power grids to air traffic control >centers. A combination of cyberweapons, poison gas, and even >nuclear devices could produce a global Waterloo for the United >States." this theoretical attack, which is the basis for the pentagon's current thinking in this area, seems to me to be the least likely cyber threat that the u.s. military would face. it would be just as easy to reconfigure the gps system so that, when activated, u.s. missiles would be one or more degrees off target, ships, planes, tanks and troops would have difficulty navigating, and yet generals would be confused as to why the trouble. furthermore, it would also be just as easy to delay or interrupt communications of voice and data, again circumventing the u.s. military's technological advantage. chaos, as a science, through the proper introduction of feedback loops and the use of several significant constants, could be used to wreck chaos among the technologically-dependent... indeed, it seems to me that, when other countries' military and research establishments have examined the u.s. military institution that they will opt not to duplicate the u.s. military's dependence upon technology (despite its performance in the gulf war), but to seek the ways to obviate it. this course would not only be _far_ less expensive, but it would also be possible. hackers can be found almost every where! >With that comforting thought in mind, the report notes, Cyberterrorists, >acting for rogue states or groups that have declared holy war against >the United States, are known to be plotting America's demise as a >superpower." hmmm, was i the only one who, after the initial reports of the modern equipment and technology used by bin Laden, was shocked by how old that equipment and technology turned out to be? again, this goes to intelligence: does someone have inside information on these so-called cyberterrorists or are we being asked to check our intelligence at the door? >The U.S. has no laws or regulations regarding when to launch a >cyberattack or counterattack in this new postnuclear age. quite frankly, this is another example of how people, stuck in their old newtonian mindset, simply don't get it. we are not trading one threat (nuclear) for another (the internet). we face both! indeed, we face both those as well as a chemical/biological threat. and no one seems to be able to get a grip on the true nature of the emergent threat(s) here. it is a fact that governments once retained sovereignty, and, in doing so, was able to control the intellectual and physical growth of the nuclear and chemical threat. until the past 25 years or so, the government was the primary employer (whether directly or indirectly) of almost anyone who had knowledge in these areas. but the training of scientists has exceeded the ability of governments to use them, the discipline has developed faster than the ability of governments to understand and/or incorporate it, and other institutions have found uses for people trained in this area outside of government control. moreover, the control of important materials has lapsed in the post-soviet era. it is not only conceivable the a private person, group or institution could put together its own atomic weapon based on the proliferation of knowledge and the lack of material control alone. for chemical weapons, the same principles apply, although the control problem is even greater. instead of control entities numbering in the tens for nuclear materials, with chemical materials those control entities number in the tens of thousands. and then there is the internet and the increasing reliance on computers for everyday life (as well as "national defense"). if knowledge has proliferated in the fields of nuclear and chemical science it has exploded in the computer "sciences." and the threat is great. the potential for damage, while perhaps not on the scale of the explosion of a nuclear device (or is it?), could level whole industries, commands and governments for days, weeks, perhaps even months. the fact is, sovereignty is being pushed down to the individual. this has profound consequences for governments and military organizations. but it also requires a re-evaluation of what constitutes a threat. is the proliferation of knowledge, the very thing that makes all three of these "threats" not only possible but perhaps even likely, a bad thing? because that is what must be halted if you begin to take these threats seriously. the emergent era has extended the old newtonian principles to a new (and startling) degree, and it is _open-source_. knowledge not only must be free, it is free. and it is also easily acquired. the threats are obvious. the solution is not so easy, at least not for those who wish to protect the status quo of an increasingly archaic era... >"Most political leaders are reluctant to face the fact that not only >are the traditional prerogatives of national sovereignty being challenged >by the Information Revolution but they are disappearing rapidly in >cyberspace," the report said. "The nineteenth-century model of an >independent state has become one of trappings rather than >substance." the sovereignty of the state has already disappeared. good riddance! -o- Subscribe: mail majordomoat_private with "subscribe isn". Today's ISN Sponsor: Internet Security Institute [www.isi-sec.com]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 13:15:20 PDT