| ||
Wed 2024-11-20
Tue 2024-11-19
Mon 2024-11-18
Sun 2024-11-17
Love, Acceptance, and Screeching Modems Sat 2024-11-16
Fri 2024-11-15
Search
Archives
2023
12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
One good site
MDN
Nelson Minar
Blog licensed under a Creative Commons License
|
The US military is on the Internet march. Obama said
of two new military appointments "Between them they bring deep
experience in virtually every domain ... Land, air, space, sea and
cyber." Also today the
WSJ reports "The Pentagon has concluded that computer sabotage
coming from another country can constitute an act of war, a finding that
for the first time opens the door for the U.S. to respond using
traditional military force."
I used to think "cyberwarfare" was an inflated threat. But in the past couple of years my thinking has reversed. Stuxnet was a big deal, presumably a deliberate act of cyberwarfare by the US and Israel against Iran. China's hacking of Google was also a big deal; aimed at individual activists, not nations, but still important. The recent attacks against RSA SecurID and now Lockheed Martin are troubling. We're beyond script kiddies stealing some Warcraft accounts, this is focussed espionage against the US military. One of the problems with cyberwarfare is it's not clear how to apply international law. What is "proportionate response" to a network break-in that disables a radar installation? How do you even identify an attacker when the attack was a virus that was planted six months ago on USB sticks? These statements says the Pentagon is moving to take these questions seriously. It's about time.
This blog post was inspired by this
Metafilter discussion
|
|
