Cyber-warfare: prelude to an arms race?

I am just curious what everyone's thoughts are on the US Military's offensive cyber warfare programs are?

The problem as I see it is that this blend of cyber/infrastructure/psychological warfare is really only most effective against first world nations. Seriously now, is Afghanistan really going to care if we bankrupt their currency and kill the national power and telecommunications systems? Of course not... what currency? What systems?

This program is directed (actively mind you) at the EU, Canada, Australia, Japan, China, (not Israel of course, heh) etc.

Do you think this will start a new arms race or are we in one already?

cheers,

catch

Hi catch,

Cyberwarfare

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:u...ient=firefox-a
CRS Report for Congress

President Bush secretly signed an order last July directing administration officials to develop the parameters for possible cyber-attacks against enemy computer networks

http://boston.internet.com/news/article.php/1580981
Report: Bush Considering Cyber Warfare

N. Korea suspected of training hackers

http://www.zone-h.com/en/news/read/id=2866/
Zone-H.org * News

The American military is waging cyber warfare upon dissident websites. Please sign the petition calling for an investigation.

To: U.S. Congress

http://www.ntimc.org/newswire.php?st...lts_offset=270
Petition Calling For The Investigation Of Cyber Warfare By The Pentagon Against American Citizens an - National Freedom and Rights - North Texas IMC

Eg ;)

Over the past 5 years I have seen several articles (sorry I don't have any links on this machine) regarding the cyber warfare programmes of China, Taiwan and North Korea.

I would therefore suggest that this is more in the nature of an American response than an American initiative.

just my £0.02

Nihil:

There is no evidence those nations have such programs, beyond the fact that such a story will sell papers. ;)

None of those nations have the capacity to develop the type of cyber-warfare the US is. A few programmers knowing about the IIS unicode flaw is not like the US program which includes:

Selected from BAA-AIA-02-0002:

Quote:

---

• Counterintelligence
• Computer Network Attack
• Electronic Warfare
• Military Deception
• Physical Attack
• Public Affairs Operations
• Psychological Operations

---

Of the nations you mention, only Taiwan is an ally (of sorts), how will France/ UK/ Russia/ India/ Germany/ Australia/ etc react when they discover what the US is doing?

cheers,

catch

Catch,

I take your point about evidence...........very difficult from some countries, but the "leaks" and what would be a logical move from them is moderately persuasive.... yes I take your allusion to "media hype" seriously ;) Hey, on Saturday the largest selling UK newspaper (about 5.5 million copies) had a half-page article on a 32" chicken....... and I will swear that on a stack of bibles:)

I do not think that the US is doing anything that is not already being done by many countries.......OK, maybe the scale/investment level is different? but if an OECD country that relies very heavily on IT technology is not looking in this direction, I would be most surprised.

I, on the other hand would not go this way.............a 100 megaton nuke detonated at 83 miles above your country will wipe out your computers, hair dryers, wrist watches, microwave ovens.......... not the kind of scenario that gets a political party re-elected?

"If in doubt, go for the engineering solution"

Anyways, why would my friend Mr. Bush want to do that to me.............it would be a bloody good excuse for not paying bills?. "the computer is down"? :D

To summarise my ramblings........... if I can trust the USA with thermonuclear devices, I can probably trust them with computers?

just a few thoughts?

EDIT:

Chuck in a couple of World Wars for historical perspective?

This might enlighten some areas of Nation involvement...

http://www.tecsoc.org/natsec/focuscyberwar.htm
Special Focus on Cyberwarfare - The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

For reference:

Quote:

---

Nihil:

There is no evidence those nations have such programs, beyond the fact that such a story will sell papers.

---

Remember, you asked our OPINIONS.

Opinions don’t have to necessarily be based just on facts, but can include experiences, biases, etc.

For example, I have played with my firewall logs for years and have researched where attacks came from and what they were looking for ( what ports, etc. ) Although I did not save those logs, as my memory serves, there were definite correlations between what I was seeing in firewall logs and what was being reported later in the press. But since I did not save those logs, there is no evidence to back it up. But it is my expierence. ( like, I believe I mentioned before, why I joined AO ... After lurking for years I saw a post about strange port attacks. After researching found they were targeting specifically various utilities, panicked, thought the CIA would be after me if I posted those findings so never did. Do you remember the computer related blackout in the US which came later ? How about similar incidents in other countries ? )

Anyway, my point is I believe that there are countless countries, rebels, etc. that have similar plans. And I don’t think this is a surprise to most. Although crippling a nations currency could be one method used in cyber-warefare, it is not the only way, just another means to create chaos.

The more technology oriented the nation is, the more avenues are available for cyber-attack. But that does not mean a third-world nation is immune, unless they are still using the length of your forearm to measure a yard. They still have banks, communication, etc. It is just how much will it effect the populous of the nation versus the infrastructure.

I think it is up to the Geeks of the world to prevent the war mongers of the world from using the Internet to their advantage despite the demands and expectations of the masses. To do so it is necessary to properly secure, and make known insecurities so they will be patched, and any and everything that can be accessed in any way publically, in any way, and make public information regarding those who prevent this.

Damn, I sound like a liberal here! Better get back to my wine.

Hey IKnowNot ,

I could bring witnesses to my argument that cyber warefare would transcend nuclear warfare from almost 10 years ago?

Hell, who wants to inherit a nuclear wasteland?.............with cyberwarefare it is just reformat and re-install?
:D

Quote:

---

Remember, you asked our OPINIONS

---

I asked for opinions regarding the subject of a first world cyber-warfare arms race, not if other nations have been doing this first. While the input is welcome, it needs to be held for what it is, hearsay.

No one really seems to be addressing the issue here, yes other nations may have had cyber-warfare programs before the US. Yes it is important to defend against said programs... the question I am asking:

With the US entering this arena on such a large scale and with the US preparing (scanning, mapping, indexing) for such a war against primarily first world nations most of whom (at least pre-bush) are American allies, do you see an arms war in sight?

This isn't just defacing whitehouse.gov, this is taking down telecom and power grids, through use of computers, physical espionage, and perhaps special service infiltration. (yes some of these tactics are older) This is incapacitating civil defense systems to allow first strike victory scenarios. Way beyond the capacities of the US's current enemy list.

Don't get me wrong, all the rest of this subject is interesting, but it is so broad that I don't think a conversation in this medium can be useful unless it is rather myopically focused.

cheers,

catch

Catch,

100 megatons..............83 miles...... I assume that you are a realist, and are aware of the fact that anyone with nukes has them aimed at others so equipped?

This is not a first world/second world/third world thing.............this is reality...we have nukes pointed at you, just as you do at us :D

I think that the main issue is that just like thermonuclear warfare, it will kick off in the second world first.

I realise I have invented a new classification with "second world".............these are the "wannabees" like iran, syria and so on (when you scum get to be first world, I will capitalise your names :cool: )

You still seem to be clinging to that pathetic "fortress America" attitude? I guess people like you will never get over the reality of 9/11?.......................you see Europe is the financial centre of the World, NOT America :D

If America cannot trade, it will die..................

The most powerful nuclear device ever detonated was not even 60megatons. The vast majority of the US nuclear arsonal is 0.1-0.25 megaton devices, any more than that offers too little return on investment.

...and what does all of this have to do with cyber-warfare? It is off topic and moot.

Next you go off on economic issues? What are you talking about?

Fortess America? 9/11? Are we involved in the same conversation?

Econmic powers?

How can you take such a straight forward topic like "one country develops a weapon systems that is basically focused against their allies, do you think they will respond in kind?" and run upside-down-leftwise-right with it?

Trade? Seriously... try to stay focused or perhaps start your own thread detailing your manifesto.

catch

edited to add:
And just FYI: The combined economies of EU countries are relatively equal to the U.S. economy -- $11.0 trillion purchasing power parity gross domestic product for both the EU and the United States. The EU population of 456 million, however, significantly exceeds the U.S. population of 293 million.

Same funds, more people = poorer.

Catch,

I do not believe that these weapons are country specific? I could be wrong there? so why should we worry about your thermonuclear powered vessels when we are allies? The same should be true of cyber warfare?

I say old chap..........a little quiz for you: who is fighting next to the USA in Iraq?

1. France
2. Germany
3. Israel
4. Guatemala
5. United Kingdom

I am looking at the bigger picture.................

Nihil... we appear to have had a misunderstanding.

Quote:

---

I do not believe that these weapons are country specific

---

These are very nation specific. The target country is mapped and weak points are indexed with a real time database for the current, least costly manner of breaking the weak point.
Each nation has a map (still in progress mind you) until eventually the whole world outside the US is indexed. Normally this wouldn't be an issue as conventional weapon systems are nearly equally useful against all nations. This system however presents are very large threat (high effectiveness) to Europe, Australia, much of Asia... and very little threat (low effectiveness) against the US's current enemies list.

So why is the US developing it? As a "just in case" for the future, and my question is, will those just in cased nations respond in kind? Preparing a specific anti-US cyber-warfare procedure?

Would you be saying the same thing if the US had developed a biological weapon that specifically killed English people? A generic biological weapon is one thing, but I think such a focused weapon would have you asking questions. ;)

cheers,

catch

The problem is with the wording of the pole.

Quote:

---

Cyber-warfare: prelude to an arms race?

---

“ Arms race “ or “ offensive cyber-warfare program ”?
Two different things and reacted to differently ( at least by the sane I would hope. )

Hi Catch,

Call me stupid, I happen to trust Americans...............ok the judgement may be out a bit? :D

Anyways, you know about my RISC system?

:D

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by IKnowNot
The problem is with the wording of the pole.
“ Arms race “ or “ offensive cyber-warfare program ”?
Two different things and reacted to differently ( at least by the sane I would hope. )

---

Both, a continued effort on all sides to develop better and more advanced offensive and defensive cyber-warfare systems. ;)

cheers,

catch

Hey, Catch.....................don't worry about your guys coming after us.....................maybe I will take a vacation, and come looking for you with a .308 Win or a lite .50............... :p

Anyone want to join the "A TEAM" ?

:D

I'm not worried about that... I'm worried that as my home country continues to find new ways to burn bridges that I might find myself stuck here.

Anyone know of any open Information Security Officer roles within a financial services in Switzerland? ;)

cheers,

catch

Hey Catch................You can always come here and live on lobsters, crabs, cod , salmon.....and stuff like that :D I have plenty of room.........

And don't be so bloody paranoid! my mate George will not attack Europe without my written permission..........

Have a nice Easter..................that is a direct order!

:D :p

there's a big differance between having the ability to do something and actually doing it. if there's even the remotest chance of 'cyber warfare' i would like our country to be the best at it.

We don’t have "proof" of allot of things that happen but fortunately this isn’t in a court of law. i for one think that there is a pretty good chance that our "friends" in SE Asia, china, russia and other places are training for it. hell i wouldn't be at all surprised if the UK and others that are our allies are preparing for it...they'd be 'not very bright' if they didn't.

maybe a cyber arms race will do for internet security what the arms race during the cold war did for science and technology. forced or not competition bring advances.

How difficult is it to take generic cyber warfare tools and aim them in this
direction or that? Probably easier than changing targets of physical weapons.
It is commonly assumed that we have contingency plans for invasions, nuke attacks, etc.
aimed at various places, yes, even friends and allies.
Why would analogous cyber warfare contingency plans be any more alarming?

There will be a cyber arms race, but I doubt if anyone considers it a new
policy, or a violation of trust with allies and friends.
After all, allies have always spied on one another. We can assume that they
also have contingency plans to attack one another.

I sense a subtle dig at Bush here, as though he is recklessly offending
allies by starting a "hacking contest" with them.


Think of it as a computer security "war game". The result of cyber warfare research
will be the identification and mitigation of vulnerabilities that have been there
all along. You can't stop progress. For some people, progress is defined
as discovering new ways to crash systems.
:cool:

Quote:

---

How difficult is it to take generic cyber warfare tools and aim them in this
direction or that?

---

Actually it is very difficult if not outright impractical.

The majority of the cyber-warfare system is real time monitoring of an initial infrastructure map. It may take months or years to find the most efficent weak points in a given system.

This monitoring and detection consists of active, covert invasion and investigation of other nations' systems. That is the whole value of a cyber-warfare program, the planning is already done all the prep work is in place, this gives the system tremendous speed, faster than any other offensive manuver in fact.

None of this exactly justifies an arms race, but still things happen.

cheers,

catch

I believe we are rather busy right now just trying to understand/mitigate our own vulnerabilities. As I read the papers, the most recent East Coast blackout wasn't caused by hackers, but could have been if the utilities incompetence hadn't caught up with them first. Recent grades issued for US cabinet agencies in cyber security were embarrasing to a number of top officials. Whatever their staffs may have thought they were doing, you can believe they are now trying to raise their Fs and Ds to a level more in keeping with their bosses' self image.

I assert that our side of the arms race is on at least tempory hold while reputations are repaired.

Quote:

---

I assert that our side of the arms race is on at least tempory hold while reputations are repaired.

---

The US has long been a believer that the best defense is a good offense. Offensive programs are still actively being worked on. The contracts were awarded in lat 2001 and run through late 2006 as of this moment. Who knows what'll happen after that, I've since changed industries.

cheers,

catch

I think the biggest danger from one of these type of programs, is the possibility of one of the "hackers" using what s/he has been taught to take a pop at their employer (America) through vulnerabilities they learnt about/discovered while in these programs that have not been patched yet.
Correct me if I am very wrong, but many of the things these people will be doing will be possible with freely available open source tools. If one of them decides he doesn't agree with America's cause, then how hard would it be to abuse the knowledge that the US Government have given him?
The other question is how hard are these people to bribe/convert to your cause?
I have no problems trusting the US Government with these sort of programs, just when the participents are able to recreate the possible outcome alone that I worry.

Most of you probably think I am completly wrong, but that is just my opinion.

Quote:

---

None of those nations have the capacity to develop the type of cyber-warfare the US is.

---

I disagree, I think our actions are a reactiion to their outpacing us. A defensive maneuver to cover lost ground.

Show me a foreign cyber-war team that knows how to compromise a SecureOS, SMG, or STOP system... and I'll show you the US's plans for the moon bomb.

Foreign teams are likely just versed at reading bugtraq and applying that to corporate America. Nothing compared to the US system involving electronic warfare and physical attack.

Only a first world nation could pull together comparable resources... as this goes way beyond knowing how to use nMap.

cheers,

catch

Catch...show me a US cyber-war team that knows how to compromise a SecureOS, SMG, or STOP systems. all we have is rumors from news sites and a presidential order to develop one.

if we're allowed to make projections based upon news 'leaks' and hear say then china, russia, etc. have these teams too, unless you believe that the folks in these countrys are not as intelligent as we are. saying all they are capable of doing is reading bug-track is a pretty big assumption. this kind of thinking allowed 911 to happen...the far superior americans.

BTW the biggest atomic blast was a 250 Megaton Hydrogen bomb detonated above ground in syberia in the mid 1950's by the USSR. the fallout circled the earth three times. Mothers were urged not to breast feed their babies and not to allow their children to eat snow that winter.

Do I smell Tom Clancy?


Since wars are controlled by technology, it would make sense to interupt command and control of either enemy, regardless of who or what circumstance would start hostile action. The US has had a formalized "cyber warfare" unit since the mid 90s.

Wow...

Quote:

---

BTW the biggest atomic blast was a 250 Megaton Hydrogen bomb detonated above ground in syberia in the mid 1950's by the USSR. the fallout circled the earth three times. Mothers were urged not to breast feed their babies and not to allow their children to eat snow that winter.

---

"the so-called Czar-Bomb of 1961, the most powerful device ever exploded on Earth."
- http://www.aip.org/history/sakharov/hbomb.htm (American Institute of Physics)

"Soviet footage of the test of the largest hydrogen bomb ever tested (the 50 Mt Tsar Bomba)"
- http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/VCE.html

"Tsar Bomba device: 50 Mt — USSR, largest yield explosive device ever"
- http://www.answers.com/topic/nuclear-weapon

Answers.com even has a special section on it:
http://www.answers.com/topic/tsar-bomba

"the largest nuclear explosive device in history" & "It was a fusion bomb with a yield of ~50 megatons"

Next...

Quote:

---

all we have is rumors from news sites and a presidential order to develop one.

---

Quote:

---

The US has had a formalized "cyber warfare" unit since the mid 90s.

---

Look up BAA AIA-04-002. (I've already mentioned this announcement in this thread.)

Look at what it is and when it was solicited.

cheers,

catch

Talk about throwing a haymaker! Jesus-H-Christ, 250-Mt device lighting up anywhere near the ocean would start a spontaneous fusion reaction in the hydrogen of the seawater because of the extreme pressures and temperatures from the reaction. :airoff:

I know you were the System Architect and wrote some white papers for the BAAs/AIA-02-0002 BAA-AIA-02-0002.pdf , so you probably know way more about it and what countries should be tweaking, so I'll take your word here. After 9-11 the US went into a DEFCON 5 mindset I don't think we'll ever get out of. If it gets bad over here, I'll go into an early retirement, move my genetics back to Derbyshire, study to become a botanist at Florida State University (London) and make the hardest decision of my life. What strains of Indica/Ruderalis do I want to develop this year? And sit on my three trust funds for life, moving back and forth to Norway and Sweden visiting the towns where my ancestors lived. Sometimes you just gotta come back home! I can see the concern here.

"TEH PROPHESY HAS BEEN FULFILLED AND WE ARE IN AN AGE OF SUPERNOVAS FOR SURE" ~ JEFF K

Quote:

---

Show me a foreign cyber-war team that knows how to compromise a SecureOS, SMG, or STOP system... and I'll show you the US's plans for the moon bomb.

Foreign teams are likely just versed at reading bugtraq and applying that to corporate America. Nothing compared to the US system involving electronic warfare and physical attack.

---

I can not say what anyone knows or does not know. But here is what I know:

When I was being trained in the military on repair of communications and guidance systems aboard military aircraft the government had foreign military personnel training right along side of me. To name one country that sticks in my mind was Iran . They learned everything we did, everything about our systems. Although they may not have been allowed to purchase the aircraft with the same equipment installed, their technicians learned as we did.

How do you classify this country ( Iran )? Although this information is outdated ( by about 30 years ) how prevalent are these practices today? And to what extent?

My point is, how many foreign personnel has our military trained in computer and communication systems, not to mention the “ higher educational” systems?

I don’t know the answer to this, but my gut feeling is that the “ Diplomats” have had their hand in there somewhere.

Quote:

---

Look up BAA AIA-04-002. (I've already mentioned this announcement in this thread.)

---

You made it sound like Bush came up with this as a new "thing" all by himself. ;)

Quote:

---

You made it sound like Bush came up with this as a new "thing" all by himself.

---

I'll refrain from discussing Bush's decision making capabilities. ;)

cheers,

catch