'Legitimized' Cyberwar Opens Pandora's Box of Dirty Tricks 134
DillyTonto writes "U.S. officials have acknowledged playing a role in the development and deployment of Stuxnet, Duqu and other cyberweapons against Iran. The acknowledgement makes cyberattacks more legitimate as a tool of not-quite-lethal international diplomacy. It also legitimizes them as more-combative tools for political conflict over social issues, in the same way Tasers gave police less-than-lethal alternatives to shooting suspects and gave those who abuse their power something other than a club to hit a suspect with. Political parties and single-issue political organizations already use 'opposition research' to name-and-shame their opponents with real or exaggerated revelations from a checkered past, jerrymander districts to ensure their candidates a victory and vote-suppression or get-out-the-vote efforts to skew vote tallies. Imagine what they'll do with custom malware, the ability to DDOS an opponent's web site or redirect donations from an opponent's site to their own. Cyberweapons may give nations a way to attack enemies without killing anyone. They'll definitely give domestic political groups a whole new world of dirty tricks to play."
Well, Duh (Score:4, Insightful)
As if they didn't have them before?
acknowledged? (Score:4, Insightful)
Where exactly has this been officially acknowledged? The only thing we have is a story in the NYT with an anonymous source. I would not call that "acknowledged." I would call that rumor.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Another nail in the coffin (Score:5, Insightful)
I grew up believing in the US as a beacon for freedom and fairness. Okay, so it was the 60's and 70's and given what was going down in South America it was probably all a lie then.
Thing is, just recently the US stated that they view a cyber attack as an act of war. Given how targeted Stuxnet was, by this admission they have clearly stated that it is okay for the US to commit an act of war on Iran, a country that has no history of aggression (although plenty of rhetoric, but that is not uncommon for the region).
How would you US citizens feel if you were on the receiving end of Predator drones, cyber attacks and Shock and Awe?
Hypocrisy. The very worst of human traits.
Re:The start of a new arms race (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm. This requires 30 seconds of thought.
The US loves the idea of using drones inside its own borders.
The US loves the idea of equipping drones with very fast, explosive missiles.
The US will, in time, find a way to patrol the interior with drones equipped with very fast, explosive missiles.
The US will come under a terrorist attack from its own weapon systems.
Reasoning -> I am fairly certain that a swarm of drones can have its firmware corrupted to follow orders from a non-legitimate source. I am also fairly certain that Hellfire missiles or some other ordinance likely to be equipped on said drones has enough destructive capacity to take out civilian aircraft, train bridges, or even make it inside the defensive perimeter of the White House.
One need only think what a dozen drones, equipped with air-to-air, could achieve if someone compromised them, and flew them to a nearby major airport, with programming to lock onto various targets. Assuming 2 missiles per drone, and 100% accuracy of unique targets, that comes out to 12 747s (which are not equipped with EM counter-measures) dropping out of the sky.
Assuming air-to-land ordinance, any bridge (train or otherwise) would make a fair target. Take out enough structural supports, and the deaths could be in the hundreds. This is, of course, assuming classical thinking. If we move off of that, than any skyscraper, chemical plant, etc. could become a target. This is, of course, assuming we are going for the most visibly destructive targets.
Assuming air-to-sea ordinance, any large tanker or cruise ship becomes a target.
As I recommended before, immediate termination of the drone programs would be in the best interest of the sane.
Re:Another nail in the coffin (Score:5, Insightful)
Having attended a number of security conferences recently where cyber attacks on infrastructure (which is what Stuxnet was) were discussed in detail, I can't share you 'unconcerned'. You start putting viruses in industrial processing equipment and you could end up with a Fukishima or Bhopal. One attack I have seen demonstrated involved a virus being injected via the wireless connections on control vales in a oil refinery, and then hopping across 16 bit processors and RS232 connections. I didn't follow the whole thing, but the PHD guys that demonstrated it were pretty convincing. Hey presto, hacker just got control of your oil refinery.
Thing is, the "bad guys" have PHD propeller heads too. In fact, depending on which countries you regard as bad guys, they may well have more than you. A world where this sort of thing (and extra judicial murders via drone strikes come to that) is normal is not a world that I am comfortable with.
Re:Another nail in the coffin (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, so it was the 60's and 70's and given what was going down in South America it was probably all a lie then.
South America? How about right here in the United States? In the 1960s, the FBI was investigating people who dared to take a stand for their own civil rights, looking for ways to discredit them. It was illegal for two men to dance with each other in some states in the 1960s. In the 1970s, the executive branch of government gained the power to dictate some of the laws it is charged with enforcing. The 1970s saw the rise of paramilitary police across the country -- cops who would easily be mistaken for soldiers if their helmets and body armor was not clearly labeled "POLICE."
How would you US citizens feel if you were on the receiving end of Predator drones, cyber attacks and Shock and Awe?
As opposed to having our homes invaded by men with assault rifles, who shoot our dogs and kill, injure, and terrorize innocent people? I think you need to take another look at what is happening in the United States. We already have the largest prison population on Earth, heavily militarized law enforcement organizations that double as intelligence agencies, and a president who signed into law a bill that allows people to be detained indefinitely without trial, and who has ordered the assassination of US citizens.
So what hypocrisy were you referring to? I think we are doing a fine job of spreading our "democracy."
Re:Can't keep a secret? WFT? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe I'm still too young and naive, but this idea seems more of a way for bad actions to be perpetrated by people claiming to be the good guys (which again 'good guys' is subjective). I understand secrecy during an operation, but the objective good guys should be able to own up to their deeds. If the intelligence organizations can't stand behind their deeds, then they deserve the disgust they have earned.
"Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools, that don't have brains enough to be honest."
- Benjamin Franklin
As an American (I'm looking at you too Russia), I can't help but feel more and more responsible for tragedies in the present day. Most of the places lashing out (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Mexico, and South America) were armed and encouraged to fight by the US. Now the US is trying to put down it's 'dogs' of war.
It would be simple matter, except these 'dogs' are nations like us. What gives us the right?
Re:Another nail in the coffin (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget to thank a veteran.
Note: No I'm not criticizing the US military, or veterans. I'm a veteran. My point is that military forces do not provide "freedom", that must come from internal political and judicial processes, which must in turn arise from the desires and actions of the citizenry at large. Military forces just make it possible for us to do whatever we're going to do free of external coercion. What we choose to do, though, can go either way.
Sorry for the semi-OT post. It just struck a chord, in light of the recent holiday and the flurry of "thank a veteran" messages it always spawns.