Cyberwarfare is now becoming increasingly serious business:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

In another illustration of how, given any sufficient length of time to develop any new technology, humans inevitably seek to develop its potential to harm others, especially other humans, cyberwarfare is becoming a topic not just for nerds but for US media as a whole. This all began with this:



http://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/automated-toolkits-named-massive-ddos-attacks-against-us-banks-100212

A string of DDOS attacks on US banks, by as I understand it still undetermined leaders of these attacks. These things failed, but the scale and depth of the attacks took US leaders by surprise. The USA, however, does adhere to a policy that it is more blessed to give than to receive, and is carrying out these attacks, and noting this publicly (either hubris or simple stupidity, depending on which you prefer to believe) against Iran.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/world/middleeast/obama-ordered-wave-of-cyberattacks-against-iran.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

So with these two incidents as a starting point, it's worth considering a new aspect of this. The USA is preparing, evidently, to inaugurate more sophisticated use of cyberwarfare, presumably on a much larger scale than is currently ongoing against Iran:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2012/1012/Pentagon-s-Plan-X-how-it-could-change-cyberwarfare

However in doing this, the Pentagon seems to have all the security and understanding of security in military terms of a sieve, as this article shows. What it shows is that the USA evidently is incapable of developing computer viruses and the like for this purpose without its authorship of them becoming known. Which in warfare is a really stupid move, as the concept of attacking an enemy ready and waiting for you makes only two people happy: the enemy and the local mortician.

The Pentagon's even noted its major target is, without any real surprise, China:

http://news.yahoo.com/u-cyber-warrior-accuses-china-targeting-pentagon-011916520.html

As to why this matters? This is a post to a site that's regularly had instances of downtime from DDOS attacks motivated by the eb and flow of politics in Russia, so the reason this matters is obvious: cyber warfare is going from inconvenience in some countries to a full-scale aspect of Internet use. This, coupled with things like the new attempts to impose new bills like the ones that produced that hue and outcry a while back and further attempts to break Internet neutrality means that the Internet may be unrecognizable in a few years from what it was.

If I had my druthers, I'd like to see an international treaty de-militarize the Internet in the same sense that space is de-militarized (even though the use of military satellites technically renders that treaty null and void), and enforced strongly. The Internet, whatever it is really for (it starts with p, ends with in, and has four letters), should not become the latest battleground for armies, as I see it. What do you think?

Comments

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Space isn't demilitarized.

It isn't a cost effective war zone to commit violence in & carries no war profiteering benefits.

Considering the united states government has long since been buying up software exploit code (http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/security/guess-whos-buying-zero-day-vulnerabilities/8005) and flame malware contains unknown collision attacks (http://arstechnica.com/security/2012/06/flame-crypto-breakthrough/) which must have required high level talent to develop. Considering the government was probably behind ddos attacks against wikileaks servers (http://news.softpedia.com/news/WikiLeaks-Taken-Down-by-DDOS-Attack-AntiLeaks-Takes-Credit-285771.shtml) given Julian Assange and wikileaks have been branded enemies of the state / terrorists (http://rt.com/news/assange-wikileaks-us-state-enemy-072/). And considering its its been shown that there is an existing market for surveillance for existing gadgets and services (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/01/julian_assange_surveillance/). And other things I won't go into.

Its way too late to talk about turning back the clock.

We're as likely to give up electronic surveillance and warfare as we are to give up nuclear weapons.

AKA - never.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

This isn't the same as giving up electronic warfare, that goes all the way back to substituting radio and coding machines for couriers and basic cyphers. This is about whether or not the free exchange of information should wind up being yet another pawn of states in warfare. Space is de-militarized officially by treaties signed by the Great Powers.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

A. Internet warfare is a form of electronic warfare.

Space is de-militarized officially by treaties signed by the Great Powers.

B. Cruel and unusual punishment is mandated by the geneva convention, this is why soldiers and intelligence agencies in the middle east waterboard prisoners.

Bottom line no one gives 2 schlepps about national law or treaties. The main reason for the lack of warfare in space is the fact that it is neither cost effective, feasible and there is so little to gain not a signature on a piece of paper.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

A) A form of, yes. Outlawing one portion of it is not akin to outlawing the whole thing. Scrapping Internet warfare would not mean destroying radar.

B) On the contrary, people do give a damn about them. Why do you think the USA has to use secret prisons and outsource torture to the Saudis and Pakistanis?

[terminator44.livejournal.com]

Bottom line no one gives 2 schlepps about national law or treaties.

Yes, because as we all know armies routinely use hollow-point rounds and biological weapons.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Depleted uranium rounds, white phosphorous, predator drone strikes against civilian targets inflicting civilian casualties, cruel and unusual punishment against detainees without oversight / regulation...

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Except that in the first case as far as I know, nobody's outlawed use of DU rounds, there are merely claims they poison people after use.

White phosphorous use certainly is one, but then nobody wanted the Bush Administration tried for these, and Israel can get away with anything and everything under the Sun.

Attacking civilians as a war crime is a global phenomenon, yes, but it's inherent to the principle of strategic bombing and targeting people in pastoral countries that have yet to fully urbanize. Is it just? No, but war itself is inherently unjust.

As far as abuse of detainees, the USA at least pulls the argument from the movement that shall not be named that since they aren't POWs, it isn't abusing POWs.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

1. DU Is a modern day equivalent of agent orange. When agent orange was released it was deemed "perfectly safe" with "no evidence" of negative health impact. There are relevent studies done on depleted uranium which conclude they are harmful but it will probably take decades before people are willing to accept it due to them being in denial. The fact of the matter is that it should be against international law as the secondary effects should classify it as a weapon of mass destruction.

2. Its against international law yet used anyway as international law doesn't mean squat. : D

3. Attacking civilians is against international law and treaties.

4. Abuse of detainees = also against international law / treaty.

...

Government apologists enjoy maintaining a belief governments are bound by laws and treaties and incapable of overstepping them as it enables them to sleep easier at night. They prefer to live in denial & pretend there's a subtle and overwhelmingly benevolent reason for everything their government does.

Considering the united states government is alleged to have broken every treaty that has ever been signed with native american indians, and considering the widespread and wholesale circumventing of international law which occurs on a normal basis. All evidence points to the contrary.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

This isn't the same as giving up electronic warfare

Bullshit.

The genie is already out of the bottle, those who do not maintain the capability to use and thus counter such tactics will be at the mercy of those who do.

Not only that, due to the low barrier of entry many private citizens and pretty much any orginazation with a little bit of time and money can join in the fun.

If governments don't embrace information warfare you can bet your ass other orginazations (I assume you've heard of "anonymous") will. The only way to prevent such a thing is to ban the internet and other forms of tele-communication and go back to couriers and basic cyphers.

Space is de-militarized officially by treaties signed by the Great Powers

Somebody should probably tell "the great powers"

The US and USSR may have had a mutual "I wont nuke you from orbit if you don't" (it's the only way to be sure) along with a "We promise to warn you before shooting down your manned spacecraft" treaty but pretty much every country in the world with an independant launch capability maintains military assets in space along with the capability to destroy/disable the assets of others should the need arise.

It's not that space is "de-militarized" it's that space is by nature a very loosey warzone to fight in. It is the most desperate of "desperate ground". As such it is not a very cost effective place to fight unless you're doing it for all the marbles.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And so? This ultimately applies to everything else in war as well. Like any genuine arms control treaty this would have to be mutual and mutually enforced, not applying only to one group. If that were the approach it'd be a ridiculous farce.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

It wont be enforced.

In fact it is impossible to enforce simply because the skills and materials required to participate can be obtained by any half way competant 16 year-old in an industrialized country.

I mean unless you plan to dismantle the internet and destroy all computers there's no real way that information warfare will not be a factor in future conflicts. (and even then I'd doubt it'd work, there'd probably some crazy silicon vally insurgency within a few hours)

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

If you re-read the statement I responded to, I said that limiting applications of this to the Internet does not abolish electronic warfare which is a much bigger, broader, and much older category that emerged with computers and long predated the Internet. A SALT for the Internet won't lead to smashing radar.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I don't see it that way.

What makes information warfare carried out over the internet different from any other form of information warfare?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Sigh, Google what electronic warfare means and get back to me. It's much more than information warfare.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

No shit, but you are still missing the point.

What is it that makes attacking an enemy's internet/computer networks somehow more reprehensible than jamming their radio transmissions, or shooting down carrier pigeons?

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

. . . those who do not maintain the capability to use and thus counter such tactics will be at the mercy of those who do.

"We must not allow a mine shaft gap!"

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Regrettably, yes. But it is, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.

[terminator44.livejournal.com]

Space is de-militarized officially by treaties signed by the Great Powers.

Incorrect. There are plenty of military satellites in space. It's important to note the difference between militarization and weaponization. Space is militarized. It is not weaponized, although there are anti-satellite weapons based from the ground and the U.S. has considered putting more in space.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The problem with targeting information-gathering satellites is that this kind of device could be dual use without any real means to counter that use. And given that these satellites can and do also serve purposes that aren't military and which really are beneficial, that part of things would have no ready solution.

[terminator44.livejournal.com]

I agree. I don't want to see space becoming a warzone. It will only impede peaceful exploration and research. There's no denying, however, that most major armies make use of space for many important tasks.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

p*in? Pain? I can think of a p**n that is the main reason for the internet :P

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Poon? Pone? Peen? Is the internet really a resource for harpoons, corn-like breads and specialty hammers?

I'm stumped.

As to Pain, there are some good BD/SM sights you might want to — oh, wait. Ah. Got it.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

It's hard for people to recognize and acknowledge an act of aggression if the body count stays at 0 - and knowing this only encourages more cyber attacks.

If it remains at Threat Level - Inconvenience, I don't see governments putting much effort into stopping it.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Pretty much.

Not that this is a bad thing either.

If rather than killing a bunch of people in a border skirmish nations start fucking with eachother's train schedules and payrolls I still think that's an overall win for humanity.

[terminator44.livejournal.com]

It's a mistake to see cyberwarfare as a mere inconvenience. Think of it this way: if a virus strikes the electrical grid and causes blackouts, that means hospitals don't get power, that means hospitals are without power, that means the economy grinds to a halt, and in some cases, it means riots. If these stations were bombed, it would be seen as an act of war, even if nobody was killed in the bombing itself. With so much of current society dependent on computers and the Internet, a computer virus has the potential to do more damage than any bomb, even a nuclear one.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

The issue of Chinese attacks reminds me of a remark one of our guys made when a major leak was discovered in a DoD computer network. He said it was actually great news for the Pentagon since they could now contract with Beijing or Moscow for backup services.

The DoD has a great program for hackers. When someone succeeds in hacking one of their systems, they make the hacker an offer that is difficult to refuse: a job hacking other systems for hundreds of dollars per hour. If the job does not prove enticing, three hots and a cot await as the alternative.

[terminator44.livejournal.com]

I'm glad somebody has made a post about this subject, as it's something I've been wanting to talk about for a while. I would have made a post myself, but I'm trying to finish college and don't have the time :(.

Really, this trend of cyberspace becoming a theater of war has been going on for years. Russia attacked the Georgian government's website in conjunction with operation in South Ossetia. What bothers me about the U.S. going on the offensive, so to speak, is that it isn't much more secure against these kind of attacks than Iran is. Pentagon's defense networks have been breached (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_cyberattack_on_United_States) with humiliating regularity. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon) They're getting more proactive with the creation of USCYBERCOM, but it's clear the U.S. isn't as dominant in this field as it is in physical warfare. I envision Stuxnet opening the floodgates for other nations and organizations to start furthering their own cyberweapons programs.

I don't believe it's possible to end this kind of warfare, but I do believe we can and should limit it. International rules governing the use of these weapons should be established, and cyberattacks on a nation's infrastructure should be treated like direct attacks. Otherwise, we might see the technologies we all depend on ravaged through petty national rivalries, potentially bringing suffering to millions. Civilized societies should strive to contain war, not allow it to threaten our prosperity or our future.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

It would be better to beef up the computer literacy of citizens in the free world. This would result in better opportunities for innovation, better productivity and job opportunities, as well providing a battle ready reserve in a future potential cyber war.