Cyber Warfare Now Official

[Count Bobulescu]

Not exactly Cyber Warfare but similar principles. Big debate going on in the US this week about a request by a government panel to “Science Magazines” to refrain from publishing the explicit detailed results of a government funded study into the mechanics of recreating a highly transmissible version of the “Asian Bird Flu Virus”. Fear is, “bad actors” could use the info to create havoc. Here are two pieces that ran Thursday.

Fifty minutes of Radio.

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/20...-public-safety

Ten minutes of TV.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/healt...flu_12-22.html

[C. Flower]

Not exactly Cyber Warfare but similar principles. Big debate going on in the US this week about a request by a government panel to “Science Magazines” to refrain from publishing the explicit detailed results of a government funded study into the mechanics of recreating a highly transmissible version of the “Asian Bird Flu Virus”. Fear is, “bad actors” could use the info to create havoc. Here are two pieces that ran Thursday.

Fifty minutes of Radio.

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/20...-public-safety

Ten minutes of TV.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/healt...flu_12-22.html

Oh boy. The sort of thing that one would normally dismiss as a conspiracy theorist's fantasy

It really needs a thread of its own: but what to call it ?

[musashi]

From today’s WSJ.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

[B]TOP TALKER - WSJ 4-col. lead, "China Hackers Hit U.S. Chamber: Attacks Breached Computer System of Business-Lobbying Group; Emails Stolen,"
.

They first watched the hackers in action to assess the operation. The intruders, in what appeared to be an effort to ensure continued access to the Chamber's systems, had built at least a half-dozen so-called back doors that allowed them to come and go as they pleased, one person familiar with the investigation said. They also built in mechanisms that would quietly communicate with computers in China every week or two, this person said.

The intruders used tools that allowed them to search for key words across a range of documents on the Chamber's network, including searches for financial and budget information...

The Chamber continues to see suspicious activity, they say. A thermostat at a town house the Chamber owns on Capitol Hill at one point was communicating with an Internet address in China, they say, and, in March, a printer used by Chamber executives spontaneously started printing pages with Chinese characters.

A sophisticated operation, vry cyber-cold-war.

[Count Bobulescu]

The Washington Post, "Pentagon to fast-track cyberweapons acquisition," by Ellen Nakashima: "The Pentagon is planning to dramatically speed up the development of new cyberweapons, giving it the ability in some cases to field weapons against specific targets in a matter of days. ... The rapid acquisition process is designed to respond to 'urgent, mission-critical' needs when the risk to operations and personnel is unacceptable if threats are not addressed quickly." http://wapo.st/HwliiK

[musashi]

The Washington Post, "Pentagon to fast-track cyberweapons acquisition," by Ellen Nakashima: "The Pentagon is planning to dramatically speed up the development of new cyberweapons, giving it the ability in some cases to field weapons against specific targets in a matter of days. ... The rapid acquisition process is designed to respond to 'urgent, mission-critical' needs when the risk to operations and personnel is unacceptable if threats are not addressed quickly." http://wapo.st/HwliiK

Herbert S. Lin, an expert on the subject at the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, said the Pentagon has recognized that “cyberweapons are fundamentally different” than conventional weapons in some key ways. “That can only be good news.”

“You can make a general-purpose fighter plane and it will function more or less the same in the Pacific as in the Atlantic,” Lin said. “The same is not true for going after a Russian cyber-target versus a Chinese target.”

Designers of cyberweapons need to know a target’s operating system, what patches have been made, when security updates were made and what switches it is connected to, he said. Even sophisticated cyberweapons can be rendered obsolete in weeks or months.

Well at least they're being straight up about their potential opponents/targets, RBN started off as your garden variety spammers before diversifying their skill-sets (the whole thing was very much a work in progress). It seems only natural that the US's offensive capability should evolve along the same lines.

[disability student]

Few weeks ago,I had to fix my friend's laptop which was riddled with worm 32blaster as it was difficult to remove it.

Eventually it was removed and wiped out at last. That virus was designed by russia mafia as it had caused havoc in lots of homes. What was more noticeable now was the virsuses are more deadlier than it was in the past.

Expect more viruses to be more disruptive and dangerous to our computer systems in the future.

[Count Bobulescu]

Cyberattack on Mideast energy firms among worst yet, Panetta says

The malware rendered permanently inoperable more than 30,000 computers at the Saudi Arabian state oil company Aramco .
( by Ellen Nakashima , The Washington Post)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...fe41a114-13db-


TOP STORY - "US defense chief says pre-emptive action possible over cyber threat," by Reuters' Phil Stewart : "The U.S. military could act pre-emptively if it detects an imminent threat of cyber attack, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on Thursday, urging stronger action to bolster America's defenses against such plots. In what was described by U.S. officials as the first major policy speech on cybersecurity by a defense secretary, Panetta lamented under-investment by America's private sector and political gridlock in Washington that he said stymied cybersecurity legislation. He said a presidential executive order was being considered 'while we wait for Congress to act.'

"Addressing a gathering of business leaders in New York, Panetta warned that unnamed foreign actors were targeting computer control systems that operate chemical, electricity and water plants and those that guide transportation. ... Aggressors could derail passenger trains, contaminate the water supply or shut down the power grid in much of the country, he said. Still, he cautioned the gathering of the Business Executives for National Security that although awareness of the threat in America's private sector had grown, 'the reality is that too few companies have invested in even basic cybersecurity.'" http://reut.rs/R32YPb

[fluffybiscuits]

Cyberattack on Mideast energy firms among worst yet, Panetta says



http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...fe41a114-13db-


TOP STORY - "US defense chief says pre-emptive action possible over cyber threat," by Reuters' Phil Stewart : "The U.S. military could act pre-emptively if it detects an imminent threat of cyber attack, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on Thursday, urging stronger action to bolster America's defenses against such plots. In what was described by U.S. officials as the first major policy speech on cybersecurity by a defense secretary, Panetta lamented under-investment by America's private sector and political gridlock in Washington that he said stymied cybersecurity legislation. He said a presidential executive order was being considered 'while we wait for Congress to act.'

"Addressing a gathering of business leaders in New York, Panetta warned that unnamed foreign actors were targeting computer control systems that operate chemical, electricity and water plants and those that guide transportation. ... Aggressors could derail passenger trains, contaminate the water supply or shut down the power grid in much of the country, he said. Still, he cautioned the gathering of the Business Executives for National Security that although awareness of the threat in America's private sector had grown, 'the reality is that too few companies have invested in even basic cybersecurity.'" http://reut.rs/R32YPb

Perhaps its not the Iranians they have to worry about or other terrorists but the French . The French were recently shown to be the biggest threat to US interests after Wikileaks showed that they were the country with the most fingers in most pies in terms of Industrial espionage (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_1...ing-in-europe/) . An attack on the water supply or train system is highly unlikely when you consider that stuxnet that brough down the Iranians left them scratching their heads so anything advanced is either likely to be domestic terrorism or industrial in nature looking for secrets.

Even China is reputed to have been looking at the industrial strength behind US companies and how they may gain a competitive advantage in industry. According to NBC there is rumours that US companies are being targetted at a high level.

http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/...s-economy?lite

“They could know what companies we're buying, how much. They could know where we saw our future product. They could know where we saw our profitability,” he said.

After the attack, Shields said he watched his company steadily lose business, while a competitor, Huawei, began to grow. Nortel went bankrupt in 2009, while Huawei has become one of the world’s premiere telecommunications companies. Shields said he believes Nortel went under as a result of spying by companies like Huawei.

Good old fashioned paranoia?...

[Count Bobulescu]

Perhaps its not the Iranians they have to worry about or other terrorists but the French . The French were recently shown to be the biggest threat to US interests after Wikileaks showed that they were the country with the most fingers in most pies in terms of Industrial espionage (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_1...ing-in-europe/) . An attack on the water supply or train system is highly unlikely when you consider that stuxnet that brough down the Iranians left them scratching their heads so anything advanced is either likely to be domestic terrorism or industrial in nature looking for secrets.

Even China is reputed to have been looking at the industrial strength behind US companies and how they may gain a competitive advantage in industry. According to NBC there is rumours that US companies are being targetted at a high level.

http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/...s-economy?lite



Good old fashioned paranoia?...

Fluffy, if you think concern about Huawei is just paranoia, would you care to explain why you think so?

Huawei has been on the front pages in the US almost everyday for the last couple of months. This past week both the Australian and Canadian governments also expressed concerns, and on Friday the UK government announced that it too would investigate.

Google Huawei, and you’ll get 195 million results.

Here’s an 8 minute clip of two interviews covering both sides of the issue. It’s far from clear which side has the moral high ground.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world...ei2_10-09.html

[fluffybiscuits]

Fluffy, if you think concern about Huawei is just paranoia, would you care to explain why you think so?

Huawei has been on the front pages in the US almost everyday for the last couple of months. This past week both the Australian and Canadian governments also expressed concerns, and on Friday the UK government announced that it too would investigate.

Google Huawei, and you’ll get 195 million results.

Here’s an 8 minute clip of two interviews covering both sides of the issue. It’s far from clear which side has the moral high ground.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world...ei2_10-09.html

Im just trying to see the issue from the flip side of the coin. What papers are reporting on the issues? The US is paranoid in general. The Patriot Act proves that...

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

I love the 'pre-emptive' bit used by Panetta. In other words 'we are going to use cyberwarfare tactics on other countries' systems because they might do so to us'.

Bloody lucky they didn't think about nuclear weapons the same way.

And I don't believe the US government at all when it tries to give the impression it is only now thinking about cyberwarfare.

They and the Israelis have been well at it for ages- Stuxnet being one example. The Americans even have a designated base for such operations in the US at one of their army bases and have done for some years. They remind me more and more of Soviet Russia in the 70's.

[fluffybiscuits]

I love the 'pre-emptive' bit used by Panetta. In other words 'we are going to use cyberwarfare tactics on other countries' systems because they might do so to us'.

Bloody lucky they didn't think about nuclear weapons the same way.

And I don't believe the US government at all when it tries to give the impression it is only now thinking about cyberwarfare.

They and the Israelis have been well at it for ages- Stuxnet being one example. The Americans even have a designated base for such operations in the US at one of their army bases and have done for some years. They remind me more and more of Soviet Russia in the 70's.

The US has always been about the strike at them before they strike us. Their best form of defence has always been offence, strike at them before they strike at us. General Keith Alexander prepared a report for the Dept of Defence in the US some years ago and the language used backs up my point to some degree.

"My own view is that the only way to counteract both criminal and espionage activity online is to be proactive. If the U.S. is taking a formal approach to this, then that has to be a good thing. The Chinese are viewed as the source of a great many attacks on western infrastructure and just recently, the U.S. electrical grid. If that is determined to be an organized attack, I would want to go and take down the source of those attacks. The only problem is that the Internet, by its very nature, has no borders and if the U.S. takes on the mantle of the world's police; that might not go down so well."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8033440.stm

Capn Con is correct, there is a special military operation for *ahem* preventing cybercrime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_..._Cyber_Command

[Count Bobulescu]

Im just trying to see the issue from the flip side of the coin. What papers are reporting on the issues? The US is paranoid in general. The Patriot Act proves that...

Fluffy, type Huawei into Google News and you’ll get 132,000 results.

Type Huawei or “Huawei technologies” into this WaPo search page and you’ll get 90 -110 results.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/newssearch/search.html

Type it into NYT and you get 41,000 results. Those are just some of the sources that have been reporting on the controversy.

http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/Huawei

[Count Bobulescu]

I love the 'pre-emptive' bit used by Panetta. In other words 'we are going to use cyberwarfare tactics on other countries' systems because they might do so to us'.

Bloody lucky they didn't think about nuclear weapons the same way.

And I don't believe the US government at all when it tries to give the impression it is only now thinking about cyberwarfare.

They and the Israelis have been well at it for ages- Stuxnet being one example. The Americans even have a designated base for such operations in the US at one of their army bases and have done for some years. They remind me more and more of Soviet Russia in the 70's

Cap’n if you look at the OP you’ll see I started the thread because Congress was officially recognizing cyber warfare by creating an explicit line item in the budget for it, albeit a classified amount. That is not to say there was not a pre-existing program, just that it wasn’t officially recognized for budgetary purposes. Congress was just officially recognizing what everyone long suspected/knew.

[fluffybiscuits]

Fluffy, type Huawei into Google News and you’ll get 132,000 results.

Type Huawei or “Huawei technologies” into this WaPo search page and you’ll get 90 -110 results.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/newssearch/search.html

Type it into NYT and you get 41,000 results. Those are just some of the sources that have been reporting on the controversy.

http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/Huawei

Lot of mention in there of breaking up of corporate relationships.Symantec Hyawei get mentioned a few times. Are the US not afraid more so that they may get a competitive edge rather than industrial espionage? There is a ban on exporting US technology isnt there?