Pentagon to attack #Anonymous, hellfires?
You hack, we shoot: Pentagon discusses armed counterstrikes to cyberattacks
Lawmakers and some Pentagon officials argue that the US should shift cyberdefense from 'How to build the next best firewall' to an offensive message: Those who attack US computers risk 'land-based attack'.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2011/0721/You-hack-we-shoot-Pentagon-discusses-armed-counterstrikes-to-cyberattacks?cmpid=tweet_count
Shows basic lack of understanding of WWW.
Anonymous or Lulzsec hacked NATO maybe
still have a back door.
And it seems they can't track them, how they
gona bomb or invade them?
Its just embarrassing.
Lulzsec had "fuckFBImondays"
and they have managed to arrest some
of the hangars on.
We set up cloaked encrypted connections
for informants that can't be traced or hacked.
Lulzsec has provided proof of concept.
They have a twitter account they post to,
and remain at large.
Hackers penetrate networks daily, and don't
leave a trace, or leave false trails.
And get away with it daily.
There is no way to be secure on the WWW.
Some people get confused by these two issues.
While you can remain anonymous you can't
protect a network.
You can wear a mask, but you can't lock the
house.
NSA can penetrate any network, but can't
track good hackers.
To catch them they have to make a mistake.
And you have to be there to catch it.
US isn't going to attack anyone for hacking.
Currently the technology isn't there.
There are traps, which we use, but it seems
no one else has.
The paradigm is developing into a business
model where one can hire the technology to
penetrate anyone, all networks are in effect
naked. And the hackers can't be tracked.
So all the doors can be opened, and the thiefs
are invisible, untraceable.
Unless a counter measure is developed the
WWW is in for a very tough time.
The Government has ended privacy in the
pursuit of terrorist, and Lulzsec has demonstrated
they can violate Corporate security almost at will.
Some claim Lulzsec aren't real hackers and just
picking low hanging fruit.
Then I would point out the penetration of NSA,
DOD, google and 4o other big corps by foreign
hackers.
And the problems the FBI has with bank hacking,
Bank losses are now the highest in all history.
The Gov does need an offensive cyber force to pursue
hackers in real time bust/penetrate VPN's and proxys track over
and around them while the hack is occuring.
We think Google did this when they were attacked,
and we have seen some evidence Facebook has the
same capability.
But US is not going to invade a country because of
hackers but that isn't to say they wouldn't dispatch
a wet team covertly to dispatch hackers. Depending
on what they hack.
US does need a deterrent, invasions isn't it.
Wet teams might be.
There is a middle ground, short of DDos, but taking them off the WWW.
In a orderly fashion.
http://warintel.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-us-cyber-offensive-paradigm.html
Dancho Danchev has excellent article on this exact subject.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/should-a-targeted-country-strike-back-at-the-cyber-attackers/6194#comments
Gerald
War Anthropologist
.
Labels: NATO, Pentagon cyberwar
posted by gerald at
7/24/2011 08:32:00 PM
READ MORE
READ OR SUBSCRIBE, Our WAR OSINT on Twitter
Tweet
4 Comments:
Do you think the US thinks differently in how it would respond to a states sponsored hacking as opposed to a group like anon? Do you think there should be different responses based on the type of group responsible?
Very good point:
There is a middle ground, short of DDos, but taking them off the WWW.
In a orderly fashion.
http://warintel.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-us-cyber-offensive-paradigm.html
Anonymous is a hard case, some good some bad. Leave it to LE.G
NOt about who they are but what they do.
Cyber attack that kills, taking a elect grid down results in death= wet team.
Harassment, theft= Law Enforcement.
G
^^ good distinctions. Maybe a 3rd would be state sponsored attacks that target defense industry contractors or major corporations. Not sure wet team would be a good response but legal action would be near impossible.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home