Dailydave mailing list archives
Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki
From: Nate Lawson <nate () root org>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:45:59 -0700
On 3/23/2011 12:37 PM, Yiorgos Adamopoulos wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:21 PM, beenph <beenph () gmail com> wrote:So i think all theories only applies until a conflict reach certain a breaking point, where the real world take over the *cyber*.Oh but it gets better: If a cyber warfare action is an act of war, expect missiles pulling the plug in return. After all "cyber" is just another (the newest) dimension of battlespace. Which brings me to a question: If one physically takes out a datacenter, or its power suppliesr (all of them), or its connecting cables (all of them) and thus rendering it non existent in cyberspace, is this a cyber warfare action or a hybrid?
This is exactly why "cyber" is not needed as a separate distinction. In any threat model, adversaries can be expected to use all options that are available that meet the cost vs. risk constraints. This holds true whether your adversaries include bored teenagers, insurgents, or governments. If you have particularly valuable assets, you need to allocate commensurate spending on defense. This holds true whether you are a home user, bank, Google, or Libya. I don't like that "cyber" implies the need for a new approach, either on attack or defense. If your adversaries have technology means available within their cost constraints, then you have to defend against technology-based attacks. If they have missiles or IEDs, they'll use those as appropriate. The real story is how much of modern life, including warfare, depends on such fragile off-the-shelf software and hardware. The barrier to entry today (fuzzer + protection bypass) is so much lower than in the 1960's (physical access to machine room). Meanwhile, the number and value of targets you can compromise with that minimal effort is astoundingly high now. -- Nate _______________________________________________ Dailydave mailing list Dailydave () lists immunityinc com https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave
Current thread:
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki, (continued)
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki Dave Aitel (Mar 25)
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki Michal Zalewski (Mar 25)
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki dave (Mar 25)
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki Michal Zalewski (Mar 25)
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki Dominique Brezinski (Mar 25)
- Message not available
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki Dominique Brezinski (Mar 27)
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki Michal Zalewski (Mar 27)
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki Jim O'Gorman (Mar 27)
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki beenph (Mar 25)
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki Yiorgos Adamopoulos (Mar 25)
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki Nate Lawson (Mar 25)
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki Kevin Noble (Mar 25)
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki Marsh Ray (Mar 25)
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki Nate Lawson (Mar 25)
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki Miles Fidelman (Mar 27)
- Message not available
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki Nate Lawson (Mar 27)
- Message not available
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki delchi delchi (Mar 25)