Re: Fully Automated CONOPs Exercise

[Pukhraj Singh via Dailydave <dailydave () lists aitelfoundation org>]

Folks like Joe Slowik
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7XqxRXwFZ4&ab_channel=CYBERWARCON>, Grugq
<https://www.blackhat.com/docs/webcast/12142017-the-triple-a-threat.pdf>and you
<https://cybersecpolitics.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-stern-stewart-summit-germany-and.html>(Dave)
have tried to articulate the CONOPS for worms since long. In their current
forms, worms look like IO packages in full-spectrum missions. Ignoring
technical problems like extreme target dependence
<https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/978081573547_ch1.pdf> for
worms, "harm" would always be defined at the policy level, and then
technical. There is a reason why Defend Forward assumes that establishing
"contact" in forward areas is a precursor to producing signals or effects
(and that reason is not technical). That's also why SolarWinds was missed.
You could have neatly placed (wormable) SolarWinds on the axis of Gerasimov
Doctrine
<https://www.militairespectator.nl/sites/default/files/afbeeldingen/Militairy%20Review%20Figuur%20Bartles.jpg>
where "crisis reaction" morphs into "localisation" and "neutralisation" of
conflict. A whole genre of Russian or Chinese doctrinal literature on
noncontact operations is highly conducive for worms; but then, you can't
see things in isolation. You start talking about things like
systems-on-systems warfare. It becomes way more than just target
discrimination and noncombatants. You enter an informational conflict (la
US vs. Nicaragua). You start imbibing the Russian definition
<https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/publications/pr-19-1004-russian-military-thought-concepts-elements.pdf>
of asymmetricity and Creative Military Thought -- worms would fall under
the same category as "inspection satellites." Everything becomes Reflexive
Control. That's where the norms customary law would come from, such
behavioral precedents.

On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 12:13 AM Dave Aitel via Dailydave <
dailydave () lists aitelfoundation org> wrote:

> I mean, the goal of the question is to start putting some meat on the idea
> of what "harm" is and how that is reflected both from a policy and
> technical perspective. But also: It's useful to put some real definitions
> around what is required to make people comfortable with fully-automated
> techniques.
>
> I don't think the idea that we are going to come up with and enforce norms
> is as useful as figuring out what the norms really are sometimes, perhaps.
>
> -dave
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:39 AM Dave Dittrich <dave.dittrich () gmail com>
> wrote:
>
> > Did any of them mention international humanitarian law, specifically
> > discrimination, respecting territory of neutral ("green") actors and
> > their infrastructure, and avoiding harm to neutral third parties and
> > non-combatants? The problem with most worms is the inability to
> > accurately discriminate targets and resulting harm. This is an area
> > where technical experts need to be balanced with operators and policy
> > makers to ensure that non-technical operators and policy makers fully
> > understand what it is that they are talking about. And where use of
> > *all* of the levers of sovereign power, in partnership with other
> > nations, to establish and enforce norms, is crucial. Should we really
> > consider unconstrained damage and instantaneous global chaos as "fun?"
> > ;)
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 8:45 PM Dave Aitel via Dailydave
> > <dailydave () lists aitelfoundation org> wrote:
> > > So one of my new fav questions to ask policy teams is what they would
> > do if they were told to switch their offensive team entirely to worms.
> > Nothing else. Just worms. What needs to change to make that happen - from
> > op tempo to supply chain to personnel to policy and technological
> > investment.
> > > And how would their defensive team need to change strategically if they
> > were facing such an offensive team.
> > > It's a fun thing to see people wrap their minds around. :)
> > >
> > > Also, if you missed it, yesterday's CYBER HOT TAKES are here:
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzcmfIgvj7A&t=2s&ab_channel=DaveAitel
> > >
> > > -dave
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Dailydave mailing list -- dailydave () lists aitelfoundation org
> > > To unsubscribe send an email to
> > dailydave-leave () lists aitelfoundation org
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dave Dittrich
> > @davedittrich
> > dave.dittrich () gmail com
> > https://davedittrich.github.io/
> _______________________________________________
> Dailydave mailing list -- dailydave () lists aitelfoundation org
> To unsubscribe send an email to dailydave-leave () lists aitelfoundation org
_______________________________________________
Dailydave mailing list -- dailydave () lists aitelfoundation org
To unsubscribe send an email to dailydave-leave () lists aitelfoundation org