Cyberterrorism hype

[mea culpa <jericho () DIMENSIONAL COM>]

Forwarded From: Johan.Ingles () janes co uk


http://jir.janes.com/sample/jir0525.html

Document created: 21 OCTOBER 1999

Cyberterrorism hype

With the 1990s propensity to dot.com everything that moves, 'hacking' and
'cyberterrorism' have become subjects of intense media coverage.  Almost
daily, hitherto unknown security specialists warn of potential
catastrophes: news that gets picked up by the media and crosses the globe
with impunity. Johan J Ingles-le Nobel discussed the subject with
programmers at Slashdot to profile so-called cyberterrorists and examine
the viability of cyberwarfare. 

Cyberterrorism is a buzzword of 1999. Indeed, with the remarkable growth
of the Internet, hacking horror stories have reached new heights of
publicity, leading to a veritable media frenzy. Yet careful examination of
the issue reveals much of the threat to be unsubstantiated rumour and
media exaggeration. The exaggeration is understandable, however - these
technologies underpin our entire society, and what paper can resist
printing a scoop revealing that banks are being blackmailed with threats
of attacks on their computers, or that a military satellite has been
hijacked by hackers?  The idea that an anonymous teenager working alone
from his bedroom can wreak electronic havoc on the far side of the world
makes for good press. 

What is a hacker? 

Nothing gets a hacker's back up quicker than someone confusing a hacker
with cracker. The term 'hacker' refers to an individual who programmes
enthusiastically (even obsessively), enjoys programming or is especially
good at programming; a 'cracker' is somebody who breaks into another's
computer systems or digs into their code (to make a copy-protected
programme run). Yet the boundaries have become somewhat blurred and the
popular understanding of these terms is is quite wrong: ever since
Hollywood produced 'Wargames', based on Kevin Mitnic's cracking activities
(known as 'exploits'), the term 'hacking' has become synonymous with
unauthorised access into restricted systems - which is 'cracking'. In
today's world, such activity also includes the deliberate defacement of
websites. Hackers are quick to point out that there is a code of hacker
ethics that precludes any profit from the activity - the only motive is
the activity itself - but they are not naïve: realising the potential for
misuse, they divide themselves into 'white-hat' hackers (ethical hackers)
and 'black-hat' hackers (crackers). 

According to hackers, 99% of cracking incidents can be blamed on so-called
'script-kiddies'. These are usually young people who manage to acquire
some 'cracking tools' somewhere on the Internet and are keen try them.
They choose a 'cool' target (such as NASA, the Pentagon or the White
House) and launch the tools. Older, more established hackers see them as
upstarts. Think of a kid walking down a corridor testing doorknobs; whilst
they are more than capable of defacing websites such as that of the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), their actions are seen as the
equivalent of putting down a whoopie cushion on the chair of the UN
Secretary General - juvenile, noisy and somewhat embarrassing, but
ultimately without real effect. Says Mick Morgan, webmaster to the UK's
Queen Elizabeth: "I have nightmares about waking up to find graffiti
(which is all it is) on one of my customer's sites." 

[snip..]

ISN is sponsored by Security-Focus.COM