Re: Bin Laden Associate Warns of Cyberattack

[<sgorman1 () gmu edu>]

> CAIDA tells us that over 25% of the Internet must be removed before
> connectivity degrades.  I'm quite a cynic, but I doubt the CIA 
> could pull off that kind of damage, much less al Qaeda

Before we go yelling FUD about the media lets make sure we are not
dissmeinating false information ourselves.  The CAIDA analysis only
looked at the 52,505 most connected IP addresses.  Last time I checked
there were a few more IP addresses than that on the Internet.  Further,
the 25% number was when the entire giant component disappeared not when
connectivity "started" to degrade.  The Internet is not "bombproof" and
it is not "fragile", but somewhere in between.  How far in which
direction is up for debate, but lets at least try to make to debate
intelligent and informed.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Sprunk" <ssprunk () cisco com>
Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 5:04 pm
Subject: Re: Bin Laden Associate Warns of Cyberattack

> Thus spake <Michael.Dillon () radianz com>
> > When was the last time you took a sample and tested for the 
> presence of
> > fertilizer *BEFORE* you let the truck driver put that diesel 
> into your
> > generator tanks?
>
> Worst case, you'd detect this during your periodic generator test :)
>
> > The best defence against all of these potential terrorist 
> attacks is to do
> > what the military does, i.e. spread out. Never put more than a 
> fraction of
> > your eggs in one basket. Use the network to connect diverse and 
> widespread> assets so that they can function as a unit even though 
> they are physically
> > separated.
>
> Isn't that the reason that IP was designed the way it was?
>
> 9/11 showed us that, despite the relatively concentrated POPs in 
> NYC, the
> Internet was still the only communications medium that survived the
> attack --and it was largely unaffected, even for users located in NYC
> itself!
>
> CAIDA tells us that over 25% of the Internet must be removed before
> connectivity degrades.  I'm quite a cynic, but I doubt the CIA 
> could pull
> off that kind of damage, much less al Qaeda.
>
> > This philosophy works whether your assets are combat soldiers
> > or network PoPs. And again, there is a role for government here. 
> How about
> > tax reductions for companies who harden their networks by 
> removing single
> > points of failure that are vulnerable to terrorist attack?
>
> Oh yes, let's create a tax credit system which will essentially 
> become an
> arbitrary means for government officials to reward friends in the 
> privatesector in return for kickbacks.  That'll definitely solve 
> the problem (which
> has been shown not to exist).  Look how well it's worked for 
> healthcare and
> oil companies!
>
> S

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Sprunk" <ssprunk () cisco com>
Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 5:04 pm
Subject: Re: Bin Laden Associate Warns of Cyberattack

> Thus spake <Michael.Dillon () radianz com>
> > When was the last time you took a sample and tested for the 
> presence of
> > fertilizer *BEFORE* you let the truck driver put that diesel 
> into your
> > generator tanks?
>
> Worst case, you'd detect this during your periodic generator test :)
>
> > The best defence against all of these potential terrorist 
> attacks is to do
> > what the military does, i.e. spread out. Never put more than a 
> fraction of
> > your eggs in one basket. Use the network to connect diverse and 
> widespread> assets so that they can function as a unit even though 
> they are physically
> > separated.
>
> Isn't that the reason that IP was designed the way it was?
>
> 9/11 showed us that, despite the relatively concentrated POPs in 
> NYC, the
> Internet was still the only communications medium that survived the
> attack --and it was largely unaffected, even for users located in NYC
> itself!
>
> CAIDA tells us that over 25% of the Internet must be removed before
> connectivity degrades.  I'm quite a cynic, but I doubt the CIA 
> could pull
> off that kind of damage, much less al Qaeda.
>
> > This philosophy works whether your assets are combat soldiers
> > or network PoPs. And again, there is a role for government here. 
> How about
> > tax reductions for companies who harden their networks by 
> removing single
> > points of failure that are vulnerable to terrorist attack?
>
> Oh yes, let's create a tax credit system which will essentially 
> become an
> arbitrary means for government officials to reward friends in the 
> privatesector in return for kickbacks.  That'll definitely solve 
> the problem (which
> has been shown not to exist).  Look how well it's worked for 
> healthcare and
> oil companies!
>
> S