Dailydave mailing list archives
Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki
From: delchi delchi <delchi () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 05:39:11 -0600
"But in war more than in any other subject we must begin by looking at the nature of the whole; for here more than elsewhere the part and the whole must always be thought of together. " -- Karl Von Clausewitz Cyber-war is nothing more than a buzword designed to discuss a specific type of war. In the end it's no more or less than saying that you are engaged in a 'shooting war' , a 'tank war' or an 'air war'. As each new technology emerges it finds it's way into war sooner or later and creates a new type of warfare. Still at the heart of the matter remains conflict between opposing sides. I feel that the idea of hacking being "as kinetic as a cruise missile" is spot on. Arguing that a cruise missile can hit any target but you can block a hack is short sighted. So you patched your systems against known attacks, but you can't possibly protect against the unknown. A missile can be taken down by anti-missile technology that you may not know exists until the first shot is fired. In war, as in business, we keep tight to the vest our best kept secret weapons ( both offensive and defensive ) and only take them out when needed. Once used they are in the open, known, and can be compromised. So even if you switch from Windows to Mac to Ubuntu to TRSDOS at some point in the war someone will have or develop a weapon tailored especially for you. Combine this with the overwhelming use of technology in modern warfare and a simple hack can destroy a target as effectively as a missile. The use of a emerging technology as a weapon does not change the base nature or strategy of war. It is nothing more than another tool in the arsenal. Warfare has been revolutionized time and again with inventions like the crossbow, gunpowder, the armored tank, and the airplane. Why should the art of hacking be seen or treated any differently? Where is the difference in pushing a button that launches a missile to exert kinetic destruction on an industrial pant and a button that unleashes a piece of software causing the machinery in the plant to malfunction & kinetically self destruct? The tools of war have been, and will continue to be, as diverse and advanced as technology can provide, but they all maintain the same base purpose. ( An equal truth is that "No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy's main strength" (Helmuth von Moltke). ... but we all know that one by heart ) , On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Val Smith <valsmith () attackresearch com> wrote:
There is a fundamental problem with this discussion. Those who actually work in the field of cyber-war (if it exists ;) can't comment, or can only comment in a vague way or one which disinforms. At least in this country and probably the others. Those who can and do comment generally have no actual 1st hand experience with cyber-war, and so really don't know what they are talking about (more or less). But if one were to guess, perhaps the cyber "weapon" is a component to a larger layered attack and that the existence of stuxnet doesn't indicate a singular event but a hint at something larger we really know nothing about. Kinda reminds me of blackhats and the rest of the worlds semi-lack of knowledge about them, with the occasional hint (zf0, h0n0, pr0j3ktm3yh3m, etc.) V. Who is the cyber-von-clauswitz ? On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 13:48 -0400, Ron Gula wrote:I'm not sure I agree. Technically, sure, you can hack into things and take them out. However, comparing hacking to a cruise missile is a stretch. I can patch my systems today and your cyber-attack tomorrow is foiled. Or maybe I switch from Mac to Windows. A Tomahawk cruise missile is just as effective against a Russian radar system or a French one. Don't get me wrong - hacking, backdoors, denial of service, altering messages, decrypting sensitive messages .etc all have their place. I just think the categories are cyber intelligence, terrorism, espionage, sabotage or crime but not "warfare". We've been doing intel, terror, spying, sabotage and crime for a long time and the tools have just changed with the introduction of hyper-connected computers and targets. -- Ron Gula, CEO Tenable Network Security http://www.tenable.com On 3/20/2011 10:52 PM, greg hoglund wrote:I agree with you Dave. Cyberwar is technical. Granted, like any war, it must be backed by intel and psyops. But, like any war, the kills people see in the press are kinetic. Cruise missiles are technical, and kinetic. But, everything is backed by intel. Even missiles. In cyber, the importance of HUMINT far outweighs that of kinetic damage. The technology is new and different, but the classic principle applies. This war is not new. -Greg On Sunday, March 20, 2011, Dave Aitel <dave.aitel () gmail com> wrote:Paper Review Cyberwar as a Confidence Game Martin C. Libicki http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2011/spring/libicki.pdf Here's the last line, which sums it up nicely: """ Building up our offensive capabilities is a confidence game. It says to those who wouldcompete inour league: are you confident enough in your cyberwar skills thatyou canbuild your military to rely on information systems and themachines thattake their orders? """ One thing missing from this paper is any evidence that this kind of logic (aka, Fear Uncertainty and Doubt in military information systems as applied to network centric warfare) has any real-world effect. Militaries (including our own) simply don't take these things into account when deploying new systems. But the main anomaly in the paper is simple: He treats Stuxnet as an aberration, rather than the tip of the iceberg that finally made the newspapers. And this leads him (and most other strategic analysts) to conclude that hacking does not have real world effects. I have to assume this is the WWII legacy of Enigma - where in order to take advantage of intelligence you had to go out and order your sub killers to go sink a boat. But just because hacking is tied to intelligence bodies in most countries, and staffed with people who look and act a lot like intelligence officers, does not make it the same thing. Hacking is as kinetic as a cruise missile when you do it right. -dave (This is a first in a series of posts where-in we all get to review the Strategic Studies Quarterly's Spring Cyber-War papers - http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/ ). _______________________________________________ Dailydave mailing list Dailydave () lists immunityinc com https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave_______________________________________________ Dailydave mailing list Dailydave () lists immunityinc com https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave_______________________________________________ Dailydave mailing list Dailydave () lists immunityinc com https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave_______________________________________________ Dailydave mailing list Dailydave () lists immunityinc com https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave
-- "Se li uomini sapessino le cagioni della paura mia, capir potrebbero il mio dolor" _______________________________________________ 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 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)