Re: Hacking critical infrastructure.

[dave aitel <dave () immunityinc com>]

Well, that is the point of the thought exercise. :) But the goal is to
have "policy people" go through it so they understand WHY the concept of
"banning hacking on critical infrastructure" is mostly-futile as opposed
to just having to believe us "tech people".

You could, of course, do a cap-and-trade structure on the tokens, such
that you only start with a certain amount of them, and get to trade for
the rest, a-la-bitcoin. This would force you to prioritize where your
key infrastructure is, but the idea might be a bit painful and expensive
such that policy people will realize there MUST be a better way, which
is when you suggest that instead we do other, more sensible things. :)

-dave


On 3/15/2016 9:44 AM, Konrads Smelkovs wrote:
> The logical conclusion of placing "don'thackmebro!" tokens on
> sensitive computers is that every GOV computer even remotely concerned
> with the notion of the critical infrastructure will have it leaving
> your adversary no choice to ignore them.
> --
> Konrads Smelkovs
> Applied IT sorcery.
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 3:31 PM, dave aitel <dave () immunityinc com> wrote:
> > http://cybersecpolitics.blogspot.com/2016/03/cyber-norms-futility-of-blacklisting.html
> >
> > If you disagree with this post, please spam here instead of twitter,
> > which has only terse horribleness as its argument protocols. :)
> >
> > -dave
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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