Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hacks Raise Fear Over N.S.A.’s Hold on Cyberweapons

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 116 posts

Re: Hacks Raise Fear Over N.S.A.’s Hold on Cyberweapons

#61

Post by mortenjorck »

devrandomguy wrote: post #33
gregmac wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When we strike back, does Russia then strike back again? What does it look like after four or five volleys? Will entire power grids be down for days or weeks? Will the stock market crash? And at what point, after "cyber-damaging" some piece of critical infrastructure (and/or harming/killing people), does the the other side run out of exploits and just launch actual missiles instead?

Do these missiles require a working communications network? If this goes on long enough, there might not be any way to launch them.

I know not with what weapons the first world cyberwar will be fought, but I know the second will be fought with floppy disks.

Re: Hacks Raise Fear Over N.S.A.’s Hold on Cyberweapons

#62

Post by NumberCruncher »

peterwaller wrote: post #45
NumberCruncher wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hacker Karl Koch [1] thought being responsible for the disaster at Chernobyl [2] back in 1986 causing 2M deaths in the last 30 years. I think we will never know whether he was right or not. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Koch_(hacker) [2] (German) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGB-Hack

I'm confused what the connection is with Chernobyl. But 2M deaths in the last 30 years is not likely correct - this interesting WHO report on the matter suggests the final toll from the radiation would be more like "up to 4k": http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/ http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/chernobyl_di... > The main causes of death in the Chernobyl-affected region are the sa…

>> The main causes of death in the Chernobyl-affected region...

The Chernobyl-affected region includes big parts of Western Europe. Back then in 1986 my godfather was cleaning trains coming from Russia through Ukraine (but not directly from the Chernobyl region) and was contaminated. He lost his teeth and hair. We lived ca. 800 km away from Chernobyl.

On the other hand thanks the river Dnepr the Chernobyl region is connected to the Ukraine ground water system. The astimation of 2M deaths caused by long time effects of contamination comes from a friend from Kiew. She never drunk tap water.

Re: Hacks Raise Fear Over N.S.A.’s Hold on Cyberweapons

#63

Post by Asdfbla »

NumberCruncher wrote: post #11
apeace wrote: post #4

This is merely a taste of what is to come. When President Obama stated in December[0] that we will deliver a "proportional response" to Russian hacking at the "time and place of our own choosing", it seemed that most of the country was proud, almost gleeful at the thought that we would be striking back. I for one was mortified. We should not be escalating cyberwar, even if we do have proof of who attacked us. People…

Man's way to peace is by having a bigger gun than his neighbor.

The problem is such traditional calculus doesn't apply anymore in cyberwar.

For one thing, your big "guns" weaken your own infrastructure, since you use about the same technology that your adversary uses too. Secondly, your guns can be copied without many problems and then suddenly they are directed at you and your weakened infrastructure.

Re: Hacks Raise Fear Over N.S.A.’s Hold on Cyberweapons

#65

Post by graedus »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #47
SCHiM wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Russia reportedly even has a deadmans-switch that can be triggered by seismic activity on Russian soil and rapid changes in air pressure. I'd presume that such a system is not connected to the internet.

All of those systems predate the Internet, so you bet nuclear capabilities will not be affected much by cyber attacks.

Nuclear capabilities will probably not be affected much by cyber attacks over the internet. There are other vectors, but they obviously require a much more serious investment in espionage, spycraft, etc.

Re: Hacks Raise Fear Over N.S.A.’s Hold on Cyberweapons

#66

Post by pjc50 »

SCHiM wrote: post #43
rjsw wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think that different countries have put missiles in submarines ?

And Russia reportedly even has a deadmans-switch that can be triggered by seismic activity on Russian soil and rapid changes in air pressure. I'd presume that such a system is not connected to the internet.

Isn't this literally the denoument of Dr Strangelove?

Re: Hacks Raise Fear Over N.S.A.’s Hold on Cyberweapons

#67

Post by floatboth »

Quarrelsome wrote: post #60
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously attribution becomes far more important with cyberattacks, but that's a tangential point. You're acting like the power grid going offline is equivalent to a thermonuclear explosion. Yes, it will suck, but it's temporary. And afterwards, those exploit vectors will be patched.

> Obviously attribution becomes far more important with cyberattacks, but that's a tangential point. No its not, its the whole point. The point of the age of information is that it is a departure from the age of blood and steel. The tactics of blood and steel that you are supporting have no place in this future and are counter-productive. The point of the age of information is that power is no longer solely in the ha…

Yes. This. Old government people think of everything in terms of "weapons" and "wars" and they still think the word "cyber" is cool. We need to promote, like, a radical new school of thought about software: Creators of a system should be fully responsible for whatever damage the system causes. A bug is a bug, whether it's exploited by an outside actor or it happens during normal execution. Developers should be responsible for bugs. I like the "defective lock" analogy from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14663474

Re: Hacks Raise Fear Over N.S.A.’s Hold on Cyberweapons

#69

Post by pjc50 »

gregmac wrote: post #22
apeace wrote: post #4

This is merely a taste of what is to come. When President Obama stated in December[0] that we will deliver a "proportional response" to Russian hacking at the "time and place of our own choosing", it seemed that most of the country was proud, almost gleeful at the thought that we would be striking back. I for one was mortified. We should not be escalating cyberwar, even if we do have proof of who attacked us. People…

> When we strike back, does Russia then strike back again? What does it look like after four or five volleys? Will entire power grids be down for days or weeks? Will the stock market crash? And at what point, after "cyber-damaging" some piece of critical infrastructure (and/or harming/killing people), does the the other side run out of exploits and just launch actual missiles instead?

This is an under-appreciated point. We've forgotten all the old hard Cold War lessons about escalation.

What we are seeing now is a huge expansion of deniable and proxy warfare. Everyone is still (I hope) clear that sending an actual tank division across the Polish/Ukraine border would be met with nukes. So the question is, what is the largest most damaging attack that can be carried out without reprisal, and how do the participants find this out?

And of course, the ultimate in deniable attacks is one carried out by the enemy's own forces. Did cyberwarfare crash a US destroyer into a cargo ship? (Almost certainly not, but maybe next time). SWAT-ing is already established as a tactic; could suitably forged communications or "fake news" disseminated via the President lead to the SWAT-ing of a country? There are some suggestions that this applies to the Qatar situation.

Re: Hacks Raise Fear Over N.S.A.’s Hold on Cyberweapons

#70

Post by pjc50 »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #8
apeace wrote: post #4

This is merely a taste of what is to come. When President Obama stated in December[0] that we will deliver a "proportional response" to Russian hacking at the "time and place of our own choosing", it seemed that most of the country was proud, almost gleeful at the thought that we would be striking back. I for one was mortified. We should not be escalating cyberwar, even if we do have proof of who attacked us. People…

I don't want the NSA to become a defensive organization. I like that Iran's nuclear program is being delayed. That's not a defensive action. You don't seem to be proposing that the NSA become defensive, either. If Russia attacks us and we don't respond, that's not even defensive. That's dismantling.

"Cyberweapons" should be treated like bioweapons: there should be a framework of international law to decommission them, because they are simply too prone to spreading on their own and too dangerous to civilians. The US does not have a defensive anthrax capability (I believe), because it's too much of a liability.
Post reply on HN