U.S. to give ransomware hacks similar priority as terrorism, official says

Post by nkozyra » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 11:20 PM UTC

andreilys wrote: post #214

tracerbulletx wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I'm a bit tired of the victim blaming with security. It's physically impossible to build a house that can't be broken in to, and even harder for computer systems. Crime is a social problem, we can't rely on a dream world of mathematically perfect zero trust security.

If you leave your houses front door open and a giant sign that says "please come rob me" then yes you deserve some of the blame. That's the case with a lot of these companies who: a) Have pitiful/non-existent bug bounty programs (or even worst, prosecutes white hat hackers who raise issues) b) Prioritizing exec bonuses instead of investing in InfoSec

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 11:21 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #191

virtue3 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the threat of a tomahawk missile entering your building is a pretty good incentive to not fuck with US infrastructure but that's just me.

And the threat of a Topol-M nuclear missile with a yield of 800 KT detonating over New York is a pretty good incentive not to launch tomahawk missiles at office buildings located in nuclear-armed countries. If you ever wonder why unfriendly countries have nuclear ambitions, rhetoric like this is part of it. How many people are you ready to kill over ransomware ? And weren't we just splitting hairs the other day over…

Post by ocdtrekkie » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 11:22 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #198

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, it can be argued that trying to damage our infrastructure by hacking our computers is just as much of an act of war as firing a missile at our infrastructure. In some cases, the effect of the damage is the same. (I admit the 'cleanup' of the Colonial Pipeline problem is much less than it would be if someone blew up the pipeline, but the impact it had on our country was similar.) I don't expect the US to start…

It really depends how that attack is being organized and backed though - in most cases we'll be left with only a strong suspicion of who actually launched the attack and, due to the nature of technology, it's much more likely with a cyber attack for the real perpetrators to frame someone else. Even once that's all decided, we'd need to figure out if war would be a reasonable response. I'd propose that one of the main…

Post by th0ma5 » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 11:25 PM UTC

blast wrote: post #188

I'm surprised at how dismissive the comments are. We need many angles of defense against these criminals. Dismissing this because companies should do better security is like dismissing doctors because people should get more exercise. That's silly. We need preventative care and treatment. I'm not surprised by this announcement because the way that the pipeline-company ransomware hackers beat a hasty retreat was notice…

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 11:26 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #225

munk-a wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really depends how that attack is being organized and backed though - in most cases we'll be left with only a strong suspicion of who actually launched the attack and, due to the nature of technology, it's much more likely with a cyber attack for the real perpetrators to frame someone else. Even once that's all decided, we'd need to figure out if war would be a reasonable response. I'd propose that one of the main…

> even if we ignore China's likely response China is literally the only reason the US tolerates North Korea. And China solely tolerates North Korea because it causes all sorts of irritation for the US. Arguably, it would be better off for everyone living in North Korea if one of those two powers annexed it outright, but geopolitics loves backwater proxy wars.