3 ms·

The Wired article on this book makes it sound completely absurd: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/cyberwar-richard-clarke/ http://www.wired.com/threatle

• tptacek 17y ago
  The Wired article and Clarke's book are wrong in completely opposite directions, but the Wired article is more wrong than Clarke is. "Chinese hackers" don't need secret backdoors; 15+ years of shoddy engineering have created all the secret passages anyone could need. The power grid, in particular, is not a fantasy scenario.
  • qeorge 17y ago
    Good point. For example, the vector for the recent Google "hack" seems to have been good old IE6: http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/01/microsoft-wants-you-to-ditch-windows-xp-and-ie6-for-security.ars http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/01/microsoft-want...
• baguasquirrel 17y ago
  I thought the summary of the article was absurd on its own. Require the ISPs to monitor the internets for a "logic bomb"? wtf do you mean by that? We can't even stop botnets from DDOSing whoever they wish. This sort of thing just reeks of Hollywood fantasy talk.
  • tptacek 17y ago
    So he's wrong about "logic bombs" and backdoors, and he's wrong about ISPs ability to block attacks (he spent a lot of time with a very NANOG-y, NSP-sec-y crowd, and as an advisor to vendors in that space, so that's where he's coming from). But what do you expect? He's not a computer scientist.