4 ms·

> Why should cyber war be any different? Because we aren't talking about bombs. We are talking about security. We are concerned about "nuclear proliferation".

> Why should cyber war be any different? Because we aren't talking about bombs. We are talking about security. We are concerned about "nuclear proliferation". Why aren't we concerned about the proliferation of these tools? It takes material to make nuclear weapons (obviously nuclear weapons are much more concerning, that isn't my point), but it only takes instructions to create and use security exploits. In this scenario, threats only have power for everyone who knows about them, and that is inherently dangerous. We should put all of our focus into getting rid of security exploits, not creating them.

ChuckMcM 10y ago
We are talking about both because they are the one and the same. I was talking about aggression against an enemy. Bombs, sanctions, cyber war fare. All in service to making the 'other guy' pay the price. In the context of cyber warfare getting rid of your own security exploits and creating them for stuff the 'other guy' uses. But that gets right to the essence of how this is different. The NSA sought to use a superior knowledge of exploits available in the software their enemies used against the enemy, even tho the same tools can be used on their friends. That is no different than picking up the weapon of an enemy soldier and using it against his own squad mates. Or having the enemy pick up your weapon and use it against your squad mates. Computers and networks are now (and arguably always have been) weapons of war. Just as cars and the people walking into markets wearing vests full of semtex are. And that is a sad truth because it means becoming a casualty can happen anywhere without warning. And that seems to be what Phase III will be about.