14 ms·

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

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.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago
A defensive response would be to inform major vendors of our own infrastructure (i.e. Microsoft, Cisco) of the gaping holes in their systems, instead of leaving them open for the world to attack.
- killjoywashere 9y ago
  I can name at least one netsec guy who attributes his entire team's existence to the NSA calling his employer and doing exactly that.
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    Right. It's a false dichotomy that the NSA doesn't do that and needs to disarm itself. There's a happy middle ground where people don't attack us because they're worried about our retaliation and we also improve our own defenses.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    Sounds like that netsec guy's team serves military customers then?
    - killjoywashere 9y ago
      No, they do design work for consumer products. But good job reading my prior comments :)
      - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
        What type of consumer products? And I'm not sure what comments you're referring to.
Quarrelsome 9y ago
so you want to live in a world where both countries don't have any power? Sounds Utopian. Defence is only card in this game worth playing especially when it comes to infrastructure attacks.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  Yes, that would suck. But that's the aggresor's decision, not ours. I'm not sure why we collectively decided to lack courage, but it's unsettling.
  - Quarrelsome 9y ago
    > I'm not sure why we collectively decided to lack courage In this case courage is stupidity. Why waste time knocking out their power when we can spend that time making our power more secure. You're like a web master with a downed site due to a DDOS going: > Well I've DDOSed the attacker's site so its okay no its not, you've achieved nothing. Get with the program; this is a defence world not an offence one.
    - sillysaurus3 9y ago
      In situations where Person A is attacking Person B and making it sound like Person A's solution is the only one, Person A is usually mistaken. My mind is open. Convince me. Why is it a good idea to remove the threat of retaliation from our toolkit? It seems like one of the most persuasive reasons not to attack us.
      - Quarrelsome 9y ago
        I will attack you yet convince you that someone else attacked you. Now you're off attacking the wrong person and your power grid IS STILL OFFLINE. Just put all the effort into keeping the grid up. Absorb all attacks and then export that IP and tech for healthy profit. Its the only winning move.
        9y ago
pjc50 9y ago
"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.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- MajesticHobo 9y ago
  What is a cyber weapon? Knowledge of a vulnerability? Exploit code? How do you propose regulating it? Much of this has been tried before and ended up hurting rather than helping.
Sir_Substance 9y ago
Cyberweapons created by the USA were used to shut down the entire national hospital system of the UK, one of their biggest allies. Good job USA! Iran is educated enough to make nuclear weapons, but you want their program shut down because you think they're not responsible enough to be trusted with nuclear weapons. The US is educated enough to make cyber-weapons, but I want their program shut down because I think they're not responsible enough to be trusted with cyber-weapons. Maybe the UK should go on the offensive, wipe a few NSA datacenters, for the long term safety of the British people?
- sqeaky 9y ago
  You are applying logic to politics, if that worked we wouldn't have problems. We demand Iran disarm to shame them on the world stage as violators of non-proliferation treaties, and we only do this because they are our "enemy" if they weren't we would care. It cronyism and nepotism just on the scales of nations, and I don't think that can change for a while.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago

A defensive response would be to inform major vendors of our own infrastructure (i.e. Microsoft, Cisco) of the gaping holes in their systems, instead of leaving them open for the world to attack.

killjoywashere 9y ago
I can name at least one netsec guy who attributes his entire team's existence to the NSA calling his employer and doing exactly that.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  Right. It's a false dichotomy that the NSA doesn't do that and needs to disarm itself. There's a happy middle ground where people don't attack us because they're worried about our retaliation and we also improve our own defenses.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  Sounds like that netsec guy's team serves military customers then?
  - killjoywashere 9y ago
    No, they do design work for consumer products. But good job reading my prior comments :)
    - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
      What type of consumer products? And I'm not sure what comments you're referring to.

Quarrelsome 9y ago

so you want to live in a world where both countries don't have any power? Sounds Utopian. Defence is only card in this game worth playing especially when it comes to infrastructure attacks.

sillysaurus3 9y ago
Yes, that would suck. But that's the aggresor's decision, not ours. I'm not sure why we collectively decided to lack courage, but it's unsettling.
- Quarrelsome 9y ago
  > I'm not sure why we collectively decided to lack courage In this case courage is stupidity. Why waste time knocking out their power when we can spend that time making our power more secure. You're like a web master with a downed site due to a DDOS going: > Well I've DDOSed the attacker's site so its okay no its not, you've achieved nothing. Get with the program; this is a defence world not an offence one.
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    In situations where Person A is attacking Person B and making it sound like Person A's solution is the only one, Person A is usually mistaken. My mind is open. Convince me. Why is it a good idea to remove the threat of retaliation from our toolkit? It seems like one of the most persuasive reasons not to attack us.
    - Quarrelsome 9y ago
      I will attack you yet convince you that someone else attacked you. Now you're off attacking the wrong person and your power grid IS STILL OFFLINE. Just put all the effort into keeping the grid up. Absorb all attacks and then export that IP and tech for healthy profit. Its the only winning move.
      - 9y ago

pjc50 9y ago

"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.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
MajesticHobo 9y ago
What is a cyber weapon? Knowledge of a vulnerability? Exploit code? How do you propose regulating it? Much of this has been tried before and ended up hurting rather than helping.

Sir_Substance 9y ago

Cyberweapons created by the USA were used to shut down the entire national hospital system of the UK, one of their biggest allies. Good job USA! Iran is educated enough to make nuclear weapons, but you want their program shut down because you think they're not responsible enough to be trusted with nuclear weapons. The US is educated enough to make cyber-weapons, but I want their program shut down because I think they're not responsible enough to be trusted with cyber-weapons. Maybe the UK should go on the offensive, wipe a few NSA datacenters, for the long term safety of the British people?

sqeaky 9y ago
You are applying logic to politics, if that worked we wouldn't have problems. We demand Iran disarm to shame them on the world stage as violators of non-proliferation treaties, and we only do this because they are our "enemy" if they weren't we would care. It cronyism and nepotism just on the scales of nations, and I don't think that can change for a while.