5 ms·

What would be the "correct" response? Given that citizens affected (including me) have gotten their information used relating to this attack, I'd say a state sp

What would be the "correct" response? Given that citizens affected (including me) have gotten their information used relating to this attack, I'd say a state sponsored cyber counter attack will be/is the best deterrence. UN clearly has not caught up with the times in how to respond to state sponsored attacks.

ses1984 7y ago
I wouldn't want my government to kill anyone on my behalf because my credit report was stolen. How about we start with securing our systems? Modernize identity and credit reporting, stop relying on social security numbers, etc.
- meowface 7y ago
  What do you mean? The parent said they supported a cyber counter attack, which doesn't imply killing anyone unless it's explicitly stated (e.g. attacking critical infrastructure like power stations).
cdiamand 7y ago
I'm sorry that you got hurt by this. But I, as a civilian am not qualified to answer that question. Nor do I want to answer that question. This is not a perfect analogy, and I don't want you to think that geopolitics is a zero sum game. But, imagine two heavyweight boxers circling each other in a ring. They are bouncing on the balls of their feet. They are moving in what you would almost call a dance. Most of the "fight" is in their footwork, their positioning. When one does jab, the other blocks, or moves out of the way, or takes the hit. Sometimes they counter. Sometimes they punch. This fight goes on for a long, long time. It is not tit for tat. They both want to win. What you are saying is "That boxer needs to jab back, because the other boxer jabbed at him."
- excerionsforte 7y ago
  I really do not like having to make calls about fraud for months because some countries military decided to attack electronic property holding a ton of sensitive, very hard to change information. Biggest cyber theft of PII information in US history. I think it is best for the population on the other side to feel that as well which is why I prefer an electronic counter attack. We need deterrence. If China was to "jab", let them use other means of interaction that doesn't make us want to attack them physically. The more people who are affected financially by this, the more the call for a physical deterrence whether we agree with people's feelings or not.
syshum 7y ago
The correct response is recognizing the flaws in our Finchinal System and fixing those. The Response should be shifting the Liability back to the credit providers, not the consumers The idea of "Identity Theft" should be a thing of the past, for you did not have your identity stolen, you still have your identity, no the bank was defrauded by giving money to someone they did not properly vet. 100% of the liability should be on them, not the person who they claim had their "identity stolen" the Liability for financial Fraud in the US is 180 degrees from where it should be. Launching missiles at China may make you feel good, but it does not solve the root cause of the problem
- excerionsforte 7y ago
  You should re-read what I said. No where do I see me saying physical force had to be used. "Fixing" takes a long time that does not mean one should not deter attacks on the current system. How does one respond to a broken legacy software system that can be taken advantage of? You restrict the actions that can be performed on that system until it is replaced.
  - syshum 7y ago
    Yes I look internally to Mitigate the attack surface,I do not think about "reverse hacking" to "make them pay" No the response from me, internally is, is how did they get in, how can I plug that hole, and how can I make my systems more robust. Your response is making china (the hacker) pay, in order to "prevent" future attacks, that is simply naive IMO nor it is a viable solution.
    - excerionsforte 7y ago
      deter - discourage (someone) from doing something by instilling doubt or fear of the consequences. ^ this is the deter I am talking about. APT is on a different level than what you are used to. Also my question was rhetorical. Didn't actually mean for you to answer it. For you or your company it is not a viable solution since you don't have the resources.

ses1984 7y ago

I wouldn't want my government to kill anyone on my behalf because my credit report was stolen. How about we start with securing our systems? Modernize identity and credit reporting, stop relying on social security numbers, etc.

meowface 7y ago
What do you mean? The parent said they supported a cyber counter attack, which doesn't imply killing anyone unless it's explicitly stated (e.g. attacking critical infrastructure like power stations).

cdiamand 7y ago

I'm sorry that you got hurt by this. But I, as a civilian am not qualified to answer that question. Nor do I want to answer that question. This is not a perfect analogy, and I don't want you to think that geopolitics is a zero sum game. But, imagine two heavyweight boxers circling each other in a ring. They are bouncing on the balls of their feet. They are moving in what you would almost call a dance. Most of the "fight" is in their footwork, their positioning. When one does jab, the other blocks, or moves out of the way, or takes the hit. Sometimes they counter. Sometimes they punch. This fight goes on for a long, long time. It is not tit for tat. They both want to win. What you are saying is "That boxer needs to jab back, because the other boxer jabbed at him."

excerionsforte 7y ago
I really do not like having to make calls about fraud for months because some countries military decided to attack electronic property holding a ton of sensitive, very hard to change information. Biggest cyber theft of PII information in US history. I think it is best for the population on the other side to feel that as well which is why I prefer an electronic counter attack. We need deterrence. If China was to "jab", let them use other means of interaction that doesn't make us want to attack them physically. The more people who are affected financially by this, the more the call for a physical deterrence whether we agree with people's feelings or not.

syshum 7y ago

The correct response is recognizing the flaws in our Finchinal System and fixing those. The Response should be shifting the Liability back to the credit providers, not the consumers The idea of "Identity Theft" should be a thing of the past, for you did not have your identity stolen, you still have your identity, no the bank was defrauded by giving money to someone they did not properly vet. 100% of the liability should be on them, not the person who they claim had their "identity stolen" the Liability for financial Fraud in the US is 180 degrees from where it should be. Launching missiles at China may make you feel good, but it does not solve the root cause of the problem

excerionsforte 7y ago
You should re-read what I said. No where do I see me saying physical force had to be used. "Fixing" takes a long time that does not mean one should not deter attacks on the current system. How does one respond to a broken legacy software system that can be taken advantage of? You restrict the actions that can be performed on that system until it is replaced.
- syshum 7y ago
  Yes I look internally to Mitigate the attack surface,I do not think about "reverse hacking" to "make them pay" No the response from me, internally is, is how did they get in, how can I plug that hole, and how can I make my systems more robust. Your response is making china (the hacker) pay, in order to "prevent" future attacks, that is simply naive IMO nor it is a viable solution.
  - excerionsforte 7y ago
    deter - discourage (someone) from doing something by instilling doubt or fear of the consequences. ^ this is the deter I am talking about. APT is on a different level than what you are used to. Also my question was rhetorical. Didn't actually mean for you to answer it. For you or your company it is not a viable solution since you don't have the resources.