37 ms·
That's what I was thinking. I'd imagine cyberwar capabilities are a lot more difficult for enemies to assess, at least in regards to conventional weapons. You c
by csilverman 6y ago
That's what I was thinking. I'd imagine cyberwar capabilities are a lot more difficult for enemies to assess, at least in regards to conventional weapons. You can't spot them by satellite or anything; you'd have to estimate them based on knowledge of past attacks or reports from spies/informants.
That strong element of uncertainty, combined with confident public statements and the knowledge of UK technical expertise in general, is probably a pretty decent deterrent, even if the abilities in question happened to be exaggerated.
- mywittyname 6y ago> even if the abilities in question happened to be exaggerated. I donno. Stuxnet demonstrated how sophisticated the capabilities are of highly advanced nations, and that was around 10 years ago. At this point, I suspect that the assumption is that any computer-controlled system will be a target for cyber-espionage, and that it might not be obvious that such an attack is underway without some kind of monitoring that relies on statistical analysis of the performance deviance from some expected value. To compound the problem, the USA & China can likely obtain technical specs for just about any system produced in the world by just asking, and failing that, through corporate espionage. Which means these countries are pretty well positioned to pull off crazy hacks that wouldn't even seem possible.
- csilverman 6y agoYeah, I wasn't trying to imply the abilities were exaggerated; just saying that the amorphous nature of cyberwar means you could give an adversary pause by claiming abilities you may not have yet. (Whereas claiming you have, say, 1,200 bombers when you only have half that number is more easily determined).