3 ms·

this article and a lot of the comments here seem to be unfamiliar with the basic terminology of cyber (cyberwar, cyber weapons, cyber power, cyber craft, fifth

this article and a lot of the comments here seem to be unfamiliar with the basic terminology of cyber (cyberwar, cyber weapons, cyber power, cyber craft, fifth dimension, etc) and it shows. there was a great talk by grugq this month at disclosure2020 which debunks both the language in this article and some of the opinions here: https://invidious.snopyta.org/embed/_k0MkJMHPi0?start=536 https://invidious.snopyta.org/embed/_k0MkJMHPi0?start=536 there is a lot of horse manure peddled in this domain (and a lot of thought-thinkers have turned out to be spectacularly wrong). This article is so terribly wrong everywhere that it's neither worth reading nor discussing imvho.

sandworm101 6y ago
Whenever i hear someone talking about "cyber" a large part of my brain switches off. Im sure that some people are told they simply have to use the term, but i find real experts shy away. If i have a choice between talks on "remote exploitation analysis" or "cyberwar weapons research" ill go with the boring title every time.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Whenever i hear someone talking about "cyber" a large part of my brain switches off. Im sure that some people are told they simply have to use the term, but i find real experts shy away. If i have a choice between talks on "remote exploitation analysis" or "cyberwar weapons research" ill go with the boring title every time. You actually have two different sets of experts here with their own jargon: the military/political leaders and the soldier-hackers. The HN readership likely has a lot more in common with the latter than the former, but it might be a mistake to insist that all groups use the latter's jargon. Kinda like it would be a mistake to insist biologists talk in the jargon of particle physics.
brmgb 6y ago
The article is a lot lower on jargon that your pretty aggressive comment. It is also very light on actual content. It basically states that the UK has put in place the military organization, developed offensive capabilities relating to information systems (ergo developed exploits and recruited experts) and has used them offensively in the past. While I agree none of this is terribly interesting (everyone does this), I fail to see how it is spectacularly wrong. Would you mind explaining ?

sandworm101 6y ago

Whenever i hear someone talking about "cyber" a large part of my brain switches off. Im sure that some people are told they simply have to use the term, but i find real experts shy away. If i have a choice between talks on "remote exploitation analysis" or "cyberwar weapons research" ill go with the boring title every time.

ardy42 6y ago
> Whenever i hear someone talking about "cyber" a large part of my brain switches off. Im sure that some people are told they simply have to use the term, but i find real experts shy away. If i have a choice between talks on "remote exploitation analysis" or "cyberwar weapons research" ill go with the boring title every time. You actually have two different sets of experts here with their own jargon: the military/political leaders and the soldier-hackers. The HN readership likely has a lot more in common with the latter than the former, but it might be a mistake to insist that all groups use the latter's jargon. Kinda like it would be a mistake to insist biologists talk in the jargon of particle physics.

brmgb 6y ago

The article is a lot lower on jargon that your pretty aggressive comment. It is also very light on actual content. It basically states that the UK has put in place the military organization, developed offensive capabilities relating to information systems (ergo developed exploits and recruited experts) and has used them offensively in the past. While I agree none of this is terribly interesting (everyone does this), I fail to see how it is spectacularly wrong. Would you mind explaining ?