3 ms·

What makes you say this? I thought it was a common rumor that the NSA had backdoors in everything. Wouldn't Mutually Assured Destruction make an attack irration

What makes you say this? I thought it was a common rumor that the NSA had backdoors in everything. Wouldn't Mutually Assured Destruction make an attack irrational, just as it deters nuclear attacks?

laegooose 6y ago
but who do you retaliate against? Cyber-attack is harder to attribute than a missile launch
bayindirh 6y ago
NSA back doors are different. Yes, there’s a MAD component but, when you weaponize an independent software vendor, this becomes asymmetric warfare. Its presence manifests a different set of skills. Exploitation is not necessary. Presence itself is enough of a warning. It says “we’re equal now. We can be in your turf, sleep for a long time and even use your own companies as launch pads”.
andyjpb 6y ago
Mutually Assured Destruction relies on the victim knowing that they've been destroyed. Lots of these so-called "Cyber weapons" are operated by actors who are very effective at leaving no trace. It's been in the background before but in the reports about this SolarWinds issue the "leaves no trace" angle is starting to be emphasised much more. Not knowing if or what has been compromised means that the attacker can choose when or how to use the information they obtained and the victim will be surprised, even a long time down the line.
IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
That "common rumor" has always struck me as particularly stupid. I believe it's popular because "everything is worse than you think" conspiratorial cynicism is what passes for intelligence these days. This hack by itself should be proof that the NSA has no such capabilities. And, no, stopping this hack would not have compromised anything. They could have tipped off any one of a rather large number of security researchers, companies, or vendors affected who would have gladly made up a believable story as to how they noticed this.

What makes you say this? I thought it was a common rumor that the NSA had backdoors in everything. Wouldn't Mutually Assured Destruction make an attack irrational, just as it deters nuclear attacks?

laegooose 6y ago

but who do you retaliate against? Cyber-attack is harder to attribute than a missile launch

bayindirh 6y ago

NSA back doors are different. Yes, there’s a MAD component but, when you weaponize an independent software vendor, this becomes asymmetric warfare. Its presence manifests a different set of skills. Exploitation is not necessary. Presence itself is enough of a warning. It says “we’re equal now. We can be in your turf, sleep for a long time and even use your own companies as launch pads”.

andyjpb 6y ago

Mutually Assured Destruction relies on the victim knowing that they've been destroyed. Lots of these so-called "Cyber weapons" are operated by actors who are very effective at leaving no trace. It's been in the background before but in the reports about this SolarWinds issue the "leaves no trace" angle is starting to be emphasised much more. Not knowing if or what has been compromised means that the attacker can choose when or how to use the information they obtained and the victim will be surprised, even a long time down the line.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago

That "common rumor" has always struck me as particularly stupid. I believe it's popular because "everything is worse than you think" conspiratorial cynicism is what passes for intelligence these days. This hack by itself should be proof that the NSA has no such capabilities. And, no, stopping this hack would not have compromised anything. They could have tipped off any one of a rather large number of security researchers, companies, or vendors affected who would have gladly made up a believable story as to how they noticed this.