4 ms·

>These ransoms are net good...There are a lot of infrastructure teams taking security more seriously. Nonsense. This is not an academic exercise. Our country i

>These ransoms are net good...There are a lot of infrastructure teams taking security more seriously. Nonsense. This is not an academic exercise. Our country is being attacked by "nation states" (do more research) and we need to respond accordingly, treating it as the national security threat it is and making the perpetrators pay a heavy price. If they'd bombed our critical infrastructure, no one would be sitting around saying, "oh this is good for improving our defense. Thank you for dropping bombs on us." The idea that they are doing us some kind of service and we should just play a game of defensive cat and mouse, hoping for 100% effectiveness (which we know is impossible) is absurd. Wake up. We're at war.

hattmall 5y ago
Can they unbomb it for $5 million? Cause that would be cool.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  >Can they unbomb it for $5 million? Cause that would be cool Yes, we could "unbomb" it for some amount of money. But, we generally use the term "repair". But, that's a great point: as long as we can undo the damage for some amount of money (via repair or paying extortion), we should let foreign adversaries dictate the terms on which they'll allow us to operate our infrastructure. Still, do let us know when you think we should be concerned. 2 more pipelines? 3 more hospitals? 4 more police stations? $5 trillion ransoms? Maybe? No? Perhaps when infrastructure outages and other attacks cause deaths?
rswail 5y ago
> Wake up. We're at war. With whom? And given that nation states have engaged in this sort of thing for years, and that the US/5-eyes/etc also engage in these activities, do you really want to turn a cyber/cold-war into a hot one? The solution is defense-in-depth, with liability on the providers of software, which will require them to insure, which will raise prices, which will force them to address security as COGS which will force them to reduce their attack surfaces to reduce their insurance premiums.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  Russia. That's not exactly a secret. I didn't say we needed to turn it hot. Where did you read that? But, I do believe this idea that we "shouldn't escalate" emboldens the aggressors. There is no defense-only solution. Your profile says you work in IT, so you know that. Why are you against punishing/deterring the aggressors?

hattmall 5y ago

Can they unbomb it for $5 million? Cause that would be cool.

unclebucknasty 5y ago
>Can they unbomb it for $5 million? Cause that would be cool Yes, we could "unbomb" it for some amount of money. But, we generally use the term "repair". But, that's a great point: as long as we can undo the damage for some amount of money (via repair or paying extortion), we should let foreign adversaries dictate the terms on which they'll allow us to operate our infrastructure. Still, do let us know when you think we should be concerned. 2 more pipelines? 3 more hospitals? 4 more police stations? $5 trillion ransoms? Maybe? No? Perhaps when infrastructure outages and other attacks cause deaths?

rswail 5y ago

> Wake up. We're at war. With whom? And given that nation states have engaged in this sort of thing for years, and that the US/5-eyes/etc also engage in these activities, do you really want to turn a cyber/cold-war into a hot one? The solution is defense-in-depth, with liability on the providers of software, which will require them to insure, which will raise prices, which will force them to address security as COGS which will force them to reduce their attack surfaces to reduce their insurance premiums.

unclebucknasty 5y ago
Russia. That's not exactly a secret. I didn't say we needed to turn it hot. Where did you read that? But, I do believe this idea that we "shouldn't escalate" emboldens the aggressors. There is no defense-only solution. Your profile says you work in IT, so you know that. Why are you against punishing/deterring the aggressors?