5 ms·

Computer hacking as a new battlefield is inevitable if not already a reality. Much like how at one time in the US there was no Air Force and airplanes were par

by ansy 15y ago

Computer hacking as a new battlefield is inevitable if not already a reality. Much like how at one time in the US there was no Air Force and airplanes were part of the Army, right now there is no Cyber Force and hackers are part of the Air Force. If computers really are a new theater of war, there probably needs to be a new branch of the military to recruit, train, and deploy new kinds of hacker-soldiers. The hacking operations of the Chinese right now are like American high-altitude spy planes and satellites flying with impunity over the China and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The longer the US delays to enter the cyber arms race the more it risks conceding dominance for the foreseeable future. I could actually see a lot of positive economic synergy if the United States were to establish a Cyber Force to recruit and train computer security specialists. EDIT: I recognize the US does have a Cyber Command. It's in the Air Force. The point is it's under-funded, understaffed, and under-publicized. Recruitment is pretty much limited to a handful of people already in the Air Force with computer backgrounds. There are no commercials on TV or recruitment offices to tell people to join the hacker corps like there are for the other military branches. Mixing geeks with paratroopers isn't effective. The US needs a new branch that can make its own rules, recruitment standards, and awards to be truly effective in a different kind of war.

wgx 15y ago
>there probably needs to be a new branch of the military to recruit, train, and deploy new kinds of hacker-soldiers. Agree, but I'd suggest it likely that this branch is already well-established and operational, if hidden from the public eye.
- hugh3 15y ago
  I imagine this is a very large portion of NSA operations. There's no need for "cyber command" to really be part of the military. There's no need to put hackers through boot camp, or make 'em wear uniforms, or salute... it would bring down the average quality of the hackers and the average quality of the military. Far better to fold it under the roof of the intelligence agencies.
  - nyellin 15y ago
    On the the contrary. Military discipline developed from the necessity of training reliable soldiers who don't question critical orders. Independent thinking is an admirable trait, but knowing your soldiers wont leak information is crucial. In Israel there is a mandatory draft. Every soldier goes to boot camp and units like 8200 have strict military structures. (Success is hard to measure, but Israel's high tech industry is some indication of the benefits of military discipline.)
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - nyellin 15y ago
      silverstorm, the mandatory draft includes women. (Although exemptions are common in orthodox communities where woman trade army service for two years of mandatory social work.)
    - hugh3 15y ago
      On the the contrary. Military discipline developed from the necessity of training reliable soldiers who don't question critical orders. Independent thinking is an admirable trait, but knowing your soldiers wont leak information is crucial. The CIA and NSA have... (goes to look it up)... uhh, some large but undisclosed number of employees. They seem to do a perfectly good job of keeping secrets without needing full-on military discipline. I'm not actually saying that military training would make anyone a worse hacker, though, I'm just saying that the need for military discipline would limit the number of people (especially in that particular demographic) who wanted to sign up. I have no doubt some of the NSA's best hackers are completely unable to do a single chin-up.
      - rbanffy 15y ago
        > unable to do a single chin-up To say nothing about the willingness to salute someone who just learned they can copy and paste text.
    - lautis 15y ago
- gcb 15y ago
  why people still think it's ok to have secrets in a government? is it the many movies where the hero help the gov to hide some alien invasion to prevent panic that causes people to think this is right?
  - jerf 15y ago
    Because people who wish you harm for various reasons really exist, and nobody's figured out how to tell the entire world every detail about our defensive capabilities without substantially weakening them in the process. I'm a little-l libertarian and I'll happily join the calls for "more transparency" where appropriate, but "government should have no secrets", especially in the area of self defense, is not a realistic position. It's an abusable-but-necessary evil.
    - darklajid 15y ago
      I don't want to be dragged into politics right now, but > Because people who wish you harm for various reasons really exist, and nobody's figured out how to tell the entire world every detail about our defensive capabilities without substantially weakening them in the process. ..sounds like security through obscurity to me.
      - redxaxder 15y ago
        No more than keeping your encryption keys a secret is security through obscurity. Even if you're transparent about your overall scheme, you need to keep some execution details hidden.
        gcb 15y ago
        no. security and government decency is telling everyone "we spend x billions here and use z and y to encrypt access to it" what happens is "we spent x billions on toilet seats (to quote an alien movie) and password go over the air unencrypted, but we are not telling you the frequency"
      - nl 15y ago
nextparadigms 15y ago
What makes you think they are delaying anything? You think they haven't been doing the same to others? They've been building a cyber division for years.
- pyre 15y ago
  Every branch of the military has been 'building a force' for years. They all want to be the branch that is more necessary than the others (and therefore gets more funding/prestige). The reality is that 'cyber warfare' is less warfare and more espionage. It's probably already being handled by the NSA/CIA/etc.
chollida1 15y ago
> The longer the US delays to enter the cyber arms race the more it risks conceding dominance for the foreseeable future. I thought that the US was not only the founder of cyber war fare but far and away the leader in it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet
- ebiester 15y ago
  Stuxnet was Israeli, from what I understood. That said, I'm pretty sure that if it's anywhere, it's hidden in the NSA or CIA instead, and that they're pretty damn good.
  - andreyf 15y ago
    It can take one brilliant person to bild Stuxnet.
    - tripzilch 15y ago
      There's strong indications that Stuxnet was built by a team of developers, though.
Periodic 15y ago
In terms of publicizing it, I used to see adds for the Air Force Cyber Command on Hulu. It showed pictures of guys in fatigues doing simple things on Windows in cubicles. It didn't look terribly exciting, though they did have red rotating alarm lights in the ceiling at their office. I think they are putting some effort into it, and they did know what audience to advertise to. You can find a few commercials on YouTube, but I couldn't find the one I saw.
nitrogen 15y ago
I wonder if some of the inventors of the airplane were disappointed to see it used for military purposes, or if it's just my 1990s upbringing that makes me think of the Internet as something beyond the trivial concerns of humanity, and use of it as a battlefield as tragic.
- stonemetal 15y ago
  and use of it as a battlefield as tragic Isn't that why it was invented in the first place? Just because it has grown in to something more doesn't mean it has completely cast off its military upbringing.
joe_the_user 15y ago
The rhetoric of "battlefield" is over-done and unhelpful. The US National Security Agency is a world leader if not the world leader in signals intelligence. Signals intelligence has been part of military intelligence for a long time (and military intelligence has alway been, uh, part of the military too for what its worth). It's well known how cracking encryption helped the US win WWII. It never stopped after that. You and I don't know all details of how this works because naturally (for good or ill) that's how they operate (they being the NSA, NRO and the vast multitude of secret agencies out there). You think someone histrionically describing signals intelligence as "a battlefield", saying "we need a Cyber Force, this is 'War!" makes much of a difference in the massive, massive investment and resources the US is now very actively using??
- ansy 15y ago
  Signals intelligence and counter-intelligence is a narrow view of how computers can impact the battlefield. While the NSA and CIA may have some capability beyond listening in on enemy communications, I question whether the responsibility to make attacks on foreign targets which could be considered acts of war should be left separate from the military. Weaponizing computers can have a much broader use that would be appropriate for a Cyber Force in addition to military intelligence operations. For example, today we might want to knock out a communications array, a factory, or a power plant in enemy territory. Our options at the moment are to send in missiles, bomber jets, or an elite ground unit. But those aren't always good options. The missiles and bombs could cause unwanted collateral damage to civilians. Missiles and bombers are crazy expensive and so is the cost to get them to the target. The risks to using an elite ground unit are enormous not only to the unit itself but to foreign policy if they are killed or captured. But a Cyber Force could electronically disrupt or disable a facility through any number of means. This would be far cheaper in terms of financial and human costs. Even if there are counter measures in place for the facility to run offline on a private grid, such an attack could sufficiently hinder it until it can be disabled more permanently. This is no different than sending a bomber jet instead of an infantry platoon. The goal is to make a surgical strike, the generals need to choose the right tool for the job. For an increasingly large class of technologically advanced targets in increasingly urban areas the military will more often want to employ hackers instead of bombers. The point, then, was that this will be equally true for enemies wishing to attack the United States. A dedicated team of hackers can easily cause as much or more damage than a fleet of bombers. And the United States can either be ready for it or watch as enemies walk over them with impunity like the United States air force flies over enemies today.
vorg 15y ago
My PC's firewall reports "U.S.DoD" as the owner of every other ping on my computer.

by ansy 15y ago

wgx 15y ago

>there probably needs to be a new branch of the military to recruit, train, and deploy new kinds of hacker-soldiers. Agree, but I'd suggest it likely that this branch is already well-established and operational, if hidden from the public eye.

hugh3 15y ago
I imagine this is a very large portion of NSA operations. There's no need for "cyber command" to really be part of the military. There's no need to put hackers through boot camp, or make 'em wear uniforms, or salute... it would bring down the average quality of the hackers and the average quality of the military. Far better to fold it under the roof of the intelligence agencies.
- nyellin 15y ago
  On the the contrary. Military discipline developed from the necessity of training reliable soldiers who don't question critical orders. Independent thinking is an admirable trait, but knowing your soldiers wont leak information is crucial. In Israel there is a mandatory draft. Every soldier goes to boot camp and units like 8200 have strict military structures. (Success is hard to measure, but Israel's high tech industry is some indication of the benefits of military discipline.)
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - nyellin 15y ago
    silverstorm, the mandatory draft includes women. (Although exemptions are common in orthodox communities where woman trade army service for two years of mandatory social work.)
  - hugh3 15y ago
    On the the contrary. Military discipline developed from the necessity of training reliable soldiers who don't question critical orders. Independent thinking is an admirable trait, but knowing your soldiers wont leak information is crucial. The CIA and NSA have... (goes to look it up)... uhh, some large but undisclosed number of employees. They seem to do a perfectly good job of keeping secrets without needing full-on military discipline. I'm not actually saying that military training would make anyone a worse hacker, though, I'm just saying that the need for military discipline would limit the number of people (especially in that particular demographic) who wanted to sign up. I have no doubt some of the NSA's best hackers are completely unable to do a single chin-up.
    - rbanffy 15y ago
      > unable to do a single chin-up To say nothing about the willingness to salute someone who just learned they can copy and paste text.
  - lautis 15y ago
gcb 15y ago
why people still think it's ok to have secrets in a government? is it the many movies where the hero help the gov to hide some alien invasion to prevent panic that causes people to think this is right?
- jerf 15y ago
  Because people who wish you harm for various reasons really exist, and nobody's figured out how to tell the entire world every detail about our defensive capabilities without substantially weakening them in the process. I'm a little-l libertarian and I'll happily join the calls for "more transparency" where appropriate, but "government should have no secrets", especially in the area of self defense, is not a realistic position. It's an abusable-but-necessary evil.
  - darklajid 15y ago
    I don't want to be dragged into politics right now, but > Because people who wish you harm for various reasons really exist, and nobody's figured out how to tell the entire world every detail about our defensive capabilities without substantially weakening them in the process. ..sounds like security through obscurity to me.
    - redxaxder 15y ago
      No more than keeping your encryption keys a secret is security through obscurity. Even if you're transparent about your overall scheme, you need to keep some execution details hidden.
      - gcb 15y ago
        no. security and government decency is telling everyone "we spend x billions here and use z and y to encrypt access to it" what happens is "we spent x billions on toilet seats (to quote an alien movie) and password go over the air unencrypted, but we are not telling you the frequency"
    - nl 15y ago

nextparadigms 15y ago

What makes you think they are delaying anything? You think they haven't been doing the same to others? They've been building a cyber division for years.

pyre 15y ago
Every branch of the military has been 'building a force' for years. They all want to be the branch that is more necessary than the others (and therefore gets more funding/prestige). The reality is that 'cyber warfare' is less warfare and more espionage. It's probably already being handled by the NSA/CIA/etc.

chollida1 15y ago

> The longer the US delays to enter the cyber arms race the more it risks conceding dominance for the foreseeable future. I thought that the US was not only the founder of cyber war fare but far and away the leader in it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

ebiester 15y ago
Stuxnet was Israeli, from what I understood. That said, I'm pretty sure that if it's anywhere, it's hidden in the NSA or CIA instead, and that they're pretty damn good.
- andreyf 15y ago
  It can take one brilliant person to bild Stuxnet.
  - tripzilch 15y ago
    There's strong indications that Stuxnet was built by a team of developers, though.

Periodic 15y ago

In terms of publicizing it, I used to see adds for the Air Force Cyber Command on Hulu. It showed pictures of guys in fatigues doing simple things on Windows in cubicles. It didn't look terribly exciting, though they did have red rotating alarm lights in the ceiling at their office. I think they are putting some effort into it, and they did know what audience to advertise to. You can find a few commercials on YouTube, but I couldn't find the one I saw.

nitrogen 15y ago

I wonder if some of the inventors of the airplane were disappointed to see it used for military purposes, or if it's just my 1990s upbringing that makes me think of the Internet as something beyond the trivial concerns of humanity, and use of it as a battlefield as tragic.

stonemetal 15y ago
and use of it as a battlefield as tragic Isn't that why it was invented in the first place? Just because it has grown in to something more doesn't mean it has completely cast off its military upbringing.

joe_the_user 15y ago

The rhetoric of "battlefield" is over-done and unhelpful. The US National Security Agency is a world leader if not the world leader in signals intelligence. Signals intelligence has been part of military intelligence for a long time (and military intelligence has alway been, uh, part of the military too for what its worth). It's well known how cracking encryption helped the US win WWII. It never stopped after that. You and I don't know all details of how this works because naturally (for good or ill) that's how they operate (they being the NSA, NRO and the vast multitude of secret agencies out there). You think someone histrionically describing signals intelligence as "a battlefield", saying "we need a Cyber Force, this is 'War!" makes much of a difference in the massive, massive investment and resources the US is now very actively using??

ansy 15y ago
Signals intelligence and counter-intelligence is a narrow view of how computers can impact the battlefield. While the NSA and CIA may have some capability beyond listening in on enemy communications, I question whether the responsibility to make attacks on foreign targets which could be considered acts of war should be left separate from the military. Weaponizing computers can have a much broader use that would be appropriate for a Cyber Force in addition to military intelligence operations. For example, today we might want to knock out a communications array, a factory, or a power plant in enemy territory. Our options at the moment are to send in missiles, bomber jets, or an elite ground unit. But those aren't always good options. The missiles and bombs could cause unwanted collateral damage to civilians. Missiles and bombers are crazy expensive and so is the cost to get them to the target. The risks to using an elite ground unit are enormous not only to the unit itself but to foreign policy if they are killed or captured. But a Cyber Force could electronically disrupt or disable a facility through any number of means. This would be far cheaper in terms of financial and human costs. Even if there are counter measures in place for the facility to run offline on a private grid, such an attack could sufficiently hinder it until it can be disabled more permanently. This is no different than sending a bomber jet instead of an infantry platoon. The goal is to make a surgical strike, the generals need to choose the right tool for the job. For an increasingly large class of technologically advanced targets in increasingly urban areas the military will more often want to employ hackers instead of bombers. The point, then, was that this will be equally true for enemies wishing to attack the United States. A dedicated team of hackers can easily cause as much or more damage than a fleet of bombers. And the United States can either be ready for it or watch as enemies walk over them with impunity like the United States air force flies over enemies today.

vorg 15y ago

My PC's firewall reports "U.S.DoD" as the owner of every other ping on my computer.