3 ms·
Could someone help me understand the following sentence from the article? > Controversial hackbacks, i.e., the hacking back of attacks, are rejected as a "mean
by akavel 5y ago
Could someone help me understand the following sentence from the article?
> Controversial hackbacks, i.e., the hacking back of attacks, are rejected as a "means of cyber defense in principle."
Does this mean "hackbacks" are seen as cyber defense and therefore rejected, or that they are refused the name of cyber defense? Or something else? Does this mean there's intention to forbid cyber defense, esp. by govt/army?!? I'm confused by what's attempted to be communicated here. (Also, who's the presumed actor of those "hackbacks" here, govt? private entities? anyone?)
- iforgotpassword 5y agoThey are seen as unethical or at least pointless, since 99% of attribution is reading coffee grounds anyways. Instead of hacking back, why not try to get your security up to it in the first place.
- dragonelite 5y agoHow are you going to trace back the hacking to country of origin? Scan on Russian and Chinese characters or IP addresses in the code, that such a naïve take so yeah wouldn't be surprised if European leaders would totally go for it. Allies and other actors would totally not fake that as a distraction.