9 ms·
Countries should start responding to cyberattacks the same as if a black helicopter landed and a team of commandos damaged or stole the equipment. The intention
by tlb 4y ago
Countries should start responding to cyberattacks the same as if a black helicopter landed and a team of commandos damaged or stole the equipment. The intention is the same and the effect is the same, so the mechanism isn't important.
Expelling embassy staff is within the range of acceptable responses, so good for Albania here. The vast majority of nation-state cyberattacks get far less response.
- colechristensen 4y agoHow do you actually know what responses are? People get told things the government finds useful to tell, definitely not everything.
- 2Gkashmiri 4y agoyeah, as long as its not the "US and allies".... if you are saying this, what do you suppose the response IRAN should've had after stuxnet? or was that fair but if someone else does that to someone else then its a call for war? >Countries should start responding to cyberattacks the same as if a black helicopter landed and a team of commandos damaged or stole the equipment. The intention is the same and the effect is the same, so the mechanism isn't important. remember stuxnet and what if the roles were reversed, what would your response have been?
- philwelch 4y ago
- pphysch 4y agoWhat, precisely, was Stuxnet a proportional response to?
- helloooooooo 4y agoThere were 3 options GWB had. Either A) allow Israel to strike Iran directly using kinetic means. B) prevent Israel from doing so and likely give Iran the capability to arm weapons with nuclear warheads. C) an option C. Stuxnet. Which option in your opinion is most proportionate and least damaging? Either A) or B) would upset power balances in the Middle East leading to war between nations.
- _jal 4y ago> C) an option C. In other words, "We need to do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do it."
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- philwelch 4y agoIran's sponsorship of terrorism, illegal attempts to develop nuclear weapons, and openly stated genocidal intentions towards Israel.
- x86x87 4y agoNot saying you're wrong, but all this is optics and there is quite a bit of brainwashing at work no matter where you live. What is an illegal attempt to do something? Who decides what is legal?
- kurthr 4y agoCake or Death? Hmmm.... does the death come with chocolate on the side? Seriously, more dictatorial states with nuclear weapons in the middle east aren't going to lead to more happiness, fairness, or understanding... any more than arming crips and bloods in South Central. Unless you believe that earlier nuclear annihilation is preferable for humanity, it is objectively bad. One might as well argue that importing cocaine to create the crack epidemic and fund the Contras was morally neutral.
- pphysch 4y ago> Seriously, more dictatorial states with nuclear weapons in the middle east aren't going to lead to more happiness, fairness, or understanding... The idea that Israel should be disarmed of its nukes is a nonstarter in Washington. This conflict has nothing to do with "happiness, fairness, or understanding" and everything to do with Washington's and Tel Aviv's power over the region.
- philwelch 4y ago> The idea that Israel should be disarmed of its nukes is a nonstarter in Washington. The idea that Israel is a "dictatorial state" has no relation to reality.
- 4y ago
- AlotOfReading 4y agoStuxnet is a terrible example to use here. A worm that causes no collateral damage unless you're running a nuclear enrichment program with hardware identical to Iran's is the platonic ideal of precision. Even if you did happen to be running nuclear enrichment facilities, it didn't stop them, merely increased equipment failure rates just enough that the diplomats had enough time to work out accords.
- pphysch 4y agoThis doesn't answer the question. Can you point to e.g. the instance of Iran sabotaging sensitive infrastructure in USA that warranted the "response" of Stuxnet?
- solarist 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
- random314 4y agoOh ok!
- the_af 4y ago> Stuxnet was a response to decades of Iranian aggression. So you would amend the grandparent comment that "countries need to start responding to cyberattacks" with an "...unless those cyberattacks are a response to some other alleged aggression"?
- philwelch 4y agoThe US and Israel had been involved in conflict with Iran for decades before Stuxnet. It's not like there were completely normal and peaceful relations until the US and Israel suddenly released a cyberattack targeting Iran's uranium enrichment facilities.
- the_af 4y agoI'm not asking for justifications of why Iran is an exception. You can always argue that any particular case is an exception where the general rule doesn't apply. I'm talking about the general principle here. I'm saying what you are essentially claiming is "countries should respond to cyberattacks [...] unless those cyberattacks are warranted". I'm not interested in discussing whether they were warranted or not in the case of Iran.
- philwelch 4y agoI’m not, either. The general principle is that cyberattacks are equivalent to kinetic attacks. If they happen in a conflict where both sides are kinetically attacking each other anyway, the question of response is irrelevant, and the only question is the relative justification of either party to the overall conflict to begin with.
- the_af 4y agoThanks for clarifying, so you are indeed arguing what I thought: countries must respond to cyberattacks, unless if they are somehow "justified" by other alleged aggressions. The particulars of the case you're trying to argue about Iran are irrelevant -- what matters is that you feel there are exceptions. Gotcha.
- vkou 4y agoSo, you're declaring an open season for cyberattacks against Israel, Russia, China, the US, and the UK? I'm sure I've missed a few others, but they are at the top of my list for 'decades of aggression'.
- philwelch 4y agoWow, that is the single most intelligent and original response I've ever seen. You are very smart.
- syrrim 4y agoThe weak suffer what they must. Iran could definitely have gone for some sabre rattling and asking for aid from their allies, but obviously their options were limited.
- x86x87 4y ago> The weak suffer what they must. Realpolitik right here. /s
- MockObject 4y agoWhy the "/s"? Your statement was true.
- colinmhayes 4y agoIran absolutely would've launched military action in response to STUXNET if they thought it wouldn't lead to annihilation. The weak suffer what they must.
- 2Gkashmiri 4y agoSo you are saying, let me get this straight. Iran should have asked for help to retaliate against attackers but since they did not have friends, they could not retaliate. But, if the same thing happens with Israel, then it becomes a matter of threatening world peace ad everyone must unite against a common enemy. Cool.
- golemiprague 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- pphysch 4y agoThe problem with this analogy is that the CIA uses frameworks like Marble [1] to stage false flag cyberattacks. Attribution is never as obvious as helicopter landing on your roof, not even close. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_7#Marble_framework https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_7#Marble_framework
- helloooooooo 4y agoThe wiki article doesn’t even mention false flags? Why wouldn’t the CIA make their malware another language? You think they are going to be hacking Russian networks with English language malware?
- _jal 4y agoPutting aside what any specific intelligence outfit does, attribution is a massive problem in infosec. Google "security attribution problem" if you are unfamiliar with the topic, it is a big one.
- pphysch 4y agoAnd yet people routinely act like the presence of Chinese/Russian/Iranian strings in a malware hexdump is strong evidence of the respective state's culpability.
- mc32 4y agoPeople believe what they're predisposed to believe ideologically. I sympathize with [entity] -> Despite evidence, I cannot admit it was entity. I dislike [entity] -> despite lack of evidence, the plausibility allows me to attribute it to [entity].
- the_af 4y agoThe wiki does mention false flags: > "In its release, WikiLeaks described the primary purpose of "Marble" as to insert foreign language text into the malware to mask viruses, trojans and hacking attacks, making it more difficult for them to be tracked to the CIA and to cause forensic investigators to falsely attribute code to the wrong nation."
- InCityDreams 4y agoTry watching "Yes, Minister" (find 'the best bits' compilations), on youtube, and you may just realise why no-one gives a fuck and even if the pink jeeps turn up, fuck all rareley happens.
- dfc 4y agoPink jeeps, like pink jeeps from the desert in WW2?
- LatteLazy 4y agoLike when the US used Stuxnet against Iran? Maybe fucking with someone else's computers is not actually worth murdering anyone over... Edit: I actually like this new form of "war" where no one dies, we just DDOS websites and people cannot renew their driving licenses or enrich uranium for a period of time.
- suoduandao2 4y agoIt also involves the kind of targeted propaganda that turns families against each other over their voting preferences... and I suspect we haven't seen the worst of it yet.
- WastingMyTime89 4y agoCountries respond to cyberattacks the same way they respond to espionnage. They acknowledge what suits them.
- LtWorf 4y agoEvery time some unfortunate computer shit happens in USA, they inevitably blame it on: china, north korea, iran, russia. In truth they just want the public to hate them. They might not have a clue on who did it.