4 ms·

It seems like the big bad boogeyman of Russian cyberwarfare has also turned out to be a paper tiger. They are grasping at straws.

radicaldreamer 4y ago
This is likely just a warning or nuisance (but intentionally not destructive). An actual cyberattack which disrupts air traffic will likely be considered an act of war.
- ramesh31 4y ago
  > This is likely just a warning or nuisance (but intentionally not destructive). An actual cyberattack which disrupts air traffic will likely be considered an act of war. That theory sounds a lot like the argument of “why not just shoot their legs” applied to escalation of force. That’s not how it works. When you make the decision to shoot, you shoot to kill. And similarly, revealing your cyberattack capabilities through a “warning” attack is highly unlikely from a state based actor.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    Taking down an airport’s website does not meaningfully reveal a nation’s “cyberattack” capabilities. It’s the same thing as a shot across the bow, and nobody doubts that the other guy’s boat has a gun.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    I would have agreed with you assessment in pre-MAD world, but in MAD world, "shoot to kill" means we all, likely, die. Those that don't initially perish, do so shortly thereafter. In other words, there are good and valid arguments to ( using your words ) shoot in the legs first.
  - matai_kolila 4y ago
    ROE for cyber are fundamentally different. You deliberately do not "shoot to kill" in cyber, for tons of reasons, at least one being it's a much more opportunistic environment; hacking isn't magic, and many systems aren't penetrable at will. You often don't get to choose exactly what you target, you just hit what's vulnerable and see how you can pivot. Flip the incentives for a sec; the group that executed this hack can present it as an "attack on American infrastructure" to their superiors, even though we here in the US know it was 100% ineffective.
citilife 4y ago
More likely, this isn't a Russian operation. Could be someone from within Russia's borders (could also just be routing there). This just just some random "senior official" from an unknown organization saying "must be russia"
- PeterisP 4y ago
  The same operation has been doing DDoS attacks at various Russia-opponent-related targets for quite a long time, this is not a new unknown organization. However, yes, there doesn't seem to be a reason to assert that it is ordered by the Russian state (specific attributions e.g. to a particular agency or individuals have been made for certain operations, but generally it takes a lot of time and is done only in restrospective), it could be just a loose group of activists scattered around the world and sharing just a chat channel, this attack is unsophisticated enough to not require any specific resources or cooperation.
- laba 4y ago
  yes you are correct, the group behind it (that claimed the attack) are hacktivists doing DDoS, they themselves are not connected to the Russian government they've claimed multiple other similar attacks, but most of the time they are just spreading pro-war messages in their telegram
Silverback_VII 4y ago
>They are grasping at straws. But why? why are the western media doing it ? Are there any connections ?
wil421 4y ago
If they truly do a cyber attack on infrastructure like they’ve been doing to Ukraine it will end in war. There’s a reason they are only attacking the wait time pages and not airport operations. Read the book This Is How They Tell Me the World Ends: The Cyberweapons Arms Race by Nicole Perlroth. It has a chapter that shows a lot of what has been going on in Ukraine. One quote that stuck with me was a Ukrainian saying you guys (US/West) are next, they are practicing on us.
- ericmay 4y ago
  > One quote that stuck with me was a Ukrainian saying you guys (US/West) are next, they are practicing on us. Don't forget this goes bi-directional. We (the West) aren't idle recipients of what others do to our countries without response and even preventive measures. Granted the main danger is that we basically have a lot more to lose than our self-proclaimed adversaries but that doesn't mean we are helpless.
  - wil421 4y ago
    It’s much more one sided than bidirectional if you look outside of government employee/military hackers. Russia and China allow their citizens to scam and hack the US with almost impunity. If you or I started scamming Russians or defacing websites we would be going to prison. They pretty much allow and even encourage these types of activity.
- ramesh31 4y ago
  > If they truly do a cyber attack on infrastructure like they’ve been doing to Ukraine it will end in war. This has been the conventional wisdom, yes. Just like the conventional wisdom before February was that full scale land warfare between modern industrialized european nations was a thing of the past. What we’ve seen over the last year invalidates all of that. If they could paralyze Ukraine with a cyberattack, they would have by now. That bodes pretty poorly for their ability to meaningfully impact the US.
  - wil421 4y ago

radicaldreamer 4y ago

This is likely just a warning or nuisance (but intentionally not destructive). An actual cyberattack which disrupts air traffic will likely be considered an act of war.

ramesh31 4y ago
> This is likely just a warning or nuisance (but intentionally not destructive). An actual cyberattack which disrupts air traffic will likely be considered an act of war. That theory sounds a lot like the argument of “why not just shoot their legs” applied to escalation of force. That’s not how it works. When you make the decision to shoot, you shoot to kill. And similarly, revealing your cyberattack capabilities through a “warning” attack is highly unlikely from a state based actor.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Taking down an airport’s website does not meaningfully reveal a nation’s “cyberattack” capabilities. It’s the same thing as a shot across the bow, and nobody doubts that the other guy’s boat has a gun.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  I would have agreed with you assessment in pre-MAD world, but in MAD world, "shoot to kill" means we all, likely, die. Those that don't initially perish, do so shortly thereafter. In other words, there are good and valid arguments to ( using your words ) shoot in the legs first.
- matai_kolila 4y ago
  ROE for cyber are fundamentally different. You deliberately do not "shoot to kill" in cyber, for tons of reasons, at least one being it's a much more opportunistic environment; hacking isn't magic, and many systems aren't penetrable at will. You often don't get to choose exactly what you target, you just hit what's vulnerable and see how you can pivot. Flip the incentives for a sec; the group that executed this hack can present it as an "attack on American infrastructure" to their superiors, even though we here in the US know it was 100% ineffective.

citilife 4y ago

More likely, this isn't a Russian operation. Could be someone from within Russia's borders (could also just be routing there). This just just some random "senior official" from an unknown organization saying "must be russia"

PeterisP 4y ago
The same operation has been doing DDoS attacks at various Russia-opponent-related targets for quite a long time, this is not a new unknown organization. However, yes, there doesn't seem to be a reason to assert that it is ordered by the Russian state (specific attributions e.g. to a particular agency or individuals have been made for certain operations, but generally it takes a lot of time and is done only in restrospective), it could be just a loose group of activists scattered around the world and sharing just a chat channel, this attack is unsophisticated enough to not require any specific resources or cooperation.
laba 4y ago
yes you are correct, the group behind it (that claimed the attack) are hacktivists doing DDoS, they themselves are not connected to the Russian government they've claimed multiple other similar attacks, but most of the time they are just spreading pro-war messages in their telegram

Silverback_VII 4y ago

>They are grasping at straws. But why? why are the western media doing it ? Are there any connections ?

wil421 4y ago

If they truly do a cyber attack on infrastructure like they’ve been doing to Ukraine it will end in war. There’s a reason they are only attacking the wait time pages and not airport operations. Read the book This Is How They Tell Me the World Ends: The Cyberweapons Arms Race by Nicole Perlroth. It has a chapter that shows a lot of what has been going on in Ukraine. One quote that stuck with me was a Ukrainian saying you guys (US/West) are next, they are practicing on us.

ericmay 4y ago
> One quote that stuck with me was a Ukrainian saying you guys (US/West) are next, they are practicing on us. Don't forget this goes bi-directional. We (the West) aren't idle recipients of what others do to our countries without response and even preventive measures. Granted the main danger is that we basically have a lot more to lose than our self-proclaimed adversaries but that doesn't mean we are helpless.
- wil421 4y ago
  It’s much more one sided than bidirectional if you look outside of government employee/military hackers. Russia and China allow their citizens to scam and hack the US with almost impunity. If you or I started scamming Russians or defacing websites we would be going to prison. They pretty much allow and even encourage these types of activity.
ramesh31 4y ago
> If they truly do a cyber attack on infrastructure like they’ve been doing to Ukraine it will end in war. This has been the conventional wisdom, yes. Just like the conventional wisdom before February was that full scale land warfare between modern industrialized european nations was a thing of the past. What we’ve seen over the last year invalidates all of that. If they could paralyze Ukraine with a cyberattack, they would have by now. That bodes pretty poorly for their ability to meaningfully impact the US.
- wil421 4y ago