3 ms·

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

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.

3 ms·

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

by 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.