Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

How Should CyberAttacks be Countered?


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 13,965 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 28 March 2013 - 09:04 AM

I just saw this article and it reminded me of a threat by the US against countries that attack our cyber infrastructure.  It makes me wonder if a country is justified in using bombs and aircraft against another country that is using cyber attacks.

http://www.israelnat...09#.UVQEe5O-lIE
This is just one example.  But Iran is another, obviously.  If Iran chose to attack US or Israeli interests with ships or bombs or missiles because of the stuxnet damage - would they be justified?

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...

#2    Ashotep

Ashotep

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,453 posts
  • Joined:10 May 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

  • Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway-John Wayne

Posted 31 March 2013 - 11:17 PM

Anymore great damage can be done to a countries infrastructure and economy through cyber attacks.  If someone did that by bombing they would be attacked in a heartbeat.  However unless this is backed by a countries leaders I don't think attacking the country is a good idea.  The individual needs to be apprehended and prosecuted.


#3    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 13,965 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 01 April 2013 - 01:18 AM

View PostHilander, on 31 March 2013 - 11:17 PM, said:

Anymore great damage can be done to a countries infrastructure and economy through cyber attacks.  If someone did that by bombing they would be attacked in a heartbeat.  However unless this is backed by a countries leaders I don't think attacking the country is a good idea.  The individual needs to be apprehended and prosecuted.
]I agree except when it would be impossible to get at the individual because they are being sheltered by a government.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...

#4    Sir Wearer of Hats

Sir Wearer of Hats

    SCIENCE!

  • Member
  • 10,779 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia.

Posted 01 April 2013 - 02:11 AM

View Postand then, on 01 April 2013 - 01:18 AM, said:

]I agree except when it would be impossible to get at the individual because they are being sheltered by a government.
The Russians are quite good at that sort of thing.
It usually involves umbrellas, ricin and surprise.

I must not fear. Fear is the Mind-Killer. It is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and to move through me. And when it is gone I will turn the inner eye to see it's path.
When the fear is gone, there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

#5    ExpandMyMind

ExpandMyMind

    Telekinetic

  • Closed
  • 6,628 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2009

Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:14 AM

Unless a cyber attack actually kills human beings, then no, it would never warrant an attack on the perpetrator - neither morally nor through the confines of international law.

But if someone died? For instance, if air traffic control was hacked, bringing down planes, or if a nuclear plant was caused to enter a fatal meltdown, or even if nationwide traffic lights were tampered with to cause crashes, then yes to both of the above.


#6    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 13,965 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 01 April 2013 - 08:40 AM

View PostExpandMyMind, on 01 April 2013 - 07:14 AM, said:

Unless a cyber attack actually kills human beings, then no, it would never warrant an attack on the perpetrator - neither morally nor through the confines of international law.

But if someone died? For instance, if air traffic control was hacked, bringing down planes, or if a nuclear plant was caused to enter a fatal meltdown, or even if nationwide traffic lights were tampered with to cause crashes, then yes to both of the above.
I tend this way also.  But I wonder if there is a point where economic damage can cause such a hardship that violent reprisal would be necessary.  If a hack against London or New York's  financial district crashed all records then the collateral damage would be catastrophic.  Unlikely to be sure but what if?

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...

#7    ExpandMyMind

ExpandMyMind

    Telekinetic

  • Closed
  • 6,628 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2009

Posted 01 April 2013 - 09:16 AM

View Postand then, on 01 April 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

I tend this way also.  But I wonder if there is a point where economic damage can cause such a hardship that violent reprisal would be necessary.  If a hack against London or New York's  financial district crashed all records then the collateral damage would be catastrophic.  Unlikely to be sure but what if?

Well, what do you think? Do you think if indirect deaths were caused by the deliberate crash of London or Wall Street that a militaristic retaliation would be justified?


#8    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 01 April 2013 - 10:45 AM

If a system is so important that it needs to be immune from hack then it should be on its own net separate from the www. My understanding is that people cant read emails or access the www so companies prefer to risk being hacked for convenience.

So yeah. leave hackers alone. The real crooks are sitting in Wall Street anyways.


#9    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 13,965 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 01 April 2013 - 11:47 AM

View PostExpandMyMind, on 01 April 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

Well, what do you think? Do you think if indirect deaths were caused by the deliberate crash of London or Wall Street that a militaristic retaliation would be justified?
I think the threshold should always be that if an existential threat against the core values and way of life of a nation is threatened then it would justify threatening the guilty party with the same outcome - even if it's done with smart bombs.  The world has changed from the time when causes and effects were simple to trace and correct.  If the US developed a weapon so technologically superior that no need existed to ruin our enemy's physical infrastructure but still we could destroy their society I believe they would still have a right to strike in whatever way they could.  In fact I think this is what Islam is doing right now.  While I don't believe we are guilty in that case, it still fits the scenario sort of...

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...

#10    Wyrdlight

Wyrdlight

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,092 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2009

Posted 01 April 2013 - 03:38 PM

I would argue that damage is damage.  You can cause more damage to a nation with a clever series of hacks and viruses than you can with a missle.

An attack is an attack, simple as.


#11    EllJay

EllJay

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,666 posts
  • Joined:26 Dec 2009
  • Gender:Male

  • Today We Are Creating Tomorrow's Yesterday

Posted 06 April 2013 - 03:44 PM

Quote

How Should CyberAttacks be Countered?


Posted Image

"Opinions are like a**holes, everyone seems to have one" - Dirty Harry

"All those who believe in psychokinesis, raise my hand... "

"I have a black belt in Feng Shui, the subtle martial art. I go home to you and move a lamp and a chair... twelve years later you lay there on the floor with broken kneecaps and destitute."

#12    pallidin

pallidin

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,346 posts
  • Joined:09 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere south of the North Pole

  • "When life gets you down... swim with a dolphin"

Posted 06 April 2013 - 06:37 PM

Cyber-attacks, if used to gather intelligence, should not be a basis for actual war, as many countries including the Western powers do this.
Not very much different than "spies"

However, in my opinion, if the cyber-attack crippiled key national infrastructures, and it was determined(somehow) to be "state-sponsored" by a hostile country than I feel that's a different story. But I don't know what a reasonable retaliatory response should be. Instead of bombing, I would assume just do the same thing to them.

If the cyber-attack was "exteremly-serious", say, taking out White House communications, Norad computers, etc. I suppose the attack might be seen by the military as a prelude to war.

Just don't know for myself. Interesting question though, and a question I assume we will increasingly be dealing with.


#13    DarkHunter

DarkHunter

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 213 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 April 2013 - 05:35 AM

Cyber-attacks are a real complicated thing, they can completely cripple a nation by multiple means or they can just be used to gather information, they can be done by a sovereign state, a group of any size, or just an individual.  There is no one single answer on how to respond to a cyber-attack because of how different each cyber attack can be.  Something has to be done but what it is depends on so many variables no one can give one definite answer for what to do.

This kind of reminds me of a story I heard that happened during the cold war.  The USSR just built a new pipeline in Siberia that was to transport vast amounts of oil and would of greatly helped their economy, it was basically the USSR version of the Alaskan pipeline.  The only problem was that while they where able to physically build it easily enough they weren't able to come up with the programming to run all the vital systems that handled pressure, flow, and all the other important stuff, so it was unusable till they got the programming.  What they did was hack into if I remember correctly a Canadian company who helped with the creation of the programs that the US uses in its oil pipelines.  But the US knew about the USSR's plan to hack the Canadian company and steal the needed program so what they did was they altered the program slightly.  For the post part it was the exact same program but a few lines of code where added that would cause and at some random time, at some random point a catastrophic failure.  The USSR did not know about this line of code added weeks before they hacked the company and stole the program for their pipeline and when they started using it they never found those few lines of code.  The USSR is finally able to start using their pipeline they built and everything is running fine for awhile but after about a month or two the program kicks in and at some pump station in Siberia somewhere it causes the catastrophic failure it was meant to.  Completely destroyed the pump line by causing an explosion at the pump station and not causing the safety systems to kick in.  From what I understand it was a rather large explosion, and it went down both ends of the pipeline for a rather good distance before other pump stations stopped it.


#14    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 07 April 2013 - 07:02 AM

The uSA is very involved in its own cyber attack program. Its even allocated a budget.

Kettle calling the Pot Black.

The sentencing for even protest hacking (ddos)  is cruel and unusual.


#15    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 13,965 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 07 April 2013 - 08:22 AM

View PostAsteroidX, on 07 April 2013 - 07:02 AM, said:

The uSA is very involved in its own cyber attack program. Its even allocated a budget.

Kettle calling the Pot Black.

The sentencing for even protest hacking (ddos)  is cruel and unusual.
I clearly stated that Israel AND the US have engaged in cyber attack so I don't see where the pot and kettle thing comes in.  The question is - HOW should governments retaliate if a cyber attack inflicts heavy damage I guess.  Not necessarily loss of life but economic or infrastructure damage that causes great harm to the country.  Hacking the trading computers on Wall and Broad for example.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users