Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
and then

How Should CyberAttacks be Countered?

16 posts in this topic

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.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/166609#.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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

]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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How Should CyberAttacks be Countered?

dont-worry-im-from-the-internet.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I dont have alot of sympathy for wallstreet tbh. But its a well known fact if you run your computers on there own network then they cant be hacked unless it comes internally. So thats the solution.

What is lost by this. Email outside the network and access to the www. So it is not such a big thing.

Companies were told this our govmnt knows this but they choose the email thing as more necessary then a secure system so that kept them from doing it. So I guess they only have themselves to blame. Because computers can be secure. They just have to run on there own network.

Pot calling the kettle was a reference to how the Govmnt can about cyber attacking countries but then call crime/foul when it happens to them. I dont see them sending there own hackers to prison for 100years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.