America Plans 'Aggressive' Cyber Counterattack on Russia (msn.com) 154
The Biden administration "is preparing a series of aggressive cyber attacks on Russia in a major shift in tactics designed as a warning shot to rival powers," reports the Telegraph newspaper:
The attack, which is expected in the next fortnight, is in retaliation for the SolarWinds hack, the large-scale infiltration of American government agencies and corporations discovered late last year that was traced back to the Kremlin... The U.S. will not target civilian structures or networks, but the hack is instead designed as a direct challenge to Mr Putin, Russia's President, and his cyber army, The Telegraph understands.
The White House confirmed it will take "a mix of actions" — both "seen and unseen" — although it did not provide specifics on when and how it would do so... "I actually believe that a set of measures that are understood by the Russians, but may not be visible to the broader world, are actually likely to be the most effective measures in terms of clarifying what the United States believes are in bounds and out of bounds, and what we are prepared to do in response," Jake Sullivan, U.S. National Security Adviser, told the New York Times last week.
Mr Sullivan stressed that traditional sanctions alone do not sufficiently raise the cost to force powers like Russia, or China.
The White House confirmed it will take "a mix of actions" — both "seen and unseen" — although it did not provide specifics on when and how it would do so... "I actually believe that a set of measures that are understood by the Russians, but may not be visible to the broader world, are actually likely to be the most effective measures in terms of clarifying what the United States believes are in bounds and out of bounds, and what we are prepared to do in response," Jake Sullivan, U.S. National Security Adviser, told the New York Times last week.
Mr Sullivan stressed that traditional sanctions alone do not sufficiently raise the cost to force powers like Russia, or China.
How will this end well? (Score:5, Insightful)
I fail to see how this will end well.
Surely to hold the high moral ground... whilst spending the time, effort and money that will otherwise be wasted on such an attack, shuring up your own defenses, would be a far better strategy.
How can you criticize the actions of your enemies when you demonstrate that you are just as bad as they are?
Sounds like a giant pissing contest to me and in such events, everyone ends up getting wet.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Once a nation declares intent the action can be supported if legal.
Where did this come from? UN does not have a mandate to approve unilateral offensives, cyber or brick-and-mortar, never had, and never will.
This bullshit is completely, 100% pure domestic consumption material of the current administration. After fanning the "Russian hackers" flames for nearly 5 years, their electorate is desperate for closure, and this is the closure.
The U.S. will not target civilian structures? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But Defense?
What "defense"? The US is well known to hide its own cyber warfare by pretending it comes from "China", "Russian 'ackers" and "North Korea". We have seen little in terms of evidence to support the allegations.
And there are situations were unilateral offense is considered a "legal" action.
Nope. You should at least try reading the UN charter before mentioning those two words.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice FP. Fighting fire with fire is rarely optimal.
Related reading includes Cyber War (2010) by Richard Clarke and The Perfect Weapon (2018) by David Sanger. What the heck. The intersection list is funny and includes the late and much lamented Iain Banks, so here it is: https://shanenj.tripod.com/cgi... [tripod.com] (The financial model has collapsed, so who knows how long it will last...)
Following along with Clarke's analysis, I'm sure the idea is to remind Putin of Russia's vulnerability to cyber warfare, but the
Re:How will this end well? (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is no response it will never end -- well or otherwise. The only way to deal with a bully is to stand up to him. In the context of Russia and Putin, you have to make their games costly enough that their cost/benefit analysis comes up in favor of not attacking and destabilizing western democracies.
Lack of response and Russia's behavior will only escalate until there is a response. This has been shown again and again.
Re: (Score:2)
Lack of response and Russia's behavior will only escalate until there is a response. This has been shown again and again.
Unfortunately, another thing that has been shown again and again is that a measured, proportional, response leads to more escalation.
Re: How will this end well? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: How will this end well? (Score:2)
I would hope our government hackers are not sending traffic directly from the US to Russia, that's pretty stupid. Route it through a number of other countries on the way to Russia, or better yet, use assets in other countries so there no way of tracing it back to the States.
Re: (Score:2)
They recently ran a test [adelaidenow.com.au] seems like it went okay.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If there is no response it will never end -- well or otherwise. The only way to deal with a bully is to stand up to him. In the context of Russia and Putin, you have to make their games costly enough that their cost/benefit analysis comes up in favor of not attacking and destabilizing western democracies.
Lack of response and Russia's behavior will only escalate until there is a response. This has been shown again and again.
I agree. And I think Georgia, Ukraine, Lithuania,.. will agree as well.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to deal with a bully is to stand up to him.
Let's not forget that the largest bully on the planet for almost a century now, is the US of A.
Despite all propaganda to the contrary, it's been the West that has invaded countless countries, overthrown elected governments, installed terrible dictators and supported terrorists around the globe. Maybe it's not our place to talk about standing up to bullies?
Re: (Score:2)
I tried to find the equivalent list to this: https://www.thelondoneconomic.... [thelondoneconomic.com] for Russia and couldn't.
I'm sure you can enlighten me with some facts to the undisputed goodness of the west vs. the evil east.
(note to silly people: I'm not saying Russia or China are good guys. I'm saying that the USA isn't exactly someone who should call other countries "bully" or "aggressor" or complain about someone messing with internal politics when they've done all of that quite a bit for quite a long time)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The USA started it and bragged about it. Next step, targeted assassinations. The best targets in the US, not politicians corporate executives. A far more effective action. Target the decision makers, they are not protected by treaty, easy targets, completely amoral. The rest will back right the fuck off, real quick, when the war mongers amongst them start dying.
So will the German government retaliate against the USA. How about all the other governments the USA hacked and got caught out on. Will they retalia
Re: (Score:3)
> If the USA really wanted Russia to stop, they would simply do a cyber treaty with Russia
This is the stupidest thing I've read in a while. You can make all the treaties with Russia that you want. Recent example: Budapest memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] which just went down the toilet the moment Putin's popularity decreased and he and cronies felt the need to show something to a receptive populace that's still in hangover from the loss of former glories.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely to hold the high moral ground...
Which moral high ground is that? The one which says it's okay to torture people, or the one which says it's okay to turn a blind eye to apartheid because it's being done by your friend?
whilst spending the time, effort and money that will otherwise be wasted on such an attack, shuring up your own defenses, would be a far better strategy.
And while you're trying to figure out how to defend yourself, you're still getting hacked/attacked/whatever and losing even more infor
Re: (Score:2)
Who's buying all the oil, gas, other forms of energy and minerals? Mostly, Europe.
Why Europe imposes sanctions on Russia, then spends 50x as much on oil and gas from the same Russia, is a mystery.
We already tried that. Unfortunately without ... (Score:4, Insightful)
> Sounds like a giant pissing contest to me and in such events, everyone ends up getting wet.
Absolutely agreed. It would be far better if the US, Russia, and China never attacked each other.
Perhaps that line of thinking is part of the reason the US hasn't really responded to cyberattacks, other than to occasionally whine.
Unfortunately, the reality is that as the US let these attacks go without any punishing response, other nations have learned that the US won't respond. They can attack the US all day and everyday and the US won't do anything about it, so long as those attacks come over wires rather than by bombs. So they do in fact attack the US all day every day. They can do so without fear of retribution, so they do so.
It would be better if they didn't. Fighting just causes people to get hurt. Yet, they are punching us, all the time.
As someone else posted, sometimes the only way to deal with a bully is to punch them in the nose. Russia doesn't bomb the US *because* they know the US would bomb them back. China doesn't send tanks to the US *because* they know the US would respond by hurting them badly. Sometimes the way avoid constant fighting is to demonstrate that you are prepared to fight back and fight back hard.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone else posted, sometimes the only way to deal with a bully is to punch them in the nose. Russia doesn't bomb the US *because* they know the US would bomb them back. China doesn't send tanks to the US *because* they know the US would respond by hurting them badly. Sometimes the way avoid constant fighting is to demonstrate that you are prepared to fight back and fight back hard.
Agree with that.
Now the question is: Do we know with reasonable certainty that we are hitting the right bully back? Last I checked the news, the probability that Russian government entities were behind the SolarWinds hack was rated as "likely" and "probably" by US government officials.
And we know that they lie, when it comes to Russia, because we are all smart enough to see the propaganda war that's been going on for the better part of a decade now. There are already jokes out there with the punch line of "
Re: (Score:2)
That is a somewhat of a problem with cyberattacks -
Most of the time, we can have about 60%-90% confidence in attribution *for a given attack*.
On the other hand, we have 110% conference that Russia and China are hitting us all day everyday. We know which buildings their offensive teams work from.
Without getting into a discussion of to what extent it's wise to make an analogy to kinetic attacks, I'll do so now only for the limited purpose of clarifying what I said above:
It's as if we see Russian bombers flyi
Re: (Score:2)
The second problem with cyberattacks is that unlike military attacks, many of them are done by private actors or organized crime, not state actors.
As an analogy it's more like being shot at from a country like Mexiko, where drug cartels have just as many weapons as the official military does.
I don't doubt at all that all major powers are active in the cyber domain, both defensively and offensively. What I massively dislike is this vigilante justice where you sometimes don't know if the USA is Batman or Joke
Re: (Score:2)
That is a little bit of an issue. It's also an issue that can be easily over-stated.
Attacker 1:
Nigerian Prince scam (very unsophisticated techniques)
Trying to steal $250 from random people.
Attacker 2:
Ignores that they have access thousands of juicy ransomware targets
Only exploits military-related companies, and the security companies that protect them.
Silently moves through the networks, exploiting many different types of systems before being caught
Engages in espionage, not ransomware or anything else
The un
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, you can easily construct an example that is very obvious.
The real world is more muddy. What about a sophisticated attacker with a carefully executed strategy who exploits a chain of targets to plant an exploit, and that exploit is then used for espionage as well as ransomware attacks?
Also, the Russian government has never investigated and prosecuted any of these criminals.
That's true. It's not unique to cybercrime, though. Russia is quite selective on which crimes it cooperates on (those exist as well, there is longstanding cooperation with INTERPOL and EUROPOL, for example) and which it t
Re: (Score:2)
> Sure, you can easily construct an example that is very obvious.
> The real world is more muddy.
Yes, that example is one you can handle with 60 seconds of education and no relevant experience. I'm about to start a 13-week graduate level class on the topic, because some examples aren't quite that simple. Students are expected to have relevant work experience before enrolling in the class.
Keep in mind that just because you can only learn integer addition in a few minutes, that doesn't mean modular addit
Re: (Score:3)
Attribution is kinda like that - you can only learn the basics in 60 seconds. That doesn't mean there isn't more to learn, that you couldn't spend 300 seconds and learn more.
Again, I agree with you. Information security is my profession. Mostly on the management level, but I have enough tech background to know about forensics, anti-forensics, attack patterns and threat intelligence.
If one of the people I know and trust came to me and said "I've done the forensics, this is clearly group X from country Y" then I would accept that because I know that and how it is possible to identify threat actors with reasonable degrees of certainty.
When the government announces the same in a pr
Re: (Score:2)
That makes sense.
It's been my experience that one can pretty much ignore what the top politicians say. I wouldn't put much stock in Trump, Biden, Pelosi, or Schumer suggesting attribution because they live and breathe politics. (Which only make sense, they are expert politicians). Statements they make are heavily slanted by politics.
In the other hand, what CISA says consistently matches up with the consensus of independent analysis.
Re: (Score:2)
>> The second problem with cyberattacks is that unlike military attacks, many of them are done by private actors or organized crime, not state actors.
> That is a story only supported by the nations where the attacks come from. Everyone else believes different.
I know a lot of people in my field, and I've never heard a single one suggest that there are NOT criminal groups operating out of those countries, without any direct connection to the government. So your "everyone" doesn't include anyone in t
Re: (Score:2)
Cartels and the like do not operate outside of their own region as they do not have the support infrastructure and it's simply not allowed?
Reality called and asked which drugs you're taking.
Cartels operate wherever they do business. That quite often crosses country borders. Cartels are known to operate airplanes, their own telephone networks and even self-made submarines. If you are on their shit list, you can't simply leave "their own region" and be safe - they'll find you and murder you.
Re: (Score:2)
> Last I checked the news, the probability that Russian government entities were behind the SolarWinds hack was rated as "likely" and "probably" by US government officials.
> And we know that they lie, when it comes to Russia
So, putting the two together... maybe they internally rate it as "100% certainty" but don't want to communicate for some reason. Telling the domestic population, it's 100% certainty may not be deemed productive, and telling an adversary that their methods were thoroughly transparen
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Both the Chinese and Russians have tested it though
Re: (Score:3)
Our goal is not "to hold the moral high ground," but to defend our nation. Sorry, Ivan.
Re: (Score:3)
> I fail to see how this will end well.
More money for the central bankers and the military industrial complex. Why else do something at the federal level?
Meanwhile the US power grid is exposed and SCADA is a disaster. Go buy some water containers.
Re: (Score:2)
"I fail to see how this will end well."
They^ll switch off the heater in Putin's office and he will just light the analog open fire.
Re: (Score:3)
whilst spending the time, effort and money that will otherwise be wasted on such an attack, shuring [sic] up your own defenses, would be a far better strategy.
Shoring up defenses is absolutely necessary, but limiting yourself to defense it's not a better - or even a good - strategy. This is because there is a huge asymmetry of cost/benefit of attack versus defense.
First, let's talk about financial/resource costs: you don't need a lot to carry effective cybernetic attacks against infrastructure. You only need a few dozen or hundreds of skilled professionals, and some relatively cheap hardware - resources easily accessible for a state actor. By contrast, defending
Re: (Score:2)
Russia will continue (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Dialog is what needs to be repaired." What you do not understand is that Putin is following the Brezhnev Doctrine: What's mine is mine and what's yours is open to discussion. There is no dialog possible with such a person.
In addition to cyber-punching, the U.S. ought to air out Putin's and his cronies' laundry for them and start publishing the real data on where the money in Russia is going.
Worst Idea.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Plausible deniability is key. You just do it and you don't brag about it. Broadcasting it ahead of time is remarkably dumb. It also invites retaliation and escalation. Information Technology is full of security holes that are constantly being discovered and fixed. Some date back decades. Nationstate Cyber warfare is all about zero-day exploits which you don't want to waste. If you are holding a royal flush of security exploits you don't use them for fear of tipping the hand of the enemy to your capabilities. You save those for when you really need them during a serious conflict.
Starting a cyberwar is very bad for all involved globally.
Re: (Score:2)
I would agree if this were not a response to attacks already carried out by the enemy. When responding to a bully, you need to do it overtly -- publicly and obviously -- so everyone sees what happens and who is doing it. Otherwise it is wasted effort.
This is about showing everyone (not just the bully) the consequences. In short, when someone fucks around, make sure they find out. (And ensure everyone else who is considering fucking around clearly sees the consequences.)
Re: (Score:2)
Except the weapons have a very short lifespan and once you use them. The jig is up, the cat is out of the bag, etc. The security exploits are fixed. You have to come up with new exploits which is far from easy.
Re: (Score:2)
In which case a "minor skirmish" cyberwar would be a good thing, would it not? The exploits keep getting fixed, and pretty soon everything is far more secure, and all the criminals that were already quietly using those exploits are S.O.L.
You're not going to break out the really big guns for a chest-pounding competition - you save those in case you really need them. But for now the US has shown itself to be completely incompetent at cyber defense, stockpiling vulnerabilities shared by its own infrastructur
Re: (Score:2)
Except the weapons have a very short lifespan and once you use them. The jig is up, the cat is out of the bag, etc. The security exploits are fixed. You have to come up with new exploits which is far from easy.
And what if it turns out not to be based on "exploits?" Or involves deactivating hardware?
Re: (Score:2)
First, you don't have to make it public to teach the bully the lesson, as long as they feel the pain they will think twice of doing it again. If the idea is "disproportionate response as a deterrent", then sure, claim credit, but not until you're done responding. Declaring your plans ahead of time is just posturing to your constituents, and if true, it completely gives up a huge first-mover advantage of surprise. It does sounds like something a current Democratic Party administration would do though, so at
Re: (Score:2)
You just do it and you don't brag about it.
That depends entirely on what your objective is.
Re:Worst Idea.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Starting a cyberwar is very bad for all involved globally.
I'd put money on it that this idea is exactly was is trying to conveyed to the Kremlin.
Re: (Score:2)
Broadcasting it ahead of time is remarkably dumb.
What would be even dumber is if they weren't already hacking Russia the entire time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Broadcasting it ahead of time is remarkably dumb.
If the actions turn out to be things they can't stop, even when they know something is coming, then it will turn out to be remarkably powerful.
Time will tell.
I suspect that a large portion of it will involve traffic of theirs that travels over networks they don't (and can't) control, and which they rely on.
Re: (Score:3)
It can be a very effective intimidation tactic that commonly referred to as 'terror' (in the psychology sense). If the threat being made is believed by the target, it will serve to make them more paranoid than they already are. They'll spend resources on their end to tighten down control, and further erode liberties.
If that happens then you just don't waste your resources on actually carrying out the attack, because you've already done enough dama
Re: (Score:2)
--Dr. Strangelove
Re: (Score:2)
First target (Score:2)
It is reported by sources familiar with the effort, that the first target will be Sci-Hub.
Only Russia? The CCP has to be laughing their (Score:2)
NOBODY expects . . . (Score:4, Funny)
. . . the American 'Aggressive' Cyber Counterattack!
Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise
Surprise? Oh, shit.
Re:NOBODY expects . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope. Our chief weapon is really big guns. Both literally and metaphorically. And when it comes to cyber-warfare we've proven time and again we're completely lousy at making shields, so our primary defense is to convince others not to attack. Not unlike nuclear war, though with less radioactive fallout.
If you want to convince someone not to mess with you, telling them you're going to bloody their nose so that they can prepare for your attack, and then bloodying it anyway can be a wonderful way to convince them that maybe they really don't want to provoke you again.
A public display of force is also far more effective at convincing third parties that they also don't want to provoke you.
Of course, that assumes you can pull it off, which remains to be seen. And that you can do so in a manner which doesn't give good cause for a counterattack - e.g. indiscriminately killing civilians while hunting terrorists is a *really* good way to make even more terrorists than you started with. Only an idiot would do such a thing unless making more terrorists for an eternal war was actually the goal. Our own military handbooks have warned against the inevitable outcome of such behavior for many decades.
Two months, two new wars. (Score:1, Insightful)
OK, so since his inauguration two months ago we are now in a new shooting war in Syria and a new cyberwar with Russia. Meanwhile the talks with China have gotten hard to hear as the saber rattling escalates toward the threshold of pain.
Quite the contrast from Trump, who managed to go four years without starting a single new war - a nice contrast to the other presidents of the last 3/4 century or so. He drew down the troops abroad, too. (Another policy Biden has reversed.)
Interesting times.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I remember the only time the MSM praised Trump was when he bowed to pressure in first few months of office and bombed Syria.
That was after Russia and Syria gassed civilians. And even then the con artist called up his Russian handler and warned him ahead of time so the Russian troops could be moved out of harm's way.
Also, that "attack" cost us tens of millions of dollars (approximately $89 million) and took out a runway for three days. Money well spent, wouldn't you say?
Re: (Score:2)
That was after Russia and Syria gassed civilians.
No, thats after they (the deep state) tricked even the president of the united states into thinking that happened, but now we know for a fact differently, while you still spout the bullshit lie. You are a significant part of the problem. Years after the truth is revealed, you still spread the lie.
Re:Two months, two new wars. (Score:5, Informative)
I believe publicly announcing intent is silly unless it's a complete bluff and simply meant to observe Russia's response. If they do plan real action, let's not be ignorant and pretend these activities have not gone on for the past couple of decades.
And please, Trump threatened to launch nukes at N. Korea.. so peace keeper he was not.
Re: Two months, two new wars. (Score:2)
Bluster is very different from actually dropping a bomb on a wedding party. If you consider bluster to be an act of war then a large percentage of countries are at war right now as various leader types over the planet say stupid shit every day before they've even had breakfast.
The facts on the ground is nothing happened between the US and NK in the last 4 years of any note. If anything, the NK quieted down a bit in the last 2 years after we started ignoring them which isn't a bad course of action when dea
Re:Two months, two new wars. (Score:5, Insightful)
> Trump, who managed to go four years without starting a single new war
Capitulation and adoration to Putin and Kim is hardly peace. Ask how appeasement went for Chamberlaine.
Re: (Score:2)
How was that moderated "insightful" ???
Chamberlaine was dealing with a Nazi Germany that had just invaded a foreign country (Czech) and his solution was to sign The Munich Agreement [wikipedia.org].
So unless I missed the part where Trump gave a seizable part of South Korea away to Kim Jong-Un, these things are not comparable.
(and no, the Krim doesn't count, that's quite a bit more complicated and we can talk about Maidan in a seperate topic)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I literally pointed out that you shouldn't use that example.
Crimea is a bit complex. It goes back to arbitrary borders defined within the USSR, often intentionally creating conflicts between various ethnicities. It also goes back to a "revolution" that was more of a coup and that was heavily influenced by western powers and used terror and right-wing extremist militia to overthrow the local government. The NATO expansion also played a large role - given past developments, Russia had to assume Ukraine as a p
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I missed the Krim reference. I read Slashdot during compiles and they gave me a faster computer recently.
It is true that if Russia lost Crimea it would be such a significant blow to their naval forces in the Black Sea as to be an existential threat to their position as a regional power, so much so that they might resort to a shooting war to keep it. Nonetheless, they did take it from a sovereign nation and after doing so have been extremely belligerent to the west with such little push-back that Puti
Re: (Score:2)
> I literally pointed out that you shouldn't use that example.
That's precisely the example to use. You can't say, "don't use the glaring example just b/c it invalidates my point".
Sure the borders evolved the way they evolved. Still, according to international law, and the Budapest memorandum, there was clarity about those borders. Russia is already the largest country on Earth by a large margin, and most resource-rich.
Also, I think it was just a stupid decision to go for Crimea and Donbass. Russia has co
Re: (Score:2)
Chamberlain's primary mission was to buy time for the UK to rearm. He knew exactly what was coming and that war was probably inevitable.
Re: (Score:2)
And could it be that you are misinterpreting the ability to recognize which people respond to flattery and which respond to pressure as, "adoration"? Which politicians are promoting appeasement and which aren't? Did Trump try to appease or contain Iran? Which approach is Biden taking? What about the only nation that actually poses a direct threat to the US - China?
We have a bad habit of assuming that dictators are bullies and democratically elected leaders are anything but. Truth
Re:Two months, two new wars. (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite the contrast from Trump, who managed to go four years without starting a single new war
Yes... because he kissed the ass of dictators as they put a bounty on US troops and pushed away our allies. All our enemies were delighted to have Trump sabotage the US and our national standing on the world stage.
Re: (Score:3)
Those bounties - if they were true - were crossing the line even for Trump - https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
Unfortunately for your drivel, the original NYT claims were critically examined and found to be lacking (e.g. https://www.military.com/daily... [military.com]) with several high-ranking military officials calling them out as unreliable or untrue (e.g. https://www.nbcnews.com/politi... [nbcnews.com])
Fun fact: News about both Iran and China paying bounties on US troops also circulated at about the same time, but didn't gain much
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so since his inauguration two months ago we are now in a new shooting war in Syria and a new cyberwar with Russia.
The cyberwar isn't new, it just hasn't been televised.
Fake News [Re:Two months, two new wars.] (Score:2)
No he didn't. Troop levels stayed the same. Trump just shifted resources toward Iran.
I've seen no evidence the Trump Administration used less munitions overall. His targets were simply different.
We hack people who hack people, because... (Score:2)
... hacking people is bad.
It's funny, how nobody ever freaking gets this.
The US has just justified every Russian hack of the past. Because, according to the US, hacking is absolutely OK, if you call it a "warning shot" and a "retaliation" or whatever. Which, of course, Putin can do just as well. I mean he was literally put in power by somebody (Yeltsin) who was elected because the US manipulated the Russian elections. (Source: CIA agents, in the Washington Post.) So if anyone has an axe to grind ...
But in r
Re: (Score:2)
Tough?
Since when is tough talk a requisite for a kiss.
And who anyway thinks the US hasn't been up to the cyber warfare since like forever.
Re: (Score:2)
"You have that logic exactly backwards"
By that interpretation it still seems like nonsense to me, could you elaborate or explain your meaning.
"English is not your native language I guess"
It is, at least technically.
Stupid (Score:2)
Are we going to wage a nuclear war over the hacking of computer systems? I believe this simply isn't worth it. We should secure our systems using the latest technology like Rust and micro-ker
About time (Score:1)
For four years the U.S. had to witness the genuflecting nightmare of the con artist bend over backwards to appease his Russian handler. Not once in those four years did the con artist say a single bad word about Russian actions, even going so far as to defend Russia's deliberate bombings of civilians and medical personnel in Syria. Who knows how many national secrets were given away during Putin's one-on-one with his manchurian candidate.
Now we have someone who acts like a leader and defends this country
Re: (Score:2)
Russia's deliberate bombings oif civilians and medical personnel in Syria? That's new.
Look, Vlad, at least pretend you're not an idiot. It was, and is, well documented Russia deliberately bomb hospitals in Syria [nytimes.com]. Even the Fox tabloid was reporting it [foxnews.com].
“This is alarming for us. Five of our 12 hospitals have been attacked, and what is very concerning is that these centers were supposed to be de-conflicted areas. The coordinates of their locations were handed over the U.N. to give the (Russian) government,” Dr. Ahmad Tarakji, President of the Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS) told Fox News. “This was direct targeting, not collateral damage.”
The dumbasses in Moscow even released a video showing them hitting a hospital in Aleppo [thenationalnews.com] when they were trying to settle a dispute in the Armenian conflict.
Oddly, every time the UN gave coordinates of hospitals in Syria to Russian and Syrian forces to prevent
So..... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Need a Geneva conventinon on cyber warfare (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We can blame the US for that. After all more than a decade ago, China and Russia was asking the US to get together to craft laws that would regulate cyberwarfare. The US said no, with the army thinking that their offensive capabilities were far above their competitors, and thus thought that any regulation would only harm US interests while helping Russia and China. Now they are crying everyday about it.
Although some guy here states that China was trying to curb freedom of speech and control the internet,
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry this is wrong. Discussions were happening in 2008, and even before that.
Considering the Fiasco in Anchorage and ... (Score:2)
Resident Biden's stair climbing skills [twitter.com], this isn't going to end well [powerlineblog.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NSA (Score:2)
war (Score:2)
So the country that lied on WMDs and used that lie to invade another country is now claiming that yet another country is behind a large-scale exploit (let's ignore the traces leading to a third major country, and the fact that the software defect that caused the weakness shouldn't have been there in the first place) and will use that to openly attack said other country.
Given that the military has for a while now considered Cyberspace another domain, like land, sea and air, this is an act of war. They either
consider the possiblities (Score:2)
elections.
what if ivan had an election where the ivans vote counted
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if the US had not fucked with Ukraine
Gees, you Russian trolls are still upset at losing several thousand troops when you invaded Ukraine and now that Crimea has almost no water supply, you're really ticked off, aren't you? Perhaps had your dictator not gone about lying that Ukraine was still part of Russia and saying that all those Russian troops who keep getting caught inside Ukraine with their military equipment are really just "volunteering" (for what, no one knows), this wouldn't be an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
He is clearly talking about the coup of early 2014 which was widely supported by the US. Since the Ukraine was under external administration, with the White House openly dictating policy to this government. That Russia would do anything to oppose the new Ukraine was entirely predictable.
Re: (Score:2)
IKR. *sigh*
People are waking up, slowly.
You are what you know, and if you didn't go out looking for it you only know what's been exposed to.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because everybody knows where Cheyenne mountain was and what importance it has, so it would have been covered with thermal nuclear warheads.
I go for bunkers of lower relevance, but I will not choose old military installations because .. they might still be on the "Soviet Maps".
Re: (Score:2)
But I could not do this, if I wasn't alive for at least a few more minutes: .. "You maniacs!!""
".. because I want to be the last person alive that can laugh at that nuclear wasteland and shout out like in Planet of the Apes at 1:12
"And then I will die with the rest of the world."