Pakistan-India Cyberwar 107
Enoch Root writes "There's been a lot of talk in the past about the possibility of a "cyberwar" complementing a real war. Well, now it's a reality. India and Pakistan engaged in a cyberwar earlier this year." Quote from the story: "Several top Indian and Pakistani computer professionals in America and Europe are 'helping' their respective governments by supplying information on the best way to harm the enemy's computer systems."
Hyperbole wins again (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but I don't see cyberwar replacing real war in effectiveness for a long long time. If ever.
But who has to honor it? (Score:1)
Re:Finally (Score:3)
The US touched on this in the gulf when the first targets that were attacked where communication systems and effective blinding Iraq's intel sources. but that doesn't even touch on what a real cyber attack could do. Imagine if, instead of blowing up communication centers, you took over communication centers. you could then direct enemy units to engage each other by telling each them that the hostile target are just over that hill - go kill them! by the time the units realized what had happened they i've taken massive casualities, morale will be decimated, and future intel won't be trusted. next, they call for reenforcements. The captured commo center intercepts that request and forwards it on to higher command, except they change the location that the troops and supplies needs to be sent to and the new location just happens to have an enemy battalion waiting for them.
In a real cyberwar you would defeat your enemy my using his computer system against him. trying to deface a website will not effect combat effectiveness or the outcome of a battle.
anyhow that's my $0.02
Life Support (Score:1)
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
Re:Big whooping deal (Score:2)
There is a big difference in perception here. The nuclear have-nots see possession of nuclear capability as a currency of political influence rather than something which they expect to blow up their neighbours with. Another issue is the portrayal of the nuclear have-nots(or newly-haves in the case of Pakistan and India) being irresponsible or somehow trigger-happy with nuclear weapons. Why does everyone assume that the US, China and Russia are responsible wielders of nuclear weapons? Or is this an effort to preserve political influence? The US record on non-proliferation is rather spotty. It applies strong pressure on some countries, and often turns a blind eye, say, when North Korea or China provide missile and fissile technology to other countries. Why isn't the deteriorating security situation in Russia a greater concern? It is more likely that a rogue organisation would steal a warhead or fissile material, or that with the deteriorating communication infrastructure, an army general distraught over the decline of the glory days could commandeer use of the Red Button.
Rather than a pro-India slant, it is a case of having access to an Indian source. The author is Indian. I think he did a profile of the Indian army webmaster and tried to give the piece a ``cyberwar'' slant in a lame effort to make it interesting.
A much better example of ``cyberwar'' would have been describing how the Indian intelligence agencies managed to intercept a phone call between the Pakistani army chief, who was visiting China in an effort to garner support for the war, and one of his underlings back home. It is highly unlikely that intelligence agencies on either side would make known their successes, but this specific instance was made public by the Indian government as part of the evidence to prove that the invasion was conducted by the Pakistani army.
Is this an absolutely off-the-cuff remark, or is /. a forum for political discourse? Pakistani armed forces crossed the ``Line of Control''(LoC) that was demarcated in a bilateral treaty in 1972. The Indian army was defending Indian territory. They went out of their way to prevent the conflict from spreading by not targeting supply depots or crossing over to the Pakistani side of the LoC.
The answer to the rhetorical question is that there is no easy way to end conflicts. Responsible influential nations would do well to nudge adversaries towards talks, and back their words with even-handed action. The rise of Islamic militancy in central Asia can be linked almost directly to the US funding and supplying of the Taliban in Afghanistan. With that war over, many of the militants have had to turn elsewhere to continue their way of life. Many have turned back to bite the hand that once fed them. There are moral, military, political and social lessons in the United States' history of foreign policy interventions. Perhaps someone will learn them some day.
Disclaimer (Score:2)
That out of the way, I think some of this "cyberwar" stuff is overblown in the following sense: Lots of things that are support functions of real (i.e., "steel on target") warfare are also performed during peacetime, but that does not make them acts of war.
-- Countries try to break each other's ciphers all the time. Cracking encryption is not a hostile act by itself.
-- A surveillance aircraft is flying up and down my coastline - in international waters. During a war I shoot it down. During peacetime I just have to suck it up.
-- If someone jams your radar it doesn't give you immediate justification to shoot at them, though obviously it's not a very neighborly thing to do. In certain circumstances you might be justified (e.g., maybe the no-fly zone in Iraq). Again, it's not an act of war by itself.
I think cracking falls into the same category. Countries are going to try to break into each other's computer systems from here on out, but I don't think anyone will declare war over it. The exception would be if someone used access to an information system to muck up things in the physical world -- the oft-cited power grid example comes to mind -- but that's an act of sabotage.
Re:The Battlefield of the Future? (Score:1)
Agree 100% (Score:1)
-- Suitcase nukes
-- Poison in the water supply
-- Bio/chem weapons (e.g., Sarin + Cropduster = Really Bad Day)
Compared to any of the above, go right ahead and knock out my power and empty my bank account -- I've got plenty of books to read.
Re:Cyberwar? Nah, just propaganda and vandalism... (Score:1)
Re:Big whooping deal (Score:1)
- Is this an absolutely off-the-cuff remark, or is
/. a forum for political discourse? Pakistani armed forces crossed the ``Line of Control''(LoC) that was demarcated in a bilateral treaty in 1972. The Indian army was defending Indian territory. They went out of their way to prevent the conflict from spreading by not targeting supply depots or crossing over to the Pakistani side of the LoC. The answer to the rhetorical question is that there is no easy way to end conflicts. Responsible influential nations would do well to nudge adversaries towards talks, and back their words with even-handed action. The rise of Islamic militancy in central Asia can be linked almost directly to the US funding and supplying of the Taliban in Afghanistan. With that war over, many of the militants have had to turn elsewhere to continue their way of life. Many have turned back to bite the hand that once fed them. There are moral, military, political and social lessons in the United States' history of foreign policy interventions. Perhaps someone will learn them some day.
You mentioned in the above paragraphs that you don't really believe that any country can be trusted on the non-proliferation of nuclear arms, and I agree with that. However, in the above two paragraphs, your comments turn to a different stance that I don't agree with. I am in college majoring in political science and during last quarter (summer), our professor challenged the class to provide some sort of proof of wrong doing on one side or the other. We were required to use both U.S. and international outlets of news and were also required to interview people who have ties to the region. In our research we came up with some startling information. What we see on television here isn't completely correct. It seems like India is winning the propoganda war and that's all it takes to win a war in our modern era. Our research found that even though we were told that India and Pakistan had stopped fighting and withdrawn their forces, but it wasn't the case. Pakistani Mujahidins, civilians fighting for the principle of freedom, were stuck. They could either stay and fight and die, or leave and be killed from behind. India kept telling the world that they had widthdrawn and everything was fine. It wasn't, those poor people had no where to go, so they decided to stay and die fighting rather than retreating. Now, I want you to understand that our class has 80 students in it and we had to provide hard evidence of what we uncovered. Unfortunately, I can't point you to a URL with digitized camcorder video showing this situation, but it is heart wrenching to hear people calling for their mothers after being attacked on both sides. For you to say that the LOC was breached in 1972 and implying that is was breached at no other time is conveying misinformation but the fact that you are leaving out important details. Throughout India and Pakistan's history, we have observed that most political confrontations are started by India, but Pakistan then responds in turn. India makes a big deal out of it and we find the world bearing down on Pakistan. Don't get me wrong again, the Pakistani government has problems of its own where it doesn't represent what the people would like to see down. India is no different in this respect. Has anyone asked the question why Pakistan was created from India? Well, since no news agency will mention this today I'll talk about it breifly. India was about 60-40 hindu and the minority being muslims. The problem was thay when the elections would come up, Hindu pro-nationalists would get elected and those politicians were hell-bent on driving out the Muslims. The Muslims should have fled to another country or should have smartened up and joined the politial arena. They did do this, and Muslims/future Pakistanis wanted their own country in which they wouldn't be deprived of their basic human rights. India massacred the soon-to-be pakistanis in the serparation. However, justice pre-vailed and Pakistan was created. Since then, India has done eveything it could to destroy Pakisan and reintegrate the land. Every heard of Bombay? Or East Pakistan? Pakistan was originally split on both sides of India. One side bordered with Afghanistan, and the other contained Bombay. India made sure that that East pakistan wouldn't succeed because it was smaller and easier to influence the people through propoganda. East Pakistan later reintegrated with India, and we see every year during the floods hundreds dying, yet do you hear of India helping out those people? Absolutely not, India doesn't send any aid, and checks the religious offiliation before even raising an eyebrow. Those people are being punished like this. Anyway, this latest tension between India and Pakistan is no different. Our conclusions were basically that India is stirring the muck at the bottom of the pot. The US and Europe support India because of its trade potential. For evey 1 PC they sell in Pakistan they sell 10 in India because the population in India is 10x larger. Secondly, and our catholic professor agreed, Pakistan is a Muslim/Islamic country. We see in today's world that the old enemy of Communism has been replaced with Islam. No one cares to read about the religion, we just all sit here and buy into the propoganda. It was an eye opener when we looked at headlines regarding this. Oklahoma City bombings were initally blamed on "Arabs seen running from the scene". Luckily for muslims in this country, the culprit was a "regular joe american". We are people need to realize that the conflict occuring in that region and many other places on this planet have been created by our own government to make sure we the citizens prevail. I know it is sick, but it has always been the way of the country/people in charge to secure their futures. Lastly, your comment on the Taliban is not true. The US isn't funding them, because they are promoting a different way of life. If you'd like to read a couple reports on what is truely happening their, I'll try to dig up a project we did in Pol Sci 160. There is a lesson in our foreign policy: no other country should follow it. I honestly believe we are making more enemies than friends. I don't want to see the "3rd-world" countries banding together to overthrow the "bosses". It'll make the life of my children misrable, and I can't afford that.Re:Big whooping deal (Score:1)
Your 80-person class needs to work a little harder to do some authoritative research. There are a number of factual errors in your long reply. I shall address a few of them.
I did not say that the LoC was breached in 1972. I said it was demarcated in 1972. Since then, the border has always been in a state of tension. Both sides shell each other regularly. The line is often breached by Pakistan-trained terrorists trying to sneak into the state of Jammu and Kashmir. You don't have to take my word for it. Read the report Pakistan, Kashmir and the Trans-Asian Axis [io.com]. The author, Yossef Bodansky, is currently Director of the Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional warfare for the U.S. Congress, as well as a contributing editor of Defense & Foreign Affairs: Strategic Policy. He has written widely for such specialized journals as Jane's Defense Weekly and Global Affairs.
So what's the deal with Kashmir? Both Pakistan and India claim Jammu & Kashmir.
Pakistan's claim, as you stated, is on the basis of it being a Muslim majority state. Indeed, that is Pakistan's raison d'etre - the idea that Muslims of the sub-continent require a separate country to protect their interests. India is a democratic, secular state. It is host to all major and several minor religions, and provides freedom of expression to all religions. Incidentally, it has a higher Muslim population than Pakistan.
When the British left India in 1947, the princely states were given a choice of joining either India or Pakistan. Except for those states that were on the border, there was effectively no choice. The Maharaja of Jammu & Kashmir(J&K) chose to defer accession. Then, as now in '99, the state was invaded by the Pakistan army in mufti - in the garb of ``armed tribesmen''. The Maharaja of J&K immediately signed the Instrument of Accession and the state became part of the Indian Union. An elected state assembly later confirmed the accession to India. These circumstances are very similar to the manner in which Texas became part of the United States in 1845. Pakistan's claim on J&K has as much legal standing as does Mexico's on Texas. The border as it exists today is roughly at the point when a UN-mandated cease-fire came into effect. If interested, you can look at all the legal documents [jammu-kashmir.org] related to this.
India's PR, unlike what you state, is laughably poor. It's pursual of influence via lobbying members of Congress within the US is virtually non-existent. It's managing of the media is something out of the stone age. An example of this is the propagation of this absurd idea of a bunch of ``freedom fighters'' in rag-tag clothes and poor equipment taking on the Indian army. The invading Pakistani army was equipped with the best snow gear, sophisticated equipment such as Stinger missiles, communication equipment capable of switching frequencies on the fly, and backed by logistics that would have taken several months to prepare. A good PR machine would have paraded all the evidence - captured documents, Pak army pay books, weapons with Pakistani factory markings - before the foreign media camped in Srinagar. What did the Indian government do? Bring it all down to Delhi and called some foreign ambassadors to see it.
Your writing about Bombay and East Pakistan was the biggest faux-pas. Bombay is a city on the west coast of India. It never had anything to do with Pakistan. Perhaps you refer to Bangladash [cia.gov], the erstwhile East Pakistan. It is an independent country today, not ``reintegrated'' with India. This is another good example of the canard spread about religious conflict. The Muslim population of East Pakistan was oppressed by their own countrymen and fellow-Muslims from West Pakistan. About a million people were massacred by the army and at one point 10 million refugees fled to India. That is a staggering number. The refugee crisis in Kosovo involved a few hundred thousand. The United States has admitted some 500,000 refugees in the last fifty years. The Indian army was forced to intervene and helped form the state of Bangladesh in 1971. Yes, Bangladesh suffers flooding and is hit by typhoons regularly. As is India, incidentally. Can India provide aid that would match what the United States can? Of course not. India's per capita GDP is $1720 compared to the US' $31500. The notion that India somehow persecutes Bangladesh on the basis of religion is absurd. India, Bangladesh and the other South Asian nations(Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and the Maldives) have set up SAARC [south-asia.com], an association that promotes and facilitates trade and other forms of cooperation between its member countries.
About the third-world banding together to overthrow the bosses, it's going to happen sometime. There is a large number of nations(India included) whose days of pre-eminence are long gone. The pendulum swings slowly, though. It's unlikely to happen in your lifetime or mine.
Re:Poorest Countries in the World Fight Cyberwar ? (Score:1)
Oh well, whoever moderated me down to Flamebait can go &^%$#(*&%%^ themselves.
Moderate that asshole!
cyberwar? I don't think so. (Score:2)
involve massive DOS, financial transactions going awry, key servers being compromised through out industry and government (I'm sorry but a webserver just isn't that important in the grand scheme of things.), maybe even EMP devices.
While a cyberwar is something to prepare for (both defensively and offensively), one shouldn't be losing sleep over webpage defacing. This kind of stuff goes on all the time. I'd expect that during a shooting war (or maybe even during a cold war to a lesser degree) that the script kiddies would be defacing everything they could get their hands on. Afterall, everyone must do his or her part during a time of national crisis. I can't imagine these acts being promoted by a government, but I don't think they'd actually prosecute or even search for who was attack the enemy's webserver.
The spectre of a cyberwar is greater for industrialized (or is it now "post-industrialized"?) countries. The United States for example simply can't function without an interconnected computer system anymore. It's now time for countries to start protecting networks just like other infrastructure. (Can you say "strong crypto"?)
Anyway cyberwars have been going since the beginning of time (remember "cyber-" actually means "information"). Secrets, misinformation, propaganda, it's all the same. It's just that now, governments aren't going to be the sole targets for this kind of war (but then again when was there a war where non-government entities weren't attacked too?).
You may wish they had (Score:1)
Computer scene in India - CNN (Score:1)
http://cnn.com/TECH/comp uting/9909/21/india.poor.ap/index.html
Some stats:
India has 3.2 million personal computers and only 400,000 Indians have access to the Internet. However, the internet has become popular only 3 years ago.
Re:But who has to honor it? (Score:1)
Actually, I was thinking more about individuals when I wrote the part about e-currency. With nations it becomes more a matter of communications. If I control your information, I control your communications, and that's something that another country could definitely use as a weapon.
Re:Spitball "cyber war" anyone? (Score:1)
Re:One slight problem (Score:1)
Okay, I just got a little out of hand there, but the point is this - The hackers/crackers of India are certainly capable of exploiting the holes in the security systems around them, just like they are over here. Just because they're behind a firewall doesn't make them safe. Safer maybe, but safe? Not even close.
Re:16 year old crackers aside . . . (Score:1)
Annamite
Revelance of cyberwar (Score:1)
However, it's the first step: ten years ago, you couldn't touch an enemy power's electronic resources unless you sent a spy on site. The last decade has indeed brought the world a little closer by connecting it all together, and that means it's easier to go whack your neighbour.
I think this trend will just keep on developping. I'm not saying nukes will ever be online; or at least I hope no one is enough of a moron to do it. But I think that as security augments, so will the range of vital services brought online. Email, anyone? I'm sure if you take down a country's entire email capability, you're reducing their reaction time. That's not just vandalism, it's undermining the enemy's power to wage war efficiently.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Re:Any Nuke War is Global Environmental Catastroph (Score:1)
Last year, I did some onsite work at Pacific Northwest Labs, where they do some work on Chernobyl, the sarcophagus, testing, computer modeling (their supercomputers are way impressive). Some of the comments made about the spread and impact of the radioactivity of Chernobyl were very depressing. (they also manage the infamous Hanford site, and there are reports of things like, ant colonies digging up buried waste, and spreading it ouside of the marked boundries - this is no secret, it's been in the news).
A nuclear exchange on the sub continent would have severe environmental ramifications for decades. And we'll probably get a lot of refugees in the States, and UK. The rest will probably go wash up in the Ganges.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Re:Eh! (Score:1)
Re:Maybe I still don't get it but (Score:1)
Instead of merely reading a message about troop movements, imagine inserting messages that say, directs the troops over here, their supplies over there, and the armor support to yet somewhere else. And that's just for starters. Consider cracking into an air defense network, or a country's central banking computers, or their power grid control systems, or
Re: Whatever... (Score:1)
Let me apply this situation to our own situation in the 1700s. What if France hadn't helped us against Britian? We would probably have lot the war and still be British citizens. Now the Kashmiris are fighting the Indian army. They are out gunned, out manned, out trained. They asked Pakistan for help. Just like we asked France for help against Britian. How would you feel today if France had sanctions put against it by Spain? You'd think it was absurd because people should have the right to choose their own destiny and if a large enough population wants freedom, then they should get it. Am I wrong here? If you say yes, then you are a hypocrite and don't deserve to live in the US. If you say no, then your arguments are irrelavent. Your choice.
I'd like to see how much of what the Indian muslims want their government to do gets done. India is democratic only if your Hindu. Much like the US during the Civil Rights years. Blacks had the right to vote, but if they did, KKK type groups would come and get them. Or there were so many obsticles (like the Poll tax) that the poor Blacks couldn't vote. Please, I'd ask you to tour India and PROVE me wrong. Muslims are second class citizens in India too worried about how they'll find their next meal, India doesn't have much to worry about. Latly, if India is so open to religions, then why is the government funding a campaign to drive out catholics? Please explain. We have see reports about 6 churches being destoryed and christians being persecuted, please explain why India is doing this? I thought they were a democratic state?
About the PR, you are very wrong here. We see the Indian point of view in the news here. I don't care if they set up an office in DC and lobby from their, all they need to do is make some ridiculous claims on their national news, and our media jumps at every attempt to defame Pakistan. Tell me, why aren't CNN and CNBC reporting the human rights abuses that some of the biggest HR organization in the world are complaining about? Is HR just a thing our country adds on to sway the public when another country is disliked like China? Please explain.
I disgree with your statements on the Muslims of East Pakistan being abused by West Pakistan. It sounds like more FUD to me. Please provide reliable un-biased sources. I'd like to see them. You want my sources, I can give you a phone book of East Pakistan, you can call whoever you please.
SAARC... that's a whole 'nother article.
BTW, about the third-world banding together, I think it'll happen sooner than your prediction. I give our beloved US another 5 decades at most if our current foreign policy strategy continues. All it'll take is a little push from the Euro, the EU getting stronger in trade and FP, and us pissing off another country or two sitting on the security council.
Cheers...
Re: Whatever... (Score:1)
Read the press briefing [whitehouse.gov] at the Whitehouse on July 4, 1999, after Bill Clinton had talks with the Pakistani prime minister and told him to get his forces back behind the Line of Control.
France did what they did because of their enmity with Britain. What about Quebec today? Should Quebec secede from Canada? What about Ireland, and Scotland? What about the Basques in Spain? All of these countries have a democractic framework.
False. Fundamental Rights [alfa.nic.in] are guaranteed to all under the Indian Constitution.
Please provide unbiased, reliable, verifiable sources of your claims. It can be argued that the United States, with its many church burnings[1] [ghgcorp.com] [2] [washingtonpost.com], is a greater threat to Christianity.
Read about Bangladesh's independence [virtualbangladesh.com], especially about the holocaust [virtualbangladesh.com] and the US involvement [virtualbangladesh.com].
This is a real danger. US actions have made the UN and Security Council increasingly irrelevant in the last few years. The US government attitude runs on the lines of I'm taking the ball home if you don't play by my rules. Dues to the tune of millions of dollars to the UN have been witheld. Continuing action against Iraq is being undertaken with a rather elastic view of previous Security Council resolutions. The Kosovo intervention was without the Security Council's approval(since Russia would have vetoed any military action). This is going to make other countries justifiably scared. Can the EU expect to be bombed in the future if the banana dispute is not resolved in favour of the US? Independent-minded countries like France and China will be giving serious thought to countering the growing US influence.
Evolution and the superiority of the 'nerd'? (Score:2)
Strange Days, indeed. (Score:1)
Propaganda (Score:3)
If this is the way wars are going to be fought in the future, at least there will be less blood lost.
--
16 year old crackers aside . . . (Score:2)
This "cyberwar" reads like mild propoganda and cracking. No biggie. We're not talking major industry and government servers hit with DOS attacks or anything. But rather this is a prelude. Let's hope we DON'T see anything more serious than this . . . I don't want to be around when push comes to shove comes to pushing red buttons.
...so that's what's gonna happen, eh? (Score:3)
Not a bad trade, if you ask me
Finally (Score:1)
Anyway, I wonder how hard it is to crack the systems over there. I would guess al capeble sysadmins have come to America/Europe and all that is left are the point-click admin's. (Hmmm....NT or UNIX over there?)
That's my 1/50 of $1.00 US
JM
Maybe I still don't get it but (Score:1)
Re:Finally (Score:2)
----
We all take pink lemonade for granted.
Spitball "cyber war" anyone? (Score:1)
It also seems like the activities described in the article are more on the level of a spitball contest rather than warfare in any traditional sense of the word. There was no mention of attempts to disrupt communications or supply systems or gain access to sensitive operational information. While the lack of a description of such activities does not mean attempts weren't made, I'd have to judge the "cyber war" as a neighborhood cat fight - more "noise" than activity
Where does cyberwar become war? (Score:3)
Surely with all the technology that is a part of military systems today, war is cyberwar. If the systems onboard an aircraft can be hacked (somehow), and the aircraft is brought down, is that cyberwar? or just plain war?
if cyberwar is merely hacking and 'eavesdropping'.. bringing down your enemies' government's web pages is hardly likely to ensure a victory :-)
In fact, if you hack someone's machine, are you declaring cyberwar on them?
Re:16 year old crackers aside . . . (Score:1)
Re:Evolution and the superiority of the 'nerd'? (Score:1)
Re:One slight problem (Score:1)
and then reconsider your comment that
"And am I the only one who believes that if India and Pakistan put their
computer resources together they would have the equivelent of a rural American elementary school computer
lab?"
This is just one random URL I picked up. I'd be happy to educate you more on India's computing resources if you want.
Re:Spitball "cyber war" anyone? (Score:1)
Re:Hyperbole wins again (Score:1)
I believe you are incorrect sir. Cyber warfare will allow attacks deep into enemey territory where conventional armed forces cannot go. What if a cracker does something as simple as shut down the traffic lights? Accidents will happen, people could be hurt, maimed, and killed.
What if they cross propaganda with sutting down the power grid, thus causing a riot? Destruction of property, beatings, deaths. The opposing country wold have to divert valuable resources against its own people, souring their confidence in their leadership and possibly turnign them against the war.
Re:Maybe I still don't get it but (Score:1)
Take money for example - the world is coming closer and closer to a totally electronic monetary system. (I'm not saying it's around the corner, but it's an inevitability). It's not backed by gold or silver anymore, so it doesn't have a physical manifestation.
The way the universe of technology is expanding, I do not find it hard to believe that information is going to be vital to government's and companies. Not just the information, but also the flow of information - Cutting off access to things like server makes communication much more difficult, and that, in turn, makes physical concepts like missiles and cruisers, much harder to utilize effectively.
On the subject of nukes (Score:2)
Consider this: who's the sole country that used nuclear weapons on another? US. Which two countries came the closest to all-out nuclear armageddon? US and the USSR. Yet these two were the superpowers of the time, and the most "civilised".
We're quick to judge other countries as more dangerous than the Western World because of, say, religious fundamentalism. I think there's nothing saying that they can't be as (ir)responsible as us.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
National Script-Kiddy Corps? (this ain't cyberwar) (Score:1)
And armykashmir.org (hardly sounds like an official government site) was connected through Verio. (btw, does anyone know who these 'verio' people are? I saw an add for them in AOLim, and I've been seeing them in my tracerouts all the time now (I don't use AOL ether))
"Cyber war" in my mind would be disrupting critical systems, and breaking national infrastructure. Not petty vandalism against a couple of boxes hosted in the US.
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
Re:One slight problem (Score:1)
Oh come on, most software/hardware developers do not come from India. That's pretty far fetched to say. There is a significant number but very few end up in high profile jobs (relative to the number of non-indians/pakistanis that hold these types of jobs).
And just because the software is cheap and shipping is less doesn't make it more likely for them to have better computers. You don't take into account that their buying power is much lower than ours because they have all sorts of import duties on computer parts in those countries.
Here's a question you're not asking, though, How much of India or Pakistan would be affected by a "cyberwar". Although there are pockets within the country that are affluent and have a lot of modern things, the fact is that most of the country still lives a very simple existance. I would venture to say that a cyberwar would have very little affect on a country with such limited reliance on a telecommunications infrastructure.
-Hieronymous
PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals
Re:Hyperbole wins again (Score:1)
*shuts down power grid for a random large city for a few days* Oops, all of those people on life support, dead... Hundreds more dead from accidents stemming from situations caused by lack of power. Busineses lose millions from the down time, lives are ruined. In the ensuing riots more people are killed, stores destroyed, civil unrest is rampant... And all this because I pushed a button on my 'puter... Neat.
Kintanon
Aye, George Orwell was born in India (Score:1)
There is one small piece of essay by him about captiol punishment that I like a lot. This is in regard to a hanging he witnessed and took part in (as part of the Royal police in India).
--
Re:Isn't that like comparing... (Score:1)
Re:One slight problem (Score:1)
Maybe thats the reason so many SOUTH-ASIANS have done rather well in colleges and universities all over the world.
Math did not come from the United State..... Look up the word "ALGORITHM" which I hope you have heard off ?
You may also want to go back into the archives and look up some information about early Viruses that were made.. Specially ones that hit NASA in the early eighties I think
then maybe you will have a clue. I am trying not to provide more flamebait... but this comment was
just tooo much!
United Nations Resolution on Cyber Terrorism (Score:1)
What do ./ers think? Would you like to see international policy development undertaken by the United Nations towards developing international principles that would enhance the security of global information and telecommunications systems and help to combat information terrorism and criminality? Or is this something that the Internet Society [isoc.org] should be doing? I note that Vint Cerf is promoting the idea of a Law of Cyberspace [wcom.com], similar to the existing United Nations Law of the Sea. [tufts.edu]
My feeling is that like it or not, future skirmishes will be fought on a digital battleground, and governments will need to cooperate to fight cyber-terrorism.
-- Paul Gillingwater
Nuclear weapons made easy. (Score:1)
Actually, a good case can be made that the possession of nuclear weapons by BOTH sides is a stabilizing factor. Problems would arise if only ONE side had nukes.
Re:Cyberwar? Nah, just propaganda and vandalism... (Score:1)
What if? (Score:1)
We need Country Joe to write a song about this...
-------------------
Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you may be drafted...
Re:1, 2, 3, 4.. I declare Cyberwar (Score:1)
Well, from what I recall when researching the subject back in the eighties as an undergrad, it wouldn't take much to paralyze the USA.
Essentially, if you really wanted to do it, one of the smaller H-bombs (there's an oxymoron!) detonated over Nebraska or Kansas would nail a large amount of electronic equipment in the Lower 48, including that within large population centers. It may not have to be too much larger than what was tested above ground in the South Pacific in the 50's.
Of course, the scientists who uttered these remarks were SWAGging, so take this with a metric ton of salt. Then again, the US does have "launch on warning" as its official policy, and EMP (among other things of course) is used as justification: use 'em or lose 'em.
-----
Re:Where found and a correction... (Score:1)
Find what? The Desert Storm mention? I blew that, I meant Iraq, not Iran. And there were articles available in several sources documenting the problems the Iraqies had with things like printers that turned out to have bogus firmware (but they weren't allowed to sue of course, and later denials were made by the US gov). Anyway I don't remember specific sources, but I do remember reading about it in magazines with serious reputations.
If you are referring to the rest of the post, do a net search on 'Infowar' and 'Cyberwar' for starters. Also read Infowar by G. Stocker and Powershift by A. Toffler. Then do what I did -- sit down and think out some realistic scenarios (I am a wannabe SF writer, so this is something I do with lots of things). It also wouldn't hurt to read some war memoirs and strategy/tactic books, just to give you some idea of what has been done along these lines without computers...
Jack
Re:The Battlefield of the Future? (Score:1)
Puny Humans (Score:1)
We will nuke you from orbit, and take all your copies of Quake II (oh, and your bodies and souls).
The Battlefield of the Future? (Score:5)
(Excerpted from the Air Force's "Air Chronicles")
And from a different "Air Chronicles" article:
So where is it all going to end up? Will we need soldiers in the future? Of course! Will our government begin Computer warfare as well? Chances are very high that it will. As it all becomes more prevalent the DoD will respond, and you can bet some of the script kiddies in Federal lockup right now will get some special offers.
Somewhat frightenedly yours,
-efisher
---
Re:One slight problem (Score:1)
Big whooping deal (Score:2)
I am concerned, however, about two neighboring nuclear powers involved in essentially a religious war. And things like this may only serve to incense the people more -- not something we want to see.
That's why this is a little more important than one Quake clan hacking another's website -- they typically don't have control over medium-range nuclear missiles.
BTW, did anyone else notice the severe pro-India slant? I personally have no real feelings for or against either government, but that writer sure seemed to favor India. Who actually believes that either one of these countries is somehow acting more 'mature' than the other?
Quick - get them Linux! (Score:2)
Cheers,
Ben
This isn't war.. (Score:1)
War isn't nice. It isn't redirecting things, or swaying opinion. It's about damaging and taking over their ability to function.
a good thing (Score:1)
I'm just funny that way, I guess.
On the other hand, things have been steadily escalating between these two nuclear powers for some time. After a while, when you've crashed all their servers, and bluescreened all their ATMs, and they're still annoying you with their pesky religions and customs, frustration sets in, and things have a tendency to escalate further. I don't know if this conflict has much of a potential to spread (who's going to hop into a nuclear conflict on behalf of Pakistan or India? No oil, no white people ), seems to me that the worst possibly could happen here, but at least something like this probably won't turn into a world war. Seems like the only people that would be put off by something like this would be the computer industry (where American companies get our finest programmers), and DeBeers (where kids cut and polish mass quantities of diamonds for $2 a day).
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Re:Where does cyberwar become war? (Score:1)
If so, what is the retaliation for a declaration of cyberwar? If somebody cracks a government site is their retaliation limited to a cyber counter attack, or do they bomb the piss out of the offender?
Watter Purity (Score:1)
I had no trouble getting this computer...
I know people from india and pakistan who were welthy enough to send there children to the US for an education
It is said that india has the worlds 'largest middle class'. Of course that came out of Bill Clintons mouth, but still
Just beacuse a contry has a lot of poor people, dosn't mean it dosn't have welthy people to.
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
True Security is posible, but very difficult.... (Score:1)
I don't know how many people would want to mathimaticaly prove a couple million lines of code, but it's posible to do.
write you're own firewall OS, someone should do that, actualy...
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
That's a bit of a misconception. (Score:1)
The truth is that you're partially right - my OpenBSD machine probably can't be cracked. At least, not by the mundane efforts made by your average script kiddie. Still, there's always someone out there who is smarter, and it's my job to be ready for them.
Re:Evolution and the superiority of the 'nerd'? (Score:1)
Isn't that like comparing... (Score:1)
Re:One slight problem (Score:1)
And before you Flamebait this post, go work retail in America. You'll see what I mean.
Basically, India is no longer a 4th-world British colony. Your preconceptions are wildly outdated...
Re:Quick - get them Linux!--doh! (Score:1)
Cyberwar? Nah, just propaganda and vandalism... (Score:3)
Real cyberwar occurred during Desert Storm when the Iranian governement found that their networks systems had been compromised on several levels.
Cyberwar of the future will include everything from intelligence operations to subtle data modifications that result in supply snafus and bad descision making. In World War II one of the most important 'data' tools available was not encryptionm -- but good maps. And both sides attempted to degrade the other's maps through disinformation and spies. Think how much more powerful it would be to throw off an attacking force by a few miles by messing with their navigation systems?
For real cyberwar look for attacks on databases, inventory control, truck routing, payroll, navigation and targeting systems. Not web pages...
Jack
Re:One slight problem (Score:1)
- They have the resources and technology to develop atomic weaponry. (And don't tell me any high school kid can do that. There's a huge gap between understanding the theory and actually implementing it.)
- Check out this webpage [indiaexpress.com] (found in a random search on India and Technology)
This is very scary (Score:3)
What happens when these guys, or someone else, really starts to go at it?
The good cracker is much cheaper to outfit than a professional soldier.
What does a cracker need? A fast computer (around ~4000 for top of the line), a reasonably fast net connection, a bag of doritos, and storage in a cool dry place. What does a single foot soldier need? Weapons and Equipment, barracks, transportation, a support staff (cooks, medics, pot scrubbers...), artillary, aircraft...
Say the military has 20 good crackers. What would they do? Sit them all in a room and make sure they share all their secrets and skills, making each one of them that much more dangerous. I don't know much about network security. But I do know firewalls will not stop a military cracker. They will know all the tips and tricks by heart. If there is a security hole, these guys would be able to find it and abuse it with some serious Ninja-Like-Tactics.
Then toss in the whole concept of Nationalism. Remember that lecture back in World History? Possibly the most powerful force in history. A single soldier will look a man in the face and then pump him full of lead for his country, knowing that he may die in the process. Call it the Military Mindset if you will.
What would a cracker do, when he/she has the same Mindset and desire to serve his/her country, but all he/she sees is a digital world, and doesn't have to look that other soldier in the face? Doesn't have to worry about dying in battle? Would they have an issue to shuting down a power grid? Taking out communications? What if that power grid ran the ICU of a children's hospital? What if they hacked into a nuke plant and caused a melt down? Would they care? My point is that these would not be same type of cracker we all know and love. We're talkin' some serious Neuromancer type wackos.
NOTE: Despite the user name, I am not currently, nor have I been, in the armed forces. So I could be completely wrong.