Re: [iwar] what next? DDoS and then?


From: MAGLAN 1
From: m1@maglan-lab.com
To: iwar@egroups.com
Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:39:03 +0200 

fc  Fri Dec 15 04:41:08 2000
Received: from 207.222.214.225
	by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0)
	for fc@localhost (single-drop); Fri, 15 Dec 2000 04:41:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by multi33.netcomi.com for fc
 (with Netcom Interactive pop3d (v1.21.1 1998/05/07) Fri Dec 15 12:36:48 2000)
X-From_: m1@maglan-lab.com  Fri Dec 15 06:36:28 2000
Received: from hl.egroups.com (hl.egroups.com [208.50.99.197]) by multi33.netcomi.com (8.8.5/8.7.4) with SMTP id GAA22200 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 06:36:24 -0600
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-813-976884040-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.4.56] by hl.egroups.com with NNFMP; 15 Dec 2000 12:40:42 -0000
X-Sender: m1@maglan-lab.com
X-Apparently-To: iwar@egroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Dec 2000 12:40:39 -0000
Received: (qmail 90985 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2000 12:40:39 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Dec 2000 12:40:39 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO frigg.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.16) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Dec 2000 13:41:44 -0000
Received: from fox ([213.8.240.144]) by frigg.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with SMTP id AGH10196; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:39:44 +0200 (IST)
Message-ID: <006701c06694$1a7f09a0$0100000a@fox>
To: 
References: 
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
From: "MAGLAN 1" 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list iwar@egroups.com; contact iwar-owner@egroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: 
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:39:03 +0200
Reply-To: iwar@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [iwar] what next? DDoS and then?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

What Next?

As far as I see and from our lab active round-table, next steps (on the high
level of IW)  split for two parts: 1) strongly amalgamation between
Electronic Warfare (EW) to Information Warfare (IW).  2) A variety of "Smart
Virus and Vandals" development to be implant remotely, based on RF - IR -
IP - Line -Cellular - SAT & [?] existing and future technologies.

Remember that development process takes time and weapons are not expose if
not required .

------------------------------ :)
SB,
MAGLAN - Information Warfare Research Lab.





----- Original Message -----
From: Wanja Eric Naef (IWS) 
To: Iwar@Egroups. Com 
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 1:48 AM
Subject: RE: [iwar] what next? DDoS and then?


> >I think it will be valuable trying to characterize just what the future
> >"high value targets" will be.  They may not be what we are prepared for.
>
> I agree with you that it is essential to define the targets so that we can
> 'harden'
> them against potential attacks. The only catch is technology is evolving
> very quickly
> and it is very difficult to estimate what is going to happen.  I remember
a
> year ago at a
> presentation when someone mentioned mobile phone viruses and the audience
> did not take
> him seriously. Now the first PDA virus already appeared and with mobile
> phones and other
> devices of the next generation UMDS which will be able to execute scripts
a
> new a wide
> variety of threats will evolve.
>
> I don't want to jump on the bandwagon of so called 'Electronic Pearl
Harbour
> or Waterloo' scaremongers.
> Nevertheless, NII/DII present an interesting option especially for people
> who want to create havoc
> and seek a challenge. Those targets have been hardened, but this means not
> it is impossible to
> successfully attack them.
>
> So it looks like it is virtual impossible task as our society is getting
> more and more interconnected and dependent on
> CIA (confidentiality, integrity, accessibility) of information. One
shocking
> thing is that the current US CIP policy is
> aimed at protecting strategic targets and leaves out the small users who
as
> Tony mentioned  'even though
> collectively those end-user systems support  the greatest value in CPU,
> Storage, and transactions.'
>
> Maybe the government should launch an awareness campaign and educate John
> Doe to
> protect himself. Just today there was an article
> http://www.nua.ie/surveys/index.cgi?f=VS&art_id=905356238&rel=true
> which said that in 2003 46% of  US online households will use broadband .
> The reports then mentions
> that nearly 85% of the current US web users know how to defend themselves
> against 'cybercrime', but then it
> states ' just two out of every ten home Internet users have personal
> firewall protection on their PCs.'
>
> If the government will not start to educate the average users, we might
face
> some nasty surprises in the future.
>
> Regards,
>
> Wanja
>
> Wanja Eric Naef
>
> Webmaster & Researcher
> IWS - The Information Warfare Site
> http://www.iwar.org.uk
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------
> http://all.net/
>
>


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/595019/_/976884040/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

------------------
http://all.net/