RE: [iwar] Arab/Israeli "CyberWar" of our own making

From: John Sforza (
Date: 2001-06-11 07:02:59

Return-Path: <>
Received: from by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 11 Jun 2001 07:04:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 25312 invoked by uid 510); 11 Jun 2001 13:03:50 -0000
Received: from ( by with SMTP; 11 Jun 2001 13:03:50 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 11 Jun 2001 14:03:14 -0000
Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 11 Jun 2001 14:03:13 -0000
Received: (qmail 75482 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2001 14:03:11 -0000
Received: from unknown ( by with QMQP; 11 Jun 2001 14:03:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ( by mta3 with SMTP; 11 Jun 2001 14:03:11 -0000
Received: from isriskxcurrent ( []) by (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with SMTP id f5BE1iW24311 for <>; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:01:44 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Iwar@Yahoogroups. Com \(E-mail\)" <>
Message-ID: <000401c0f27f$396877d0$>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000
Importance: Normal
X-eGroups-From: "John Sforza" <>
From: "John Sforza" <>
Mailing-List: list; contact
Delivered-To: mailing list
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:02:59 -0400
Subject: RE: [iwar] Arab/Israeli "CyberWar" of our own making
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Where is the classification of escalation of conflict regarding computer
based info systems?
I don't consider a punch in the nose to be in the same conflict
classification as being targeted and fired on  by a M1 Abrams. Web
defacement is annoying, Site DDoS raises the level, but to what? I see this
as terrorism more than war (not criminal activity unless an infraction of
law was involved).
I have always associated war with a diplomatic bend. I see so much effort to
classify everything in security by technique, method and impact why are we
using the most reactive term regarding incidents? I will give Winn his due
on Infowar but the classification is too broad and it's usage has the
potential to lead to the 'button push - nuclear holocaust' syndrome.

> I agree that we need to continue to consider our definitions, but I do
> think that in this case I have made a credible case for what cyber
> warfare may be and that the PLO Israeli conflict supports this notion.
> Whether the intensity is again picking up is the question I would like
> to see answered and documented here.

Perception has a lot to do with this. I have no cultural commitments in that
theatre and as such identify the frequency of activity as increasing but do
not consider the intensity of conflict as rising. An Israeli associate of
mine however reacts VERY differently. Any increase in frequency is attended
by a perception of cultural and personal attack, he considers that the
conflict intensity is rising significantly.

I like the term cyber-conflict more than cyber-warfare but I concede that
your term is better that *war.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-06-30 21:44:17 PDT