Return-Path: <sentto-279987-1376-993594431-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com> Delivered-To: fc@all.net Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 26 Jun 2001 15:28:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 11221 invoked by uid 510); 26 Jun 2001 21:28:50 -0000 Received: from fk.egroups.com (64.211.240.232) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 26 Jun 2001 21:28:50 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-1376-993594431-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.4.53] by fk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 26 Jun 2001 22:27:11 -0000 X-Sender: azb@llnl.gov X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 26 Jun 2001 22:27:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 67104 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2001 22:27:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Jun 2001 22:27:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp-1.llnl.gov) (128.115.250.81) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 Jun 2001 22:27:07 -0000 Received: from poptop.llnl.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-1.llnl.gov (8.9.3/8.9.3/LLNL-gateway-1.0) with ESMTP id PAA28779 for <iwar@yahoogroups.com>; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 15:27:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from catalyst.llnl.gov (catalyst.llnl.gov [128.115.222.68]) by poptop.llnl.gov (8.8.8/LLNL-3.0.2/pop.llnl.gov-5.1) with ESMTP id PAA08383; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 15:27:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010626151100.00af4220@poptop.llnl.gov> X-Sender: e048786@poptop.llnl.gov X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 To: iwar@yahoogroups.com, iwar@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: <200106261337.GAA04954@big.all.net> References: <20010626132529.13481.qmail@web14507.mail.yahoo.com> From: Tony Bartoletti <azb@llnl.gov> Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 15:35:27 -0700 Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [iwar] Figuring out the "quantity" of import that IWAR implies? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit At 06:37 AM 6/26/01 -0700, Fred Cohen wrote: >Per the message sent by c.b r: > > > I agree folks-there are terms that have been used of > > late-hysteria, etc. that are a bit strong for the > > place that we are, today, with IWAR. Insidious, sure > > and difficult to deal with and several others, but we > > have yet to reach the point where IWAR has the > > potential to kill people on the order of nukes, > >Actually... in WW II millions of people were killed by information >warfare - all of those murdered in death camps for example. We can call >it propaganda if you like... Indeed every time people convince other >people to go out killing people an act of information warfare has >succeeded. More people have been killed over religious ideas than >by nuclear weapons. True. But IWAR and "Cyberwar" differ a bit, in that the latter is focused more upon that which is enabled, and perhaps directly executable, by means of the internet or related cyber infrastructure. I surmise c.b.r had the latter more in mind. > > however the problem is on the rise. The real question > > is where will it end up, once fully developed on the > > scale of weapony? Or will it always be a low > > intensity, unconventional type of fight?c.b.r of DC > >I think that your second characterization is pretty much right - at >least for now. Information warfare must be insidious to be successful. >It gets a bit intense at times - at least in my experience, but how do >we really measure intensity? Different measures will put information >warfare higher or lower than other weapons. The eventual power of cyberweapons will be directly proportional to the degree to which we "enable" pervasive cyber control of critical processes. If we allow legitimate operators to issue "emergency" directives, electronically, to elements such as power transmission, air/rail traffic scheduling, remote refinery operations, (emergency broadcast systems!) etc., then one can see room for havoc. What worries me is that the "safeguards" we put in place in the hopes of securing these kinds of communications are typically the type that successfully thwart the casual hacker and "noisy children", yet (perhaps) not the well-funded, expert, dedicated operations that will quietly subvert control systems, but bide their time to exercise some form of coordinated exploit. There is talk about cyberwar preparation being little more that a "cash cow" for the DoD, and it rings true in the short-term. To many folk, it probably conjures up images of billion dollar anti web-defacement measures. But one must raise the alarms early, yell "the sky is falling", for cyber-realized infrastructure control will not be a passing fad. ____tony____ Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 <azb@llnl.gov> Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore, CA 94551-9900 ------------------ http://all.net/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-06-30 21:44:19 PDT