Return-Path: <sentto-279987-4918-1025195392-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com> Delivered-To: fc@all.net Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 27 Jun 2002 09:33:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 24415 invoked by uid 510); 27 Jun 2002 16:29:44 -0000 Received: from n37.grp.scd.yahoo.com (66.218.66.105) by all.net with SMTP; 27 Jun 2002 16:29:44 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-4918-1025195392-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.192] by n37.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Jun 2002 16:29:54 -0000 X-Sender: cpreston@gci.net X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_3); 27 Jun 2002 16:29:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 10305 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2002 16:29:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Jun 2002 16:29:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta-2.gci.net) (208.138.130.83) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Jun 2002 16:29:52 -0000 Received: from mmp-2.gci.net ([208.138.130.81]) by mta-2.gci.net (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id GYDHTP01.8SC for <iwar@yahoogroups.com>; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:29:49 -0800 Received: from graywolf3.gci.net ([24.237.10.246]) by mmp-2.gci.net (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id GYDHTP02.H1G for <iwar@yahoogroups.com>; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:29:49 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020627043123.02546df8@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: cpreston@mail.gci.net@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: iwar@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-From: Charles Preston <cpreston@gci.net> From: Charles Preston <cpreston@sinbad.net> X-Yahoo-Profile: cpreston_2000 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: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:29:41 -0800 Subject: [iwar] Code safety and iwar success Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.7 required=5.0 tests=RISK_FREE,FREE_MONEY,LINES_OF_YELLING version=2.20 X-Spam-Level: *** I'm not suggesting that all Russian programmers are untrustworthy in any way. But considering several trends and news articles together, where is this leading? 1. U.S. companies, including Microsoft, are employing thousands of Russian programmers. Many Russian programmers are said to have had experience in Russian defense industries, so must be considered trustworthy by elements of the Russian government. ----------------- http://www.outsourcing-russia.com/OS2002/indiacopy.html In fact, a dozen well-known multinational technology companies including Motorola, LG, Samsung, Intel, Microsoft, Sun Microsystems and Boeing have already opened their own software development centers in major Russian cities, where several thousand certified Russian programmers are already employed. Most of the companies have also begun developing special university curricula and provide internship programs for hundreds of first-year undergraduates. ----------------- 2. Microsoft software is heavily used by the U.S. Government, including by the military, while Microsoft states that their closed-source products are more secure than open-source. 3. If a lot of code has a half-life of about 3 years, it will be close to six years before any prohibitions on Russian coders will nullify most potential vulnerabilities from that source. That's about the time it took in the past for a much less complex code base to be thoroughly examined to qualify for a security-approved list. 4. USSR intelligence was sophisticated enough in past years to score important victories, many with long-term or strategic implications, and intelligence and deception planning has been a carefully-considered part of Russian military planning since at least World War II. 5. There is no requirement for a direct military conflict between the U.S. and Russia in order for the U.S to get outbid as a potential ally, and for Russia to offer experienced technical assistance to state or non-state actors. 6. Russia and the U.S. are two of the few nations believed to have significant iwar capabilities, but our respective iwar vulnerabilities are probably asymmetrical, with the U.S. being the most vulnerable. ----------------- JANE'S INTELLIGENCE REVIEW - JULY 01, 2002 Russia's 'netwar' capabilities Tim Thomas ... Russia is particularly concerned with information weapons that disable or change the algorithms driving control system software. These weapons include: · means of disabling all or specific portions of software of an information system, possibly at a given point in time or with the onset of a certain event in the system; · means of covertly changing (even partially) the algorithm of a piece of functioning software; · means of collecting data circulating in the enemy information system; · means of delivery and introduction of specific algorithms to a specific place in an information system; ... ----------------- cmp ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/kgFolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ------------------ 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 : 2003-08-24 02:46:33 PDT