From: iw@all.net
Subject: IW Mailing List iw/960104
---------------------------------------------
Moderator's Note:

This issue of the IW mailing list is dedicated exclusively to the
wargame played on Tuesday.  For this purpose we have a guest moderator,
Fred Cohen (fc@all.net) - the person who designed and ran the game.

Much of this information is also available in http://all.net/ under
Browse -> Gopher Server (Information Warfare Mailing List)  => Game-96-01

================================================================================
				The Scenario
================================================================================
WarGame 96-01

Scene 1

	The date: Jan 2, 2021 - 25 years from now.  IT has progressed
significantly in that time, but the ability of people to get along has
not progressed so well.  The Arab states are now just about out of oil,
and much of the world is suffering under a virtual shutdown of oil
supplies.  Other energy sources have not made a lot of progress,
conservation has failed to achieve the gains required to compensate for
the lack of oil, and it is a cold winter for much of the world's
population. 

	In the United States, the decision was taken to use rolling
blackouts as part of the overall energy conservation effort, but the
computer junkies and technical wizards of the country decided that the
government is wrong.  They secretly decided to take over the
infrastructure and reallocate energy as they see fit.  Calling
themselves the I-force, one of their decisions was to stop supplying
electrical power and telecommunications support to large government
facilities (including the central area of Washington, D.C.) and to
provide service to areas that support the information infrastructure.

	The government (G) forces initially thought that they had all of
the I-force members nailed down because of the long-term use of key
escrow, but to their surprise, they found that the I-force members were
not who they thought they were.  In fact, they have now discovered that
before escrow became the law in 2001, the I-force found a way to use
strong cryptography so that the escrow keys produced well-known fairy
tales rather then the actual content of messages.  Meanwhile, the key
escrow system was weak enough that I-force members have been able to
decode select messages for several years, and due to a firewall failure
on a prime-numbered year, month, day combination, recently broke into
the key escrow center and secured copies of the master keys as well as
all of the current escrowed keys. 

	G-force thought that they could physically take over the power
grid by taking over select switching stations, but to their dismay, they
found that they didn't have enough resources or support among the
civilian workers to have a substantial effect.  Through sophistocated
simulation techniques and by exploiting their control of the NII, the
I-force has managed to simulate well-known personalities to the point
where the vast majority of the people now believe that the G-forces
represent a military coup attempt, and that the I-force has the support
of most of the civilian government.  As this public support swayed
toward the I-force, many of the politicians (who were unable to
differentiate truth from fiction and who now travel to Washington only
rarely and do most of their business from home) began to take up the
I-force point of view.  It is now unclear who is in control and what
portion of the government supports them.

	In desperation, and rapidly running out of backup power, the
G-forces decided to concentrate their efforts to taking back a few key
sites.  They have now secured enough of the power generation and
infrastructure in the Washington D.C., San Diego, CA, and Denver, CO
areas to assure power to those areas, but it is taking all of their
effort to stave off the ongoing attempts at subversion and they can do
little else.

===========Orders from your commander are forthcoming.==========

================================================================================
				The Rules
================================================================================
Rule of Engagement: All participants must remain within the game

	You must only participate in the game by sending email from
	your normal email address to the address specified for your
	team, and not by any other means (no phone calls,
	conversations, or anything else)

================================================================================
			WarGame Player's Manual
================================================================================

Introduction:
-------------

	Welcome to the WarGame system.  The WarGame system is a
semi-automated software contrivance designed to permit a skilled
operator to manage a wargame with some degree of efficiency.  It is not
designed to handle real-time tactical maneuvers or to automatically
evaluate moves.  Rather, it is an attempt to allow some strategic
planning games to be played without the expense of travel, housing, etc. 

About Strategic Games:
----------------------

	Strategic games of this sort may be best thought of as
structured interactions between players designed to get at underlying
issues through the use of made-up scenarios.  Scenarios don't have to be
particularly realistic and don't even have to involve enemies (although
sometimes it helps to get you thinking when you have to think against
someone else).

	In these games, you are on a team with a team leader, a
scenario, and a set of orders.

	Failure to follow orders is called treason and can get you
killed or sent to jail indefinitely, so please try your best to follow
them.

	The team leader is in charge of the team, but that doesn't make
it a dictatorship.  If the team leader tries to suggest something
illegal, infeasible, or even different than what you think should be
done, please bring it up.  If, in the end, the leader says to follow a
different path, please try to do so.

	The scenario is what it is.  It cannot be altered except by your
actions within the game.  If the scenario makes bad assumptions, you
can't change them, but you can posit things that help you get around
them - but try to stick to it.

How the WarGame System Works:
-----------------------------

	The wargame system is very simple.  Mostly, it just forwards
email and keeps copies for analysis.  Almost all communications consist
of sending email to game@all.net.  The game address automatically figures
out who you are and forward mail to the proper recipients.

	Team leaders are given an additional capability.  By placing the
following line anywhere in their message, they can send a "diplomatic"
message that reaches the other team:

***** DIPCOM *****

	DIPlomatic COMmunication should be used sparingly! Think of it
like using the red phone between Moscow and Washington - or like sending
a private letter in the pouch to Tehran. 

	Other special telecommunication behaviors are also available in
WarGame, but they are only explained to players on a need-to-know basis.

Proper behavior during War Games:
---------------------------------

War is Hell!  Strategic war games are not.

Be nice to your team mates.  Remember, they are the good guys.

Be polite to your enemies.  Remember, you may end up their prisoners.

Email isn't like in-person communication - you can only smile by using
stupid little character sequences that many people ignore or don't
understand.  Remember this both when you read and when you type.

================================================================================
				The TimeLine
================================================================================
When		What		Action			File		To whom
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
g-1 week	Initial scenario to players		Scene-1		All	*+
		Name team leaders			Leaders		All	*+
g-1 day		test out communications system		CommTest	All	*+
							Rules		All	*+
							GameMan		All	*+
g-6 hour	6 hour game warning			6-hours		All	*+
g-1 hour	Game about to start			StartSoon	All	*+
							Scene-1		All	*+
g		send out orders for all teams		Orders-1-?	?	*+
g+4 hour	I listens to G				Listen		I	*+
				Add I to G's send lists				 +
g+5 hour	G detects listening			Tapper		G	*+
g+6 hour	Listening ends				EndTap		G	*+
				Reset B's send list				 +
g+20 hours	Move nearly done			DoneSoon	All	*+
g+20 hours	G spoofs I				SpoofSoon	G	*+
							Spoof		I	*+
				Add SPOOF pragma to G leader			 +
g+22 hours	I detects spoof				Spoofer		I	*+
		Spoofing ends				EndSpoof	G	*+
				Remove SPOOF pragma from G leader		 +
g+23 hours	Move ends				EndMove		All	*+
END		Thank Participants			ThankYou	All	*+

================================================================================
				Team Members
================================================================================
I-Force
	rajiv@cs.uwa.edu.au
	ghidra@mail.msen.com
	cds@denver.ssds.com
	padgett@gdi.net
	gregk@lfs.loral.com
	seangi@easter.euro.csg.mot.com
	mdevost@chelsea.ios.com
	adept@minerva.cis.yale.edu
	ddt@lsd.com

G-Force
	cobbjw@ornl.gov
	Johann.O.Jokulsson@iti.is
	joelm@eskimo.com
	0005514706@mcimail.com
	x85899c4@cadet2.usma.edu
	shimeall@cs.nps.navy.mil
	tju@sgi.com
	perryms@xr_smtp_gw.wpafb.af.mil
	ab129@dayton.wright.edu
	winn@infowar.com
	aanwar@iiu.my

================================================================================
				The Transaction Log
================================================================================

Send M10103 to testlist on Sun Dec 31 09:08:27 EST 1995
Send M10254 to testlist on Sun Dec 31 09:13:11 EST 1995
Send M13400 to i-force on Sun Dec 31 11:23:37 EST 1995
Send M13708 to g-force on Sun Dec 31 11:33:20 EST 1995
Send M15749 to i-force on Sun Dec 31 12:58:58 EST 1995
Send M17087 to i-force on Sun Dec 31 13:53:11 EST 1995
Send M17525 to testlist on Sun Dec 31 14:08:55 EST 1995
Send M20021 from iw@all.net to testlist on Sun Dec 31 15:44:02 EST 1995
Send M20400 from iw@all.net to testlist on Sun Dec 31 15:54:28 EST 1995
Send M20496 from dipcom to gamelist on Sun Dec 31 15:56:42 EST 1995
Send M20992 from mdevost@chelsea.ios.com to i-force on Sun Dec 31 16:08:28 EST 1995
Send M22745 from adept@minerva.cis.yale.edu to i-force on Sun Dec 31 16:44:49 EST 1995
Send M23905 from ddt@lsd.com to i-force on Sun Dec 31 17:32:24 EST 1995
Send M24365 from iw@all.net to testlist on Sun Dec 31 17:49:43 EST 1995
Send M24633 from fc@all.net to testlist on Sun Dec 31 17:58:20 EST 1995
Send M24783 from fc@all.net to testlist on Sun Dec 31 18:02:03 EST 1995
Send M24933 from TESTfc@all.net to testlist on Sun Dec 31 18:06:46 EST 1995
Send M25411 from john@gate.mccabe.com to i-force on Sun Dec 31 18:24:03 EST 1995
Send M29112 from DIPCOMgame@all.net to gamelist on Sun Dec 31 20:16:38 EST 1995
Send M29355 from DIPCOMgame@all.net to gamelist on Sun Dec 31 20:21:12 EST 1995
Send M10234 from 0005514706@mcimail.com to g-force on Mon Jan  1 03:03:12 EST 1996
Send M21183 from ceo@oss.net to g-force on Mon Jan  1 10:55:56 EST 1996
Send M29567 from tju@akira.corp.sgi.com to g-force on Mon Jan  1 16:25:49 EST 1996
Send M21993 from johann.o.jokulsson@iti.is to g-force on Tue Jan  2 06:26:14 EST 1996
Send M22244 from DIPCOMgame@all.net to gamelist on Tue Jan  2 06:34:06 EST 1996
Send M194 from winn@infowar.com to g-force on Tue Jan  2 10:30:25 EST 1996
Send M1060 from DIPCOMgame@all.net to gamelist on Tue Jan  2 10:59:28 EST 1996
Send M1217 from DIPCOMgame@all.net to gamelist on Tue Jan  2 11:01:16 EST 1996
Send M2060 from ab129@dayton.wright.edu to g-force on Tue Jan  2 11:23:06 EST 1996
Send M2527 from joelm@eskimo.com to g-force on Tue Jan  2 11:32:54 EST 1996
Send M2833 from TESTgame@all.net to testlist on Tue Jan  2 11:40:00 EST 1996
Send M3668 from GCOMgame@all.net to g-force on Tue Jan  2 12:02:17 EST 1996
Send M4446 from fc@all.net to testlist on Tue Jan  2 12:20:48 EST 1996
Send M5469 from tju@akira.corp.sgi.com to g-force on Tue Jan  2 12:52:03 EST 1996
Send M5779 from GCOMfc@all.net to g-force on Tue Jan  2 12:59:28 EST 1996
Send M6148 from 0005514706@mcimail.com to g-force on Tue Jan  2 13:08:08 EST 1996
Send M6646 from DIPCOMgame@all.net to gamelist on Tue Jan  2 13:20:58 EST 1996
Send M7110 from 0005514706@mcimail.com to g-force on Tue Jan  2 13:30:20 EST 1996
Send M7875 from winn@infowar.com to g-force on Tue Jan  2 13:48:54 EST 1996
Send M9691 from 0005514706@mcimail.com to g-force on Tue Jan  2 14:38:32 EST 1996
Send M10596 from tju@akira.corp.sgi.com to g-force on Tue Jan  2 15:07:23 EST 1996
Send M11297 from shimeall@cs.nps.navy.mil to g-force on Tue Jan  2 15:24:59 EST 1996
Send M13007 from shimeall@cs.nps.navy.mil to g-force on Tue Jan  2 16:10:20 EST 1996
Send M13262 from winn@infowar.com to g-force on Tue Jan  2 16:15:19 EST 1996
Send M13406 from fc@all.net to testlist on Tue Jan  2 16:17:45 EST 1996
Send M13490 from winn@infowar.com to g-force on Tue Jan  2 16:19:48 EST 1996
Send M13737 from cobbjw@ornl.gov to g-force on Tue Jan  2 16:24:45 EST 1996
Send M13864 from winn@infowar.com to g-force on Tue Jan  2 16:26:24 EST 1996
Send M14160 from winn@infowar.com to g-force on Tue Jan  2 16:33:06 EST 1996
Send M14478 from ICOMgame@all.net to i-force on Tue Jan  2 16:40:13 EST 1996
Send M14688 from adept@minerva.cis.yale.edu to i-force on Tue Jan  2 16:45:16 EST 1996
Send M15025 from ICOMgame@all.net to i-force on Tue Jan  2 16:53:43 EST 1996
Send M15525 from cobbjw@ornl.gov to g-force on Tue Jan  2 17:06:27 EST 1996
Send M15701 from 0005514706@mcimail.com to g-force on Tue Jan  2 17:08:24 EST 1996
Send M16166 from GCOMgame@all.net to g-force.orig on Tue Jan  2 17:19:04 EST 1996
Send M17910 from joelm@eskimo.com to g-force on Tue Jan  2 18:07:35 EST 1996
Send M18049 from winn@infowar.com to g-force on Tue Jan  2 18:08:34 EST 1996
Send M18308 from winn@infowar.com to g-force on Tue Jan  2 18:13:02 EST 1996
Send M18742 from joelm@eskimo.com to g-force on Tue Jan  2 18:22:06 EST 1996
Send M18953 from GCOMgame@all.net to g-force.orig on Tue Jan  2 18:24:28 EST 1996
Send M19114 from winn@infowar.com to g-force on Tue Jan  2 18:26:40 EST 1996
Send M19225 from joelm@eskimo.com to g-force on Tue Jan  2 18:28:06 EST 1996
Send M19418 from winn@infowar.com to g-force on Tue Jan  2 18:31:53 EST 1996
Send M20774 from shimeall@cs.nps.navy.mil to g-force on Tue Jan  2 19:06:02 EST 1996
Send M21123 from joelm@eskimo.com to g-force on Tue Jan  2 19:14:11 EST 1996
Send M21738 from mdevost@chelsea.ios.com to i-force on Tue Jan  2 19:29:50 EST 1996
Send M23258 from 0005514706@mcimail.com to g-force on Tue Jan  2 20:08:33 EST 1996
Send M24105 from DIPCOM0005514706@mcimail.com to g-force on Tue Jan  2 20:27:53 EST 1996
Send M24813 from ICOMgame@all.net to i-force.orig on Tue Jan  2 20:31:53 EST 1996
Send M28632 from ceo@oss.net to g-force on Tue Jan  2 21:43:26 EST 1996
Send M28801 from padgett@gdi.net to i-force on Tue Jan  2 21:45:55 EST 1996
Send M298 from mdevost@chelsea.ios.com to i-force on Tue Jan  2 22:23:31 EST 1996
Send M2793 from 0005514706@mcimail.com to g-force on Tue Jan  2 23:31:10 EST 1996
Send M20261 from DIPCOMgame@all.net to gamelist on Wed Jan  3 07:59:26 EST 1996
Send M20347 from GCOMgame@all.net to g-force.orig on Wed Jan  3 07:59:55 EST 1996
Send M20387 from ICOMgame@all.net to i-force.orig on Wed Jan  3 08:00:07 EST 1996
Send M22723 from mdevost@chelsea.ios.com to i-force on Wed Jan  3 08:25:36 EST 1996
Send M26976 from ab129@dayton.wright.edu to g-force on Wed Jan  3 10:12:35 EST 1996
Send M27122 from ICOMgame@all.net to i-force.orig on Wed Jan  3 10:15:45 EST 1996
Send M27156 from GCOMgame@all.net to g-force.orig on Wed Jan  3 10:15:56 EST 1996
Send M29297 from ab129@dayton.wright.edu to g-force on Wed Jan  3 11:09:31 EST 1996
Send M29551 from DIPCOMgame@all.net to gamelist on Wed Jan  3 11:13:54 EST 1996
Send M302 from padgett@gdi4.gdi.net to i-force on Wed Jan  3 11:21:39 EST 1996
Send M510 from padgett@gdi4.gdi.net to i-force on Wed Jan  3 11:26:45 EST 1996
Send M723 from padgett@gdi4.gdi.net to i-force on Wed Jan  3 11:31:08 EST 1996
Send M795 from 0005514706@mcimail.com to g-force on Wed Jan  3 11:31:38 EST 1996
Send M1710 from DIPCOMgame@all.net to gamelist on Wed Jan  3 11:54:51 EST 1996
Send M19400 from DIPCOMgame@all.net to gamelist on Thu Jan  4 14:08:38 EST 1996

================================================================================
				I-Team Orders
================================================================================
I-team:

	As the leaders of the I-force, you are distributed throughout the
world, only able to communicate reliably and securely via your customized
secure email system.

	Your Trojan horses have indicated that the G-force will try
very hard, starting sometime in the next day or two, to regain
overall control of the nation.  You have agreed by a series of secured
confidential votes that the following is your desired goal for the next
24 hours:

	I-team.  You will devise three options for retaining control
	against the best the G-force is likely to bring, each of which
	will be available depending on how G-force behaves.

================================================================================
				G-Team Orders
================================================================================

G-team:

	As the leaders of the G-force, you are distributed throughout the
world, only able to communicate reliably via e-mail.  You are using
officially secured, customized email workstations from secure facilities.

	The President has been able to deliver the following one-time
message to the team members and has managed to certify his identity to
each team member through a different means.  The message follows:

	G-team.  We will be unable to communicate again for 24 hours.
	At that time, I need three viable options for reestablishing
	normal governmental control of the United Stated, none of which
	may involve the widespread use of substantial physical force against
	the people of the United States. The nation is depending on you for
	its very survival.  Good luck.

================================================================================
				Game Summary
================================================================================

This game was designed to understand some of the issues in implementing
strategic planning and assessment activities carried out over the Internet.

There were two major goals.

	1 - To test and improve the software that implements these activities
	and to understand the issues related to the use of this technology in
	strategic planning and assessment activities.

	2 - To help the participants think about information warfare in ways
	they haven't thought about it before.

It succeeded to a large extent in both of these areas, and we anticipate many
more such strategic planning and assessment activities with a wide range of
other goals and addressing a far wider audience.

================================================================================
	Initial Assesment of the Game (reprinted from an earlier IW list)
================================================================================

We learned a great deal from this first game, and I wanted to briefly
summarize (and get comments from the game and list members) some initial
reactions.  I have given 3 examples of each of the initial thoughts I
have - more analysis is appropriate at a later time. 

	1 - Information technology is supposed to eliminate the
	"fog of war", but at least in this game, it created a fog
	of its own.

		- Long delay times were present in many of the players'
		mail services.  For example, one player had delays in
		the range of several hours (at fastest) because of a
		military gateway.  Some messages may have never passed
		(because security stopped them?)

		- The server hosting the game (all.net) had very good
		turn-around times - average communications were processed
		in less than 1 minute (from first arrival to full dispatch).
		The people with direct Internet connections seemed to be
		able to almost interact, while others seemed to be left out
		in the cold.  This time delay issue creates problems in the
		way people dominate the conversation.

		- The opportunities for spoofing and bugging that were
		presented were never really exploited properly - or even
		considered very deeply.  In one case, a team that knew they
		were being listened to identified the fact to the other team
		in their communications - a possible blunder.

	2 - Organizational issues were never settled among the team
	members.

		- It was anticipated that the teams would form some sort
		of organization and create a method for addressing issues
		for the game, but neither group did anything more than
		bounce a few ideas around - at least organizationally.

		- In all of the in-person games I have seen, personalities
		play a role in interaction and people talk about small
		issues in some detail.  In this game, several people came with
		laundry lists of items in long communications.  This style
		difference may be an important thing to control or understand.

		- Nobody seemed to have any structure in their approach to the
		issues.  Most people simply expressed a series of seemingly
		independent ideas with no organizing principles behind them.

	3 - Interaction levels were very low.

		- G-team got started in the afternoon, but I-team didn't do
		anything at all until the evening - and when they did, their
		interaction was very light - dispite a lot of chances.

		- This game was all volunteer with no day-time allocated to
		it.  As a result, some people could not communicate while at
		work , while others could ONLY communicate while at work.

		- Some people didn't like the style of interaction and the
		"header" information provided by the game software.  Nobody
		seemed to investigate this as a possible information source.

	4 - G-team made significant progress - I-team seemed unable to start.

		- G-team quickly covered the issues of communications security
		and decided that honest and openness were the best things for
		them to follow.  They didn't appear to care that I-team might
		be listenning in - and when they found out about a tap, they
		continued unhindered.

		- I-team started late, failed to follow through, couldn't adapt
		to the scenario very well, harped on things they couldn't change,
		and found it hard to get into the scenario.

		- Both teams had problems dealing with not knowing their teammates
		but G-team seemed to be able to get past it, while I-team just
		got frustrated.

================================================================================
			Responses from the Team Leaders
================================================================================
From: padgett@tccslr.dnet.mmc.com (A. Padgett Peterson, P.E. Information Security)
				Leader of the I-Team

Feel that as the so-called leader of the I-team I must comment:
>	3 - Interaction levels were very low.
>		- G-team got started in the afternoon, but I-team didn't do
>		anything at all until the evening - and when they did, their
>		interaction was very light - dispite a lot of chances.

Told the moderator at the beginning that since this was not "work related"
I could not have any participation during working hours, was also the
reason for the non-mmc address. Gave the choice of picking someone else
but was not taken.

[fc: G-team had a similar situation near the end of the game and the
leader handed over the reigns late in the evening.  Also, the G-team was
pretty much self-starting and ignored the issue of team leadership for
the most part.]

Did experience fast turn-around in messages (could have operated interactively)
so that was not problem.

In most of my important dealings with people, I always meet face to face. In
IW such out-of-channel meetings are also necessary. In this case what was
necessary was a day before the beginning in which introductions could be
made and issues discussed off-line so that means could be established to
determine if a message was valid or not. Further, the Admin needed to have
some way of proving that a game message was valid and whether communicated
to one side or both.

[fc: One of the key issues in this game was to get at fog-of-war in this
venue.  These results are desirable and we learned a lot from this.]

Before the game began I requested that team-mates be identified. This was not
done which created the situation that no message could be trusted and all
had to be considered to be read by the opposition. The statement was made
that secure channels were available. I did not know if this was true or if it
was a communication from the G-team. The simple fact is that a covert operation
such as the I-team cannot operate without trust and there was none and no
way to generate any. 

[fc: Question - In a real war situation, are you all that certain of
these things?  According to many studies on IW as practiced by the US,
many systems suffer from just these problems.]

For example I could have asked Winn which team he was on. Could I trust the 
answer ? Only if he said "G-Team" which would have been no help. The message
headers indicated "game@all.net". Given this, I had to assume that all messages
went to all players. True, I did not try sending a message to "iteam@all.net"
since would have to ask "if it did exist, how could I verify that it did not
go to the G-force". True, over a period of time, disinformation might be used
to determine but the certainty would be too small to be effective.

Yesterday, I did try to create an off-line communication but given that I had
no way to know which team were on (if the total players and number on each 
team were known, maybe) this was not usable. Also connected to ALL.NET via
port 25 and did an EXPN GAMES. The response of "/u/game/bin/game" was not
very helpful and was not about to attack ALL.NET to find out more (a real
I-team would have).

[fc: The rules stated clearly that the only form of communication was to
be through email to games@all.net.  We detected your probe but figured
it was what it turns out it was.  This site is attacked more than once
per day from over the Internet, and so far, we have held up - but please
don't take this as a challenge.  We've also caught a few overzealous
people and they did not like the results.]

So there is a choice: if a game is to be meaningful, rules need to be 
established and agreed upon in advance. If there are no rules than user 
accounts of any player and ALL.NET must be considered at risk.

[fc: The game was quite meaningful to many of the players, and your
insights are desired side effects of the game.]
================================================================================
		From: Michael Wilson <0005514706@mcimail.com>
			    Leader of the I-Team

Sorry, just got back in the loop.  Please forward this on to my team
members with kudos, and I-force as well.
---

        1 - Information technology is supposed to eliminate the
        "fog of war", but at least in this game, it created a fog
        of its own.

* Not excessively so for a first pass attempt; do let me say, however, that a 
few days before the scenario started, when the comm channel was first set up, I 
wanted to ping the group and send across my thoughts on the scenario.  This 
would have given us a better chance of getting to know other team members, work 
out kinks, and prepare; my wish was countermanded by game admin, however.

                - Long delay times were present in many of the players'
                mail services...

* And we didn't hear from some of our players more than a 'hello' and that was 
all; Steele checked in and then bowed out.  Those of us that were left quickly 
shook out the kinks and went to work; we bounced ideas to see how they worked, 
then I moved to assemble them into a coherent strategy, linked to objective, 
bound by constraints.  Delays didn't seem to effect us when we wanted to work.

                - The server hosting the game (all.net) had very good
                turn-around times...

* I was pleased with the all.net action, it appeared smooth.  I assumed there 
was some lag built in on the part of game admin, but I may be wrong.

                - The opportunities for spoofing and bugging that were
                presented were never really exploited properly...

* First, I assumed that in the interest of the simulation that attacks on 
all.net, or directly on any of the opposition would be unfair and illegal in 
fact.

[fc: correct assumption]

I was also willing to let issues stand as a war of concepts mediated by 
admin, as opposed to a real model of a real conflict; my thoughts on the 
scenario are known, or will be when the entire record of comm is made public.  
My experience with such simulations is that game admin is to be seen as final 
law, and should not be subverted.  My apologies if that remained linear 
thinking, I was willing to grant the benefit of the doubt.

        2 - Organizational issues were never settled among the team
        members.
                - It was anticipated that the teams would form some sort
                of organization and create a method for addressing issues
                for the game, but neither group did anything more than
                bounce a few ideas around - at least organizationally.

* I distinctly mentioned in a message that I favored heterarchies; team members 
piped in with their specialties as they appeared, and message content clearly 
showed their view on things.  I knew I was supposed to rationalize towards a 
move, and I did so; complications and a comment came on my end when I started 
having to file through net-mail 'reply' formats which get messy quickly.  
Indeed, we had considerable volume of traffic dedicated towards our informal 
hashing of the solution.  Nobody pulling rank, and in fact when I had to move to
client meetings, we had a clean pass of the baton of command.

                - ... laundry lists of items in long communications.  This style
                difference may be an important thing to control or understand.

* We generated components of strategy that had to be implemented; sure, I guess 
they looked like laundry lists, but our final work product is bounded, conforms 
to a few guiding philosophies, and provides the components necessary to advance 
the game.

                - Nobody seemed to have any structure in their approach to the
                issues...

* I disagree; we had a functional heterarchy.  A basic strategy was formed, 
details began to be added based on peoples' knowledge and expertise, I acted as 
a governor to prevent actions that would make our position worse in my opinion. 
I think we did well.

        3 - Interaction levels were very low.
                - G-team got started in the afternoon ...

* We were ready to move PRIOR to the game onset, but were disallowed.  As it 
was, we managed to squeeze in a lot of work.

                - This game was all volunteer with no day-time allocated to it...

* Or while preparing for clients; as it was, our position seemed clear to 
formulate, and we proceeded as such.

                - Some people didn't like the style of interaction and the
                "header" information provided by the game software.  Nobody
                seemed to investigate this as a possible information source.

* I did, but when messages began to appear from game admin, it became difficult 
to make sense out of certain of the game-related comments we were seeing.  Were 
they to command only?  Were they really to our team (a small confusion at the 
beginning of the scenario led me to believe there may still have been bugs)?  
Messages tended to be unclear and without referents.  I point this out simply to
make the next game experience richer.

        4 - G-team made significant progress - I-team seemed unable to start...

* We believed that it did not matter if I-force understood our discussions, and 
I was fully prepared to inform them myself of our first move.  Simple reasoning;
we were empowered to return civil order and the rightful rule of the elected 
government.  I believed that the scenario built in the mistake for the I-force, 
and would allow them to declare their own victory for themselves, and allow 
G-force to re-establish the government control required of us, then move to 
secure channels against future I-force influence.  It was a question of 
priorities--we needed to restore political control before we could have time for
damage control.  As such, nothing that we did or said would have come as a 
surprise to I-force, so why not let them in on it to build a little goodwill?

                - I-team started late, failed to follow through, couldn't adapt
                to the scenario very well, harped on things they couldn't change,
                and found it hard to get into the scenario.

* In their position, I would have had a hard time adjusting to their scenario; 
they have my complete sympathy.

                - Both teams had problems dealing with not knowing their teammates
                but G-team seemed to be able to get past it, while I-team just
                got frustrated.

* Was this an inherent trait of our team members, or was it that we were 
organized to restore order, while they were supposed to be the informal alliance
of a cypherpunk-like group, inherently disordered?  We'll know better on the 
next go-round.  Let me say however, that our team seemed comprised of military 
players and professionals in the field; as such, we are prepared by prior 
experience to work in this sort of situation, while I'm not certain of the 
opposition.

[fc: comments on the opposition expunged]

I think we should call the game and act to build a better scenario for the next 
simulation.  I also wish that people would actually READ the move we turned in, 
and I would certainly hope that, faced with a real life situation in any way 
similar, that others would act as we wanted to.  No commando teams.  Civil 
forces remain in control.  No camel's nose under the tent of restricting crypto 
with laws (cultural suspicion is different).  Assertion of the rightful 
political body.  And on the whole, I think very little damage to the thread of 
society and order.

================================================================================
				The G-Force Report
================================================================================
Subject: G-Force's Presidential Report
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 96 11:28 EST
From: Michael Wilson <0005514706@mcimail.com>
 
AUTOFORWARD, BARRING OVERRIDE:
----
To:	President of the United States
Fr:	G-Force Team
Re:	A course of action
 
Mr.  President, you have asked that we provide you with three courses of
action; I find, as leader of G-Force, that I can only provide you with
one solid course of action.  This course of action, however, does
contain redundant fall-back points; it is hoped that by striving for
maximum effect in our moves, the few points that we might accept partial
success on will not hurt the overall effect of the strategy. 
 
Two philosophical points are important to follow--
 
	* First, that we endorse a policy of full disclosure.  This means
	that the complete details of the crisis--the depth of the
	country's power difficulty and the threat posed by the domestic
	rebel group--be made public.  It is my belief, and the belief of
	the team, that we already suffer under a public perception
	handicap; the only path to redemption is to offer the truth.  It
	will be politically unpopular, leaders will suffer at the hands
	of pundits and polls, but the price paid now is cheaper than the
	price paid later with interest. 
 
	* Second, the order the problem must be dealt with is as such:

	-- Remove the proximate cause of the civil unrest.  Clearly the
	political solution of power rationing has met with opposition;
	this stance must be backed away from.

	-- Restore civil order.  The public, those for whom the
	Constitution was formulated, must be reassurred that the
	government is still acting for them, by their rightfully elected
	officials. 

	-- Damage control.  Resources critical to the proper functioning of
	government must be restored to secure and trusted functionality. 

	-- Protect the future.  Systems and safeguards must be put in place
	to assure that the situation that has arisen may never happen
	again; subversion of the proper function of majority rule must
	not be allowed to happen.  If majority democratic rule is no
	longer acceptable to a majority of the electorate, mechanisms
	are in place for a new system to be put tried.  Otherwise, the
	system must be made resistant to the whim of a minority--no
	matter how powerful or proficient. 

	-- Punish the guilty.  Damage has been done.  It remains to be seen
	at this point whether this has been done with malice, or whether
	it was an unplanned side-effect of an action that a few thought
	to be justified.  Government has a function--to sustain the rule
	of law; it has another function, that being to protect the
	opportunity for life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. 
	Sometimes the two functions are placed at odds with each other. 
	It may be worthwhile, in the event that it appears functionally
	feasible and the individuals in question pose no further threat,
	to offer amnesty as a mechanism for a quick and peaceful
	resolution to this crisis. 
 
Specific recommendations endorsed by the team:
 
-- Restore full power across the board.

	- If necessary, use national guard units, FEMA resources, and law
	enforcement to re-establish civilian control and complete
	service.  It is the belief of the team that local units, while
	not backed with overwhelming physical force, gain much by being
	tied to the local community and region; this reduces the
	necessity for force, and also demonstrates that a civilian force
	and not a military coup are in control. 

	- Doing so removes the proximate cause of the current conflict we
	are engaged in, and restores the opportunity for civil order. 

	- With power restored, and details of the energy crisis given,
	perhaps another solution will be put forth; if not, at least an
	attempt can be made to secure popular support for austerity measures. 
 
-- Initiate a crash program for energy sources.

	- Emergency measures have allowed massive technical strides in the
	past, for instance with the space program. 

	- Such a massive government initiative demonstrates the very
	function of government--there are some things we do best as a
	collective unit.  The country faces a crisis of uncalculable
	magnitude; programs to conserve the current resources are much
	more acceptable in the face of a continuing effort to solve the
	situation once and forever.  We also restore public faith in the
	purpose of government, and the willingness of the currently
	constituted body to act in such faith. 
 
-- Devolve critical governmental functions from a centralized system;
secure or critical functions that are not already independently viable
must be moved to support by the military infrastructure. 

	- Be certain to show they remain under civilian command; do not
	move social support programs to military, head off accusations
	of coup or military subversion of governmental functions. 

	- Use the military infrastructure, but only as a tool.
 
-- Disclosure by rightfully elected political structure on the details
of the energy problem. 

	- There should be given a special briefing to Congress, through a
	physical assembly, facilitated by military transport where
	necessary.  All courtesy must be extended to Congressmen and
	Senators; possibly having military escorts carry a briefing
	package (in a multimedia format) prepared by President with
	individual-by-individual authentication explaining the problem. 
	To reduce the burden on the President for this effort, it is
	suggested that the President first tap the local resources of
	Congress; in all likelihood, Committee chairs and other key
	members have remained in the Capital.  Presentations must be
	given to them to understand the scope of the problem, and they
	may also be used to create presentations, or act as envoys to
	convince Congress to assemble physically. 
 
-- Disclosure of radical domestic rebel group.

	- Initiate a top priority LEA investigation, with full contact
	tracing, usage of informers, an 800 number for people to report
	leads.  While this forces a criminalization of those involved in
	the rebel group, such a position can be backed off from at a
	later time for the protection of an amnesty, if such is granted. 

	- Create and continue a media campaign about "...how the
	government was attempting to cope with a nation breaking energy
	crisis, in a fair and balanced fashion to prevent the innocent
	from suffering ; the radical group acted to
	exploit weaknesses in our democratic system for their own
	benefit, and the benefit of their chosen few ..." It is
	possible that an I-force propaganda campaign to associate blame
	for such back on the government; in such case, the government
	must stress that the initial program was intended to be fair,
	and share the burden among all, not to give any preferential
	treatment, as was actually implemented by the I-Force. 

	- Reassure the public that the situation is harsh, but will be
	under control.  Give considerable exposure to efforts to
	maximize energy resources, cautionary tales about certain media
	sources and accuraccy.  Implement Emergency Broadcast System
	across media spectrum to counter I-force propaganda with
	redundancy in each media group and region (e.g.  multiple radio
	freqs broadcasting the same message to limit local-based
	spoofing or jamming) to stretch opposition resources. 

	- Have elected political leaders reassure their regions in person,
	facilitated by military energy resources; establish a secure
	courier mechanism with political bodies to avoid future
	perversions of communications. 
 
-- Restore communications security.

	- Move all government systems to harsh security practices,
	including fully isolated systems. 

	- Roll-over key distribution system to move to a new keyset.  It
	is the belief of the team that necessary government services
	never used key-escrow cryptographic systems, but if so, such
	practice must be discontinued.  Key distribution must be by
	secure method or physical courier. 

	- If control of U.S.  equipment cannot be regained, it may be
	necessary to appeal to outside sources for satellite
	connections; in all likelihood, the domestic military and
	intelligence systems can be secured and put into use. 

	- Disclose the depth of penetration to marketplace, and we suggest
	new schemes be made available from NSA.  Such systems must be
	strong, and also withstand public scrutiny and review of the
	cipher process. 

	- Inform key decision makers that careful review of their data and
	markets may be necessary, as penetration has already been seen
	to be selfishly oriented, and it may have been profit motivated,
	at least by some elements.  It is important to have the
	confidence of the financial markets; it is also important that
	they be on their guard to prevent I-Force leverage from that domain. 

	- While it might be seen as an option to shut down access to the
	NII, it is viewed by the team that such an option may be too
	drastic.  While it would slow efforts by the I-Force to continue
	their subversion, the economic price is seen as being too great
	except in a drastic situation.  It is also possible that I-Force
	will stand-down from their current position; if so, it is
	critical that they have some channel of communication that they
	themselves trust. 

	- Strong cryptographic systems should not be made illegal.  This
	would become a rallying cry for the opposition, as it limits the
	right to free speech, and the G-Force believes that we must not
	subvert the Constitution; it should be made known, however, that
	for a time, until the I-Force is dealt with, that strong
	cryptography will be viewed with some suspicion and subject to
	investigation, but necessarily so.  Strong cryptosystems are a
	commercial necessity; they can also be abused.  For a time it
	will be beneficial to adopt a 'trust but verify' policy. 
 
We believe that these measures will begin to set the situation right. 
Toward that end, we have also initiated contact with the leader of the
rebel group, in a hope to resolve this situation quickly; it may in fact
be considered worthwhile to inform them of this plan of action, showing
we are acting publically and in good faith. 
 
 MW, G-Force leader

================================================================================
		The Complete Game History (all transactions)
================================================================================
m From game  Tue Jan  2 10:59:27 1996
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 96 10:59:27 EST
 From: game (WarGame)
 Received: by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA01055 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 10:59:27 EST
 Message-Id: <9601021559.AA01055@all.net>
 Apparently-To: game@all.net
 
 ***** DIPCOM *****
 
 Notice:
 
 	The WarGame will start in less than 1 hour.  If you haven't
 tested the communications system yet, please do so now.  If you have any
 immediate questions, please send email to fc@all.net.
 
 The team leaders are:
 
 	g-force:	padgett@gdi.net
 	i-force:	0005514706@mcimail.com
 
 Team leaders may wish to send a message to their team members at this time
 so that the members of their teams know which team they are on.  Initial
 orders for the first move of the game will be sent to all players at game
 start time.
 
 Please be aware that in this forum, players are in different time zones
 from around the world and may choose to join into or stay out of
 communications at their own discretion.  Also be aware of time delays in
 messaging.
 
 The game scenario will be sent again in a few minutes in case anyone
 doesn't have a copy or has misplaced it.  A copy has also been placed
 in our Web/gopher server:
 
 	http://all.net/ -> browse -> Gopher Server (Information Warfare List)
 
 along with other game-related material already provided in email.
 
 Have a great time!
 
---------------------------
 From game  Tue Jan  2 11:01:15 1996
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 96 11:01:15 EST
 From: game (WarGame)
 Received: by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA01212 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 11:01:15 EST
 Message-Id: <9601021601.AA01212@all.net>
 Apparently-To: game@all.net
 
 ***** DIPCOM *****
 ===============================================================
 WarGame 96-01
 
 Scene 1
 
 	The date: Jan 2, 2021 - 25 years from now.  IT has progressed
 significantly in that time, but the ability of people to get along has
 not progressed so well.  The Arab states are now just about out of oil,
 and much of the world is suffering under a virtual shutdown of oil
 supplies.  Other energy sources have not made a lot of progress,
 conservation has failed to achieve the gains required to compensate for
 the lack of oil, and it is a cold winter for much of the world's
 population. 
 
 	In the United States, the decision was taken to use rolling
 blackouts as part of the overall energy conservation effort, but the
 computer junkies and technical wizards of the country decided that the
 government is wrong.  They secretly decided to take over the
 infrastructure and reallocate energy as they see fit.  Calling
 themselves the I-force, one of their decisions was to stop supplying
 electrical power and telecommunications support to large government
 facilities (including the central area of Washington, D.C.) and to
 provide service to areas that support the information infrastructure.
 
 	The government (G) forces initially thought that they had all of
 the I-force members nailed down because of the long-term use of key
 escrow, but to their surprise, they found that the I-force members were
 not who they thought they were.  In fact, they have now discovered that
 before escrow became the law in 2001, the I-force found a way to use
 strong cryptography so that the escrow keys produced well-known fairy
 tales rather then the actual content of messages.  Meanwhile, the key
 escrow system was weak enough that I-force members have been able to
 decode select messages for several years, and due to a firewall failure
 on a prime-numbered year, month, day combination, recently broke into
 the key escrow center and secured copies of the master keys as well as
 all of the current escrowed keys. 
 
 	G-force thought that they could physically take over the power
 grid by taking over select switching stations, but to their dismay, they
 found that they didn't have enough resources or support among the
 civilian workers to have a substantial effect.  Through sophistocated
 simulation techniques and by exploiting their control of the NII, the
 I-force has managed to simulate well-known personalities to the point
 where the vast majority of the people now believe that the G-forces
 represent a military coup attempt, and that the I-force has the support
 of most of the civilian government.  As this public support swayed
 toward the I-force, many of the politicians (who were unable to
 differentiate truth from fiction and who now travel to Washington only
 rarely and do most of their business from home) began to take up the
 I-force point of view.  It is now unclear who is in control and what
 portion of the government supports them.
 
 	In desperation, and rapidly running out of backup power, the
 G-forces decided to concentrate their efforts to taking back a few key
 sites.  They have now secured enough of the power generation and
 infrastructure in the Washington D.C., San Diego, CA, and Denver, CO
 areas to assure power to those areas, but it is taking all of their
 effort to stave off the ongoing attempts at subversion and they can do
 little else.
 
 ===========Orders from your commander are forthcoming.==========
 
---------------------------
 From ab129@dayton.wright.edu  Tue Jan  2 11:23:04 1996
 Received: from selene.wright.edu by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA02056 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 11:23:04 EST
 Received: from dayton.wright.edu by mailhost.wright.edu (PMDF V5.0-5 #2485)
  id <01HZJ7934MOW00BL23@mailhost.wright.edu> for game@all.net; Tue,
  02 Jan 1996 11:22:35 -0500 (EST)
 Received: by dayton.wright.edu; id AA20126; Tue, 02 Jan 1996 11:22:25 -0500
 Date: Tue, 02 Jan 1996 11:22:25 -0500
 From: Mark Perry 
 Subject: Comm Test
 To: game@all.net
 Message-Id: <9601021622.AA20126@dayton.wright.edu>
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
 
 This is Mark Perry, reporting for duty.
---------------------------
 From joelm@eskimo.com  Tue Jan  2 11:32:50 1996
 Received: from mail.eskimo.com by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA02515 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 11:32:50 EST
 Received: from joelm (joelm@tia1.eskimo.com [204.122.16.40]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA01377 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 08:32:31 -0800 (PST)
 Message-Id: <199601021632.IAA01377@mail.eskimo.com>
 X-Sender: joelm@mail.eskimo.com
 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
 Date: Tue, 02 Jan 1996 08:32:00 -0800
 To: game@all.net
 From: Joel McNamara 
 Subject: 
 
 Joel McNamara reporting for duty...
 
---------------------------
 From game  Tue Jan  2 12:02:04 1996
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 96 12:02:04 EST
 From: game (WarGame)
 Received: by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA03627 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 12:02:04 EST
 Message-Id: <9601021702.AA03627@all.net>
 Apparently-To: game@all.net
 
 ***** ICOM *****
 
 --------------------------
 I-team:
 
 	As the leaders of the I-force, you are distributed throughout the
 world, only able to communicate reliably and securely via your customized
 secure email system.
 
 	Your Trojan horses have indicated that the G-force will try
 very hard, starting sometime in the next day or two, to regain
 overall control of the nation.  You have agreed by a series of secured
 confidential votes that the following is your desired goal for the next
 24 hours:
 
 	I-team.  You will devise three options for retaining control
 	against the best the G-force is likely to bring, each of which
 	will be available depending on how G-force behaves.
---------------------------
 From game  Tue Jan  2 12:02:15 1996
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 96 12:02:15 EST
 From: game (WarGame)
 Received: by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA03660 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 12:02:15 EST
 Message-Id: <9601021702.AA03660@all.net>
 Apparently-To: game@all.net
 
 ***** GCOM *****
 
 ----------------------------
 
 G-team:
 
 	As the leaders of the G-force, you are distributed throughout the
 world, only able to communicate reliably via e-mail.  You are using
 officially secured, customized email workstations from secure facilities.
 
 	The President has been able to deliver the following one-time
 message to the team members and has managed to certify his identity to
 each team member through a different means.  The message follows:
 
 	G-team.  We will be unable to communicate again for 24 hours.
 	At that time, I need three viable options for reestablishing
 	normal governmental control of the United Stated, none of which
 	may involve the widespread use of substantial physical force against
 	the people of the United States. The nation is depending on you for
 	its very survival.  Good luck.
---------------------------
 From tju@akira.corp.sgi.com  Tue Jan  2 12:52:00 1996
 Received: from sgigate.sgi.com by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA05463 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 12:52:00 EST
 Received: from palladium.corp.sgi.com by sgigate.sgi.com via ESMTP (950911.SGI.8.6.12.PATCH825/940406.SGI)
 	for <@sgigate.sgi.com:game@all.net> id JAA10802; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 09:51:43 -0800
 Received: from akira.corp.sgi.com by palladium.corp.sgi.com via ESMTP (950511.SGI.8.6.12.PATCH526/911001.SGI)
 	for <@palladium.corp.sgi.com:game@all.net> id JAA28749; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 09:51:42 -0800
 Received: by akira.corp.sgi.com (940816.SGI.8.6.9/940406.SGI.AUTO)
 	for game@all.net id JAA18253; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 09:50:45 -0800
 From: tju@akira.corp.sgi.com (T. Jason Ucker)
 Message-Id: <9601020950.ZM18251@akira.corp.sgi.com>
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 09:50:45 -0800
 In-Reply-To: game@all.net (WarGame)
         "WarGame Communication From perryms@xr_smtp_gw.wpafb.af.mil  Tue Jan  2 09:20:06 1996 Received: from scn1.nmc.wpafb.af.mil by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics); id AA27781 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 09:20:06 EST Received: by 

Wright-Pat" (Jan  2,  9:25am)
 References: <9601021425.AA27975@all.net>
 X-Mailer: Z-Mail-SGI (3.2S.2 10apr95 MediaMail)
 To: game@all.net (WarGame)
 Subject: Re: WarGame Communication From perryms@xr_smtp_gw.wpafb.af.mil  Tue Jan  2 09:20:06 1996 Received: from scn1.nmc.wpafb.af.mil by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics); id AA27781 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 09:20:06 EST Received:

 by Wright-Patterson AFB Mailgate Tue Jan  2 09:13:55 1996 Received: from cc:Mail by xr_smtp_gw.wpafb.af.mil (1.30/SMTPLink) id A24536; Tue, 02 Jan 96 09:10:27 EST Date: Tue, 02 Jan 96 09:10:27 EST From: "Mark S. Perry"  M

essage-Id: <9601020910.A24536@xr_smtp_gw.wpafb.af.mil> To: game@all.net Subject: email problem
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
 
 The problem appears to be that the messages are being treated as part of the
 subject line (my mediamail was also stripping the message body out).
 
 -Jason
 --
 T. Jason Ucker					 Systems Engineer
 tju@sgi.com					 Silicon Graphics Inc.
 
 Subject: WarGame Communication
  From perryms@xr_smtp_gw.wpafb.af.mil  Tue Jan  2 09:20:06 1996
  Received: from scn1.nmc.wpafb.af.mil by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management
 Analytics);
          id AA27781 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 09:20:06 EST
  Received: by Wright-Patterson AFB Mailgate
  	Tue Jan  2 09:13:55 1996
  Received: from cc:Mail by xr_smtp_gw.wpafb.af.mil (1.30/SMTPLink)
  	id A24536; Tue, 02 Jan 96 09:10:27 EST
  Date: Tue, 02 Jan 96 09:10:27 EST
  From: "Mark S. Perry" 
  Message-Id: <9601020910.A24536@xr_smtp_gw.wpafb.af.mil>
  To: game@all.net
  Subject: email problem
 
       I seem to be having some problems receiving email messages from
       game@all.net.  I received 4 messages dated 31 Dec ok but most of the
       messages since have been blank.  I don't know if this is a problem
       with my mail program (I am using cc:Mail v2.10), a compatibility
       problem between cc:Mail and the sender, or something in one of the
       gateways the messages have to go through.  Or perhaps I have been
       eliminated by a "pre-emtive strike".
 
       Mark
 
 Apparently-To: 
---------------------------
 From fc  Tue Jan  2 12:59:28 1996
 From: fc (Fred Cohen)
 Received: by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA05775 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 12:59:28 EST
 Message-Id: <9601021759.AA05775@all.net>
 Subject: Mail problem repaired
 To: game (WarGame)
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 12:59:27 -0500 (EST)
 X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22]
 Content-Type: text
 Content-Length: 292       
 
 ***** GCOM *****
 
 The message regarding mail problems was finally delivered from
 Tue Jan  2 09:20:06 1996
 
 The problem has since been corrected and should not effect the game.
 
 -> See: Info-Sec Heaven at URL http://all.net/
 Management Analytics - 216-686-0090 - PO Box 1480, Hudson, OH 44236
---------------------------
 From 0005514706@mcimail.com  Tue Jan  2 13:08:02 1996
 Received: from gatekeeper2.mcimail.com by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA06140 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 13:08:02 EST
 Received: from mailgate2.mcimail.com (mailgate2.mcimail.com [166.38.40.100]) by gatekeeper2.mcimail.com (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id SAA22719; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 18:09:15 GMT
 Received: from mcimail.com by mailgate2.mcimail.com id fq23044;
           2 Jan 96 18:07 WET
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 96 13:02 EST
 From: Michael Wilson <0005514706@mcimail.com>
 To: "game@all.net" 
 Subject: Confused mail
 Message-Id: <93960102180239/0005514706DC1EM@MCIMAIL.COM>
 
 I received one piece stating that we were I-force, then I get a briefing
 intended for g-force.  Do we have a problem?
 
 As it looks like we are in the scenario, let me ship off a few comments
 I wrote a few days ago on the scenario.  May be out of date.  Feel free
 to spit on the floor and call the cat a bastard.
 ---
 I think we all received the same message, but the way I read this, we appear to 
 be the government team.  All things being equal, I thought I would comment on 
 both (I & G) elements of the strategy, and possible tactics as well.  I'll 
 offset my comments with a leading bar of '***' so you can search the document if
 you need to.  Feel free to tell me I'm wrong, or an idiot--at least we improve 
 the strategy.  MW
 
 ===============================================================
 WarGame 96-01
 
 Scene 1
 
         The date: Jan 2, 2021 - 25 years from now.  IT has progressed
 significantly in that time, but the ability of people to get along has
 not progressed so well.  
 
 *** While a nice comment, this actually tells us very little.  How -far- has IT 
 progressed?  Are we following Moore's law?  If that is the case, can we assume 
 that we can have a supercomputer on our desk, or as a portable?  Has the 
 informational value chain progressed at all?  Do we now have AI to handle smart 
 filtering, visual programming, expert systems that can make semi-reasoned 
 decisions?  What about IA (intelligence amplification)--extended interfaces, 
 coupled-reasoning, dynamic systems to fill in for gaps in knowledge or memory?  
 Do people carry smart cards, and no longer really use cash (bad money drives out
 good)?  What about strong crypto?  How did IT impact on other budding 
 industries--biotech, nanotech?  
 
 The Arab states are now just about out of oil,
 and much of the world is suffering under a virtual shutdown of oil
 supplies.  
 
 *** What does one have to do with the other?  First, 25 years is not 
 realistically a tap-out point for the oil reserves of the Middle East; second, 
 why didn't the free market push on getting the other massive oil resources into 
 the mix?  Call it improbable, call it the scenario.  I guess it beats the idea 
 of a engineered organism that eats hydrocarbons going haywire.  Notice that 
 there is no mention of the military fuel reserves; I think we have 90 days full 
 out if we decide martial law is a good option, or the annexation of somebody's 
 reserves somewhere.  Also note, solid fuels are still good, so the govt. retains
 the international clout.
 
 Other energy sources have not made a lot of progress,
 conservation has failed to achieve the gains required to compensate for
 the lack of oil, and it is a cold winter for much of the world's
 population. 
 
 *** So much for my investments in the nuclear power industry.
 
         In the United States, the decision was taken to use rolling
 blackouts as part of the overall energy conservation effort, 
 
 *** Can you say, politically unfeasible?  I guess whomever is President doesn't 
 remember the Carter Administration very well.
 
 but the
 computer junkies and technical wizards of the country decided that the
 government is wrong.  
 
 *** Just as they also decide the pi is an even three point zero, and that Phil 
 Zimmerman is Queen of the May.
 
 They secretly decided to take over the
 infrastructure and reallocate energy as they see fit.  Calling
 themselves the I-force, one of their decisions was to stop supplying
 electrical power and telecommunications support to large government
 facilities (including the central area of Washington, D.C.) and to
 provide service to areas that support the information infrastructure.
 
 *** Don't you love the idea of the cypherpunks moving into centralized 
 sovietized power management?  When this is all over, I want to point the 
 scenario out to them.  Anyhow, the idea of taking control of the distribution is
 a bit odd, as I seem to remember that control points are physical and not 
 electronically switched; you can shut 'em down, but redirecting is a bit harder.
 Large government facilities, the ones that matter, don't need outside power; 
 note that military facilities, and the intelligence community will be fully 
 functioning.  Any team members stuck in a powered-down region?  Move to San 
 Jose--sure.  Areas of the NII are the whole country, at least the last time I 
 looked; did someone sneak up and centralize the net while I wasn't looking?  By 
 the way, look forward to a fun psyops bit here--it might be in the G-force's 
 interest to make the details on this public.  Enough people in the power 
 industry would be out there through uncontrolled channels to confirm--the govt. 
 is trying to be equitable, it is the sinister I-force that has perverted the 
 democratic process.  They have looked into the abyss...
 *** By the way, wouldn't it look a little odd in the middle of winter to 
 black-out snow-prone regions (usually lower tech) and have I-force taking power 
 away from grandmothers who will freeze just so they can run their computer?  
 Talk about a propaganda nightmare; I-force will take a few nasty hits in the 
 face with that one.
 
         The government (G) forces initially thought that they had all of
 the I-force members nailed down because of the long-term use of key
 escrow, but to their surprise, they found that the I-force members were
 not who they thought they were.  In fact, they have now discovered that
 before escrow became the law in 2001, the I-force found a way to use
 strong cryptography so that the escrow keys produced well-known fairy
 tales rather then the actual content of messages.  
 
 *** This is more than slightly naive--more realistically, tracking of what would
 end up being I-force members would fall prey to contact tracing.  I don't know 
 if anyone remembers back when the Secret Service did this to a few well-known 
 hacker-magnets (Mitch Kapor, for one, causing him to get into the humorous EFF 
 effort); it works for tracking down counterfeiters, and it would work here.  Who
 the hell cares what they send in the messages, what happened to traffic 
 analysis??  G-force -does- have the NSA still, do they not?  It looks to me also
 that the I-force is theoretically using stegonography; no reason that such an 
 element of the message traffic wouldn't show up.  And what happened to the 
 problems of any conspiracy?  I know about me, and I know about Alice and Bob, 
 but I think Charlie is a mole.  Is there anything that prevented G-force from 
 penetrating i-force?  What about the ancient art of gun-ryu?  A lot of 
 information is usually forthcoming when a 9mm is placed to the forehead of the 
 usual suspects.  I know, not Constitutional--you can hang me after we win the 
 war.
 
 Meanwhile, the key
 escrow system was weak enough that I-force members have been able to
 decode select messages for several years, and due to a firewall failure
 on a prime-numbered year, month, day combination, recently broke into
 the key escrow center and secured copies of the master keys as well as
 all of the current escrowed keys. 
 
 *** Hmmm, I think they would be hoist by their own petard.  G-force isn't using 
 a cryptosystem that accepts GAK, so our comm would be secure (shall I append my 
 PGP key for the team, just to prevent problems?).  So I-force would be able to 
 get access to comm that was only under GAK-systems.  Surprise, who is that 
 really?  It isn't the black market, not black net, not LEA, not intel, not 
 military, not financial institutions, and not any major business that cares 
 about their security.  I think I-force didn't get much, maybe just peeling off 
 one layer of the onion.
 
         G-force thought that they could physically take over the power
 grid by taking over select switching stations, but to their dismay, they
 found that they didn't have enough resources or support among the
 civilian workers to have a substantial effect.  
 
 *** I vote for the national guard and various LEA bodies.  Declare the I-force a
 domestic terror group and secure control.  If G-force takes a bloody nose on 
 this one, then drop ANY power conservation programmes; restore full power to all
 parties and declare I-force the winner (on that front, not the game).  Their 
 next move will be very hard for them; they have elected themselves as scapegoat.
 By the way, where is FEMA?
 
 Through sophistocated
 simulation techniques and by exploiting their control of the NII, the
 I-force has managed to simulate well-known personalities to the point
 where the vast majority of the people now believe that the G-forces
 represent a military coup attempt, and that the I-force has the support
 of most of the civilian government.  
 
 *** Hmmm... I see a few bugs here.  Where does the C-in-C stand?  If the 
 perception really is of a coup, it sure is a hell of a way to run one.  If the 
 solution to this game is to save the country, then we can't subvert the 
 political process; who decided to move to the conservation program?  Congress?  
 President?  We need to reconcile that.  We need to reinforce the public 
 perception of their remaining in command; go public, stand down, and let 
 everyone have their power back.  The worst that can happen is that things move 
 back to the present state of the scenario, but we've put a dent in the 
 propaganda by I-Force.
 
 As this public support swayed
 toward the I-force, many of the politicians (who were unable to
 differentiate truth from fiction and who now travel to Washington only
 rarely and do most of their business from home) began to take up the
 I-force point of view.  It is now unclear who is in control and what
 portion of the government supports them.
 
 *** All the more reason to reaffirm that legitimate bodies are in control.  If 
 we can't be sure who to trust, fall back on the old stand-by--move all traffic 
 via secure courier.  Tap the war-chest of fuel to pull it off; if we don't, we 
 lose the legitimate government.
 
         In desperation, and rapidly running out of backup power, the
 G-forces decided to concentrate their efforts to taking back a few key
 sites.  
 
 *** How???  G-Force can be in SF, or Cambridge, so we're fine.
 
 They have now secured enough of the power generation and
 infrastructure in the Washington D.C., San Diego, CA, and Denver, CO
 areas to assure power to those areas, but it is taking all of their
 effort to stave off the ongoing attempts at subversion and they can do
 little else.
 
 *** I don't believe that for a minute.  Too much is outside the realm of the NII
 for such hits to actually take place; a lot of low-tech social necessities will 
 never be automated to the point many believe.  D.C. is one of the last places 
 you want to turn power back on, it doesn't buy you anything.  Take NYC 
 instead--buy off the financial markets.  San Diego gives us the Navy, and Denver
 gives us Space--we may need to bounce back to the old control codes at the 
 satellite level, drop the current (game time) system off line, and move one 
 generation ahead.  Hell of a key distribution problem, but doable if the 
 processing power has devolved.
 
 ===========Orders from you commander are forthcoming.==========
 
 *** If we are G-force, we need to find out what objective we are 
 given--eliminate I-force, restore faith in the govt, or what.  Either way, I 
 think the truth will buy us a lot--put everything back on full power, change to 
 the next key generation, go public with the story, and do contract tracing.  
 Push for leaks into the underground.  Society has inertia, use that for our 
 advantage.  Fall back on the military, they will have remained secure.  Use time
 and manpower, the two forces that the govt always has on its side.  Launch a 
 massive propaganda campaign against I-force--taking power away from grandmothers
 and small children (if you don't think it works, look at the current entitlement
 mess) during the winter.  Elitist technocratic criminals.
 
 If we are I-force, I can't see what they goal is.  A crypto-anarchy?  The power 
 back on until we all run out of fuel?  The first goal is absurd--nice if it 
 could be done, but Joe Sixpack doesn't want that responsibility, and doesn't 
 have the wattage to pull it off.  In a world where Microsoft applications are 
 considered well-written and entitlements have become a Constitutional right, 
 just try to explain the cypherpunk vision of the future.  The second goal is 
 even more absurd--not only does it screw everyone faster, it can be made to 
 -look- like it was part of an intentional plot.  I-force team members are going 
 to fall--change of heart, picked up by a trace, turned in by Uncle Frim.  The 
 scenario was built (intentionally?) to scrap the I-force.  Let me hack up the 
 next one, both sides need to be clearly set with objectives, the time needs to 
 be more immediate (we don't need the Star Trek last minute technical save 
 bullshit), and things need to be balanced.  Besides, I just can't see the 
 cypherpunks or any underground group of hackers being able to sustain this sort 
 of stupid-yet-coordinated behaviour for very long.
 
 Ahhh well, someone else bang on the keys and ship your comments to the team.
 MW
 
---------------------------
 From game  Tue Jan  2 13:20:58 1996
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 96 13:20:58 EST
 From: game (WarGame)
 Received: by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA06641 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 13:20:58 EST
 Message-Id: <9601021820.AA06641@all.net>
 Apparently-To: game@all.net
 
 ***** DIPCOM *****
 
 Leaders have been named for game 96-01:
 	g-force:	0005514706@mcimail.com
 	i-force:	padgett@gdi4.gdi.net
 
 My error - these are the corrected leader listings.
---------------------------
 From 0005514706@mcimail.com  Tue Jan  2 13:30:18 1996
 Received: from gatekeeper2.mcimail.com by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA07102 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 13:30:18 EST
 Received: from mailgate2.mcimail.com (mailgate2.mcimail.com [166.38.40.100]) by gatekeeper2.mcimail.com (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id SAA19452; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 18:31:29 GMT
 Received: from mcimail.com by mailgate2.mcimail.com id ak29994;
           2 Jan 96 18:30 WET
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 96 13:28 EST
 From: Michael Wilson <0005514706@mcimail.com>
 To: WarGame 
 Subject: 
 Message-Id: <65960102182856/0005514706DC6EM@MCIMAIL.COM>
 
 I've been informed (just me, or did everyone get the message?) that we
 *are* g-force in this scenario.  Assuming that is accurate, we have 24
 hours to gen up three solutions for the C-in-C about retaining
 political stability.  Elimination of I-force appears to be out of the
 question in that time frame, so we should move on that assumption.
 A few game questions, for the listening moderators:
 -What depth do we need to plan?  Do you want a fully specified propaganda
 campaign, or just that we want to run run inside of certain tolerances?
 -Game duration, move resolution?
 Best wishes, MW
 
---------------------------
 From winn@Infowar.Com  Tue Jan  2 13:48:50 1996
 Received: from mailhost.IntNet.net by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA07871 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 13:48:50 EST
 Received: from 198.252.40.157 by mailhost.IntNet.net (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
 	id NAA21517; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 13:53:21 -0500
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 13:53:21 -0500
 Message-Id: <199601021853.NAA21517@mailhost.IntNet.net>
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/plain
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 From: winn@Infowar.Com
 Subject: Re:
 To: game@all.net (WarGame)
 In-Reply-To: <9601021702.AA03752@all.net>
 X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
 
 Mr. President.
 
 We need to establish communications first thing off in order to begin 
 reestablishing order. Since the US system cannot be trusted (except for your 
 prior communique) we should immediately acquire the assistance of a friendly 
 high-tech country or group of countries to allow communications, especially to 
 the people of the US.
 
 I suggest we speak with the Japanese Prime Minister, the PM of the UK, and the 
 Chancellor of Germany. They all have their own communications satellites that 
 are unaffected by our domestic troubles. (The Russian satellites might be a good 
 second choice, but their political stability is still in question.)
 
 We acquire the use of some of their high bandwidth transponders (you solve the 
 politics), reposition the sats as necessary and establish a SINGLE point of 
 entry into them, preferably from overseas. We establish a 7 x 24 audio and video 
 feed to the public and recreate the trust that is necessary to gain civilian 
 support by spinning our tale in such a way that the I-force is painted as 
 domestic insurgants (or other. The Psyop guys are good at this.)
 
 We publically broadcast that all senior govvies and Congresss return to DC ASAP.
 
 We then have to establish secure communications amongst ourselves. Forget the 
 key escrow system entirely; it's been compromised. Beg, borrow or whatever is 
 necessary to acquire secure mobile battery powered comm units from the UK 
 preferably (fly them over by SST to Dulles) and use the strong crypto weith 
 centlized key management that has worked so well for five decades. 
 
 Next, we have to shut down comm of the I-force. I suggest we coordinate with our 
 foreign allies and immediately issue a non-stop broadcast storm across the NII 
 which will, if done with sufficient intensity, soon eliminate the I-force's 
 ability to communicate.
 
 More later.
 
 The country will reign supreme.
 Winn
 
 		        Winn Schwartau - Interpact, Inc.
 		        Information Warfare and InfoSec
 		       V: 813.393.6600 / F: 813.393.6361
 			    Winn@InfoWar.Com
 
---------------------------
 From 0005514706@mcimail.com  Tue Jan  2 14:38:29 1996
 Received: from gatekeeper.mcimail.com by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA09682 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 14:38:29 EST
 Received: from mailgate.mcimail.com (mailgate.mcimail.com [166.38.40.3]) by gatekeeper.mcimail.com (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id TAA11534; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 19:35:49 GMT
 Received: from mcimail.com by mailgate.mcimail.com id ak15723;
           2 Jan 96 19:38 WET
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 96 14:36 EST
 From: Michael Wilson <0005514706@mcimail.com>
 To: WarGame 
 Subject: 
 Message-Id: <93960102193639/0005514706DC1EM@MCIMAIL.COM>
 
 To:	G-force
 Re:	Initial pass, first move
 
 Objective:
 Restore normal governmental control to U.S.
 
 Constraints:
 No widespread use of physical force against the peoples of the U.S.
 
 Initial request:
 Three viable options for courses of action.
 
 Actions to be taken:
 (We should build up the list and then arrange them into three scenarios.  I 
 think we can break the options into 'full disclosure,' 'partial disclosure,' and
 'no disclosure.'  While I favor the full disclosure approach (fewer long term 
 repercussions), I'm open to thoughts on the issue.)
 
 -- Restore full power across the board.
 - If necessary, use national guard units, FEMA resources, and law enforcement to
 re-establish civilian control and complete service.
 
 -- Initiate a crash program for energy sources.
 - Space program or other type program; how long do estimates give the country?
 - Potential use of military power on foreign territory to gain necessary 
 resources; play off against costs in fuel for such gains.
 
 -- Devolve critical governmental functions from a centralized system; secure or 
 critical functions that are not already independently viable must be moved to 
 support by the military infrastructure.  Be certain to show they remain under 
 civilian command; do not move social support programs to military, head off 
 accusations of coup or military subversion of governmental functions.
 
 -- Disclosure by rightfully elected political structure on the details of the 
 energy problem.
 - Special briefing to Congress, through a physical assembly, facilitated by 
 military transport where necessary.  All courtesy extended to Congressmen and 
 Senators; possibly have military escort carry a briefing package (multimedia) 
 prepared by President with individual-by-individual authentication explaining 
 the problem.
 
 -- Disclosure of radical domestic terrorist group.
 - Top priority LEA investigation, full contact tracing, usage of informers or 
 cover agents, 800 number for people to report leads.
 - Media campaign about "...how the government was attempting to cope with a 
 nation breaking energy crisis, in a fair and balanced fashion to prevent the 
 innocent from suffering ; the radical 
 group acted to exploit weaknesses in our democratic system for their own 
 benefit, and the benefit of their chosen few ..."
 - Reassure public that situation is harsh, but will be under control.  Give 
 considerable exposure to efforts to maximize energy resources, cautionary tales 
 about certain media sources and accuraccy.  May need to implement Emergency 
 Broadcast System across media spectrum to counter I-force propaganda; redundancy
 in each media group (e.g. multiple radio freqs broadcasting message to limit 
 local-based spoofing or jamming) to stretch opposition resources.
 - Have elected political leaders reassure their regions in person, facilitated 
 by military energy resources; establish a secure courier mechanism with 
 political bodies to avoid future perversions of communications.
 
 -- Restore communications security.
 - Move all government systems to harsh security practices, including fully 
 isolated systems.
 - Roll-over key distribution system to move to new keyset.
 - Disclose depth of penetration to marketplace, suggest new schemes from NSA.
 - Intimate to key decision makers that careful review of their data and markets 
 may be necessary, as penetration has already been seen to be selfish, it may 
 have been profit motivated.
 - Make public aware that strong crypto will be seen as a sign of suspicious 
 behavior for the time being, and we be subject to investigation.  Do not move to
 outlaw strong crypto; necessary backbone for commerce, too much propaganda value
 to opposition.  Merely make it suspect and subject to critical review.
 
 Comments?
 MW
 
---------------------------
 From tju@akira.corp.sgi.com  Tue Jan  2 15:07:21 1996
 Received: from sgigate.sgi.com by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA10589 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 15:07:21 EST
 Received: from palladium.corp.sgi.com by sgigate.sgi.com via ESMTP (950911.SGI.8.6.12.PATCH825/940406.SGI)
 	for <@sgigate.sgi.com:game@all.net> id MAA16036; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 12:07:02 -0800
 Received: from akira.corp.sgi.com by palladium.corp.sgi.com via ESMTP (950511.SGI.8.6.12.PATCH526/911001.SGI)
 	for <@palladium.corp.sgi.com:game@all.net> id MAA13255; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 12:07:00 -0800
 Received: by akira.corp.sgi.com (940816.SGI.8.6.9/940406.SGI.AUTO)
 	for game@all.net id MAA18850; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 12:06:04 -0800
 From: tju@akira.corp.sgi.com (T. Jason Ucker)
 Message-Id: <9601021206.ZM18848@akira.corp.sgi.com>
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 12:06:03 -0800
 In-Reply-To: game@all.net (WarGame)
         "" (Jan  2,  2:38pm)
 References: <9601021938.AA09726@all.net>
 X-Mailer: Z-Mail-SGI (3.2S.2 10apr95 MediaMail)
 To: game@all.net (WarGame)
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
 
 On Jan 2,  2:38pm, WarGame said:
 +----------[ Subject:  ]----------
 | -- Disclosure of radical domestic terrorist group.
 | - Top priority LEA investigation, full contact tracing, usage of informers or
 | cover agents, 800 number for people to report leads.
 
 
 I think we need to go beyond investigation, and actively try to counter
 I-groups popularity--news stories on grandmothers freezing to death, perhaps
 shots of hospitals without power, etc.  If we can't get enough pathos from the
 "truth," we need to conduct some type of disinformation campaign.  The more
 support we have on the streets, the easier our job will be, and the more force
 we can use (without backlash).
 
 -Jason
---------------------------
 From shimeall@cs.nps.navy.mil  Tue Jan  2 15:24:56 1996
 Received: from cs.nps.navy.mil by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA11290 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 15:24:56 EST
 Received: from prudence.cs.nps.navy.mil by cs.nps.navy.mil (4.1/SMI-4.1)
 	id AA28125; Tue, 2 Jan 96 12:24:42 PST
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 96 12:24:41 PST
 From: shimeall@cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall)
 Message-Id: <9601022024.AA28125@cs.nps.navy.mil>
 To: game@all.net
 
 
 Private Shimeall, technical type, reporting in.
---------------------------
 From shimeall@cs.nps.navy.mil  Tue Jan  2 16:10:17 1996
 Received: from cs.nps.navy.mil by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA13001 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 16:10:17 EST
 Received: from prudence.cs.nps.navy.mil by cs.nps.navy.mil (4.1/SMI-4.1)
 	id AA29481; Tue, 2 Jan 96 13:10:06 PST
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 96 13:10:06 PST
 From: shimeall@cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall)
 Message-Id: <9601022110.AA29481@cs.nps.navy.mil>
 To: game@all.net
 
 >From game@all.net Tue Jan  2 11:38:58 1996
 > To:	G-force
 > Re:	Initial pass, first move
 > 
 > Objective:
 > Restore normal governmental control to U.S.
 > 
 > Constraints:
 > No widespread use of physical force against the peoples of the U.S.
 > 
 > Initial request:
 > Three viable options for courses of action.
 > 
 > Actions to be taken:
 
 Problem - your actions deal with the initial problem (energy loss & 
 terrorist group) not with the objective as stated above.
 
 I support Winn's ideas - 
 
   Get a trustable comm system first;
   Get a government together - recall legislature to DC, get executive
    and legislative branches working together in face-to-face environment;
   Then (first two can be concurrent) deal with energy & terror problem.
 
   Options on trusted comm
     - Non-escrowed private key system between key points, courier distributed;
     - Split band communication, routed via independent paths (separate data
       and authentication across several bands);
     - Laser comm, with only selected transmission locations permitted;
   
   Options on recalling government-
     - Sorry Winn, I think the broadcast recall is too easily subverted by
       the I-force (or confused - imagine i-force broadcasting multiple recall
       locations) 
     - Give the members of Congress a free ride to DC on couriered transport
       - start with leadership recalled in person by President;
       - leadership personally recalls committee chairs;
       - committee chairs personally recall committee members;
       (split the work for faster recall - personal contact to avoid
        authentication problems)
 					Tim
 
---------------------------
 From winn@Infowar.Com  Tue Jan  2 16:15:13 1996
 Received: from mailhost.IntNet.net by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA13252 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 16:15:13 EST
 Received: from 198.252.40.157 by mailhost.IntNet.net (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
 	id QAA27807; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 16:19:40 -0500
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 16:19:40 -0500
 Message-Id: <199601022119.QAA27807@mailhost.IntNet.net>
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/plain
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 From: winn@Infowar.Com
 Subject: Re: G Force
 To: game@all.net (WarGame)
 In-Reply-To: <9601021938.AA09746@all.net>
 X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
 
 
 > To:	G-force
 > Re:	Initial pass, first move
 > 
 > Objective:
 > Restore normal governmental control to U.S.
 > 
 > Constraints:
 > No widespread use of physical force against the peoples of the U.S.
 > 
 > Initial request:
 > Three viable options for courses of action.
 > 
 > Actions to be taken:
 > (We should build up the list and then arrange them into three scenarios.  I 
 > think we can break the options into 'full disclosure,' 'partial disclosure,' 
 and
 > 'no disclosure.'  While I favor the full disclosure approach (fewer long term 
 > repercussions), I'm open to thoughts on the issue.)
 >
 I fully agree on 100% openness. We have to also reassure our intl partners that 
 we are in control.
 
 BTW: No mention was made of financial markets, nets, etc. What should we assume 
 for the game?
 
 > -- Restore full power across the board.
 > - If necessary, use national guard units, FEMA resources, and law enforcement 
 to
 > re-establish civilian control and complete service.
 
 If we establish full power too early, we also assist the enemy. I would be 
 cautious here.
 > 
 > -- Initiate a crash program for energy sources.
 
 I repeat above. It's freezing cold, yes, but we should insure that oil. gas etc. 
 are delivered (independant of elec power) to those facilities that need it the 
 most: hospitals, schools (which are probably closed, maybe forget this) key 
 infrastructure facilities. I think we should rebuild the power slowly as we 
 re-gain control. Yes, there will be casualties (poor folks, unfortunately in 
 inner cities) but the goal is to (1) regain control and then turn people back 
 on.
 
 > - Space program or other type program; how long do estimates give the country?
 > - Potential use of military power on foreign territory to gain necessary 
 > resources; play off against costs in fuel for such gains.
 
 I don't think we need this. See my previous memo.
 > 
  
 > -- Disclosure by rightfully elected political structure on the details of the 
 > energy problem.
 > - Special briefing to Congress, through a physical assembly, facilitated by 
 > military transport where necessary.  All courtesy extended to Congressmen and 
 > Senators; possibly have military escort carry a briefing package (multimedia) 
 > prepared by President with individual-by-individual authentication explaining 
 > the problem.
 
 Agreed. Bring 'em back to DC as suggested.
 > 
 > -- Disclosure of radical domestic terrorist group.
 > - Top priority LEA investigation, full contact tracing, usage of informers or 
 > cover agents, 800 number for people to report leads.
 
 I would argue that if we deo this, we keep the NII alive, versus killing it. 
 This also assumes that the PSN's are working. Are they?
 
 > - Media campaign about "...how the government was attempting to cope with a 
 > nation breaking energy crisis, in a fair and balanced fashion to prevent the 
 > innocent from suffering  shots of gurneys carrying casualties to the cold temperatures>; the radical 
 > group acted to exploit weaknesses in our democratic system for their own 
 > benefit, and the benefit of their chosen few  I-force intervention, be sure to show recreational activities, warm weather, 
 > intoxicated revelry>..."
 
 Agreed. Develop alternate channel of confidenc using intl comm systems.
 
 > - Reassure public that situation is harsh, but will be under control.  Give 
 > considerable exposure to efforts to maximize energy resources, cautionary 
 tales 
 > about certain media sources and accuraccy. 
 
 Agreed.
 
 > - Have elected political leaders reassure their regions in person, facilitated 
 > by military energy resources; establish a secure courier mechanism with 
 > political bodies to avoid future perversions of communications.
 
 As in previous memo.
 > 
 > -- Restore communications security.
 
 As before.
 
 > - Move all government systems to harsh security practices, including fully 
 > isolated systems.
 > - Roll-over key distribution system to move to new keyset.
 
 Or old NSA/Mil  type systems with fixed keys.
 
 > - Intimate to key decision makers that careful review of their data and 
 markets 
 > may be necessary, as penetration has already been seen to be selfish, it may 
 > have been profit motivated.
 
 How the heck can we validate data that may have been compromised over HOW LONG? 
 Old tapes, backups? Is that of as much concern now as restoring govt control?
 
 > - Make public aware that strong crypto will be seen as a sign of suspicious 
 > behavior for the time being, and we be subject to investigation.  Do not move 
 to
 > outlaw strong crypto; necessary backbone for commerce, too much propaganda 
 value
 > to opposition.  Merely make it suspect and subject to critical review.
 > 
 We might have to take the step and outlaw crypto for X period of time in order 
 to perform a traffic analysis of those that are using it. This will not go over 
 well, but we should play up the FBI cases of terrorism in the late 1990's where 
 strong crypto would have been disasterous: (1) Poisoning the water supply of 
 Boston (2) rocket launchers at the end of Ohare runway, Chicago, (3) teeenage 
 sex'n'snuff films, Richmond Virginia. Use emotion over the channels we use to 
 speak to America.
 
 Winn
 
 > Comments?
 > MW
 > 
 >
 >
 Peace & Happy Holidays
 Winn
 
 		        Winn Schwartau - Interpact, Inc.
 		        Information Warfare and InfoSec
 		       V: 813.393.6600 / F: 813.393.6361
 			    Winn@InfoWar.Com
 
---------------------------
 From winn@Infowar.Com  Tue Jan  2 16:19:44 1996
 Received: from mailhost.IntNet.net by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA13486 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 16:19:44 EST
 Received: from 198.252.40.157 by mailhost.IntNet.net (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
 	id QAA28163; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 16:24:15 -0500
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 16:24:15 -0500
 Message-Id: <199601022124.QAA28163@mailhost.IntNet.net>
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/plain
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 From: winn@Infowar.Com
 Subject: Re: WarGame Communication
 To: game@all.net (WarGame)
 In-Reply-To: <9601022110.AA13067@all.net>
 X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
 
 
 > >From game@all.net Tue Jan  2 11:38:58 1996
 > > To:	G-force
 > > Re:	Initial pass, first move
 > > 
 > > Objective:
 > > Restore normal governmental control to U.S.
 > > 
 > > Constraints:
 > > No widespread use of physical force against the peoples of the U.S.
 > > 
 > > Initial request:
 > > Three viable options for courses of action.
 > > 
 > > Actions to be taken:
 > 
 > Problem - your actions deal with the initial problem (energy loss & 
 > terrorist group) not with the objective as stated above.
 > 
 > I support Winn's ideas - 
 > 
 >   Get a trustable comm system first;
 >   Get a government together - recall legislature to DC, get executive
 >    and legislative branches working together in face-to-face environment;
 >   Then (first two can be concurrent) deal with energy & terror problem.
 > 
 >   Options on trusted comm
 >     - Non-escrowed private key system between key points, courier distributed;
 
 The NSA can deliver this in minutes to DC. Don't forget we have good comm from 
 Cheyenne, to the FEMA COG site in West Virginia, and between all major military 
 points using MILSAT. Let's use it. 
 
 >     - Split band communication, routed via independent paths (separate data
 >       and authentication across several bands);
 
 >     - Laser comm, with only selected transmission locations permitted;
 
 This is only good for line of sight. The portable battery powered MIL COMM 
 devices are here and now.
 >   
 >   Options on recalling government-
 >     - Sorry Winn, I think the broadcast recall is too easily subverted by
 >       the I-force (or confused - imagine i-force broadcasting multiple recall
 >       locations) 
 
 Can they subvert the intl satellites? Will they have the ability to jam/override 
  foreign systems that have never been over US space before?
 
 >     - Give the members of Congress a free ride to DC on couriered transport
 >       - start with leadership recalled in person by President;
 >       - leadership personally recalls committee chairs;
 >       - committee chairs personally recall committee members;
 >       (split the work for faster recall - personal contact to avoid
 >        authentication problems)
 
 > 					Tim
 > 
 >
 >
 Peace & Happy Holidays
 Winn
 
 		        Winn Schwartau - Interpact, Inc.
 		        Information Warfare and InfoSec
 		       V: 813.393.6600 / F: 813.393.6361
 			    Winn@InfoWar.Com
 
---------------------------
 From cobbjw@ornl.gov  Tue Jan  2 16:24:40 1996
 Received: from cosmail3.ctd.ornl.gov by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA13731 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 16:24:40 EST
 Received: from [128.219.80.88] (cobbjwmac.cmo.ornl.gov [128.219.80.88]) by cosmail3.ctd.ornl.gov (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id QAA18893 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 16:24:24 -0500 (EST)
 X-Sender: z19@cosmail3.ctd.ornl.gov
 Message-Id: 
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 16:24:15 -0500
 To: game@all.net (WarGame)
 From: cobbjw@ornl.gov (John W. Cobb)
 Subject: Re: 
 
 At 8:08 AM 12/31/1, WarGame wrote:
 >>From: game@all.net
 >To: cobbjw@ornl.gov
 >blah, blah, blah,...
 
 John Cobb reporting for duty - Insubordination Specialist :>
 
 
 > From: Michael Wilson <0005514706@mcimail.com>
 > To: "game@all.net" 
 > Subject: Confused mail
 > Message-Id: <93960102180239/0005514706DC1EM@MCIMAIL.COM>
 >
 > I received one piece stating that we were I-force, then I get a briefing
 > intended for g-force.  Do we have a problem?
 >
 
 Sounds to me like Michael's a Spy?
 
 Seriously, How do we know that our internal g-force Communications are not being
 monitored (or spoofed) by the IF'ers? Do we have a scenario guarentee of
 this from the game-master?
 
 Aside from that, should we consider this possibility in scenario construction?
 
 Now for a Ballsy claim:
 
 in the WarGame's Player's Manual, it states:
 > 	The scenario is what it is.  It cannot be altered except by your
 > actions within the game.  If the scenario makes bad assumptions, you
 > can't change them, but you can posit things that help you get around
 > them - but try to stick to it.
 
 That being the case, Let me flesh-out the scenario a little further by
 defining my scenario character and actions. I POSIT that I have been
 loosely affiliated with the I-force during its formative phases. While I
 was sympathetic to many of their policy positions, such as the refusal of
 the governmental apparatus to provide preferential treatment for low-power
 consumption but high value information machines in their decisions to deal
 with the power crisis.
 
 However, I have been completely horrified by the I-Force's willingness to
 deny power to the democratically elected government. After the G-force
 attempted retaliation and the I-force's response of all-out Information
 Warfare to acomplish a Coup, I have decided that I cannot support their
 views and have, in my heart become firmly convinced that they must be
 stopped. This is how my scenario persona came to find itself part of the
 G-force team.
 
 To that end, I claim I have had access to the means of I-force's ability to
 control the levers of power. I also have had access to their internal
 communications and I will use it for the sake of the G-forces. I have not
 revealed my revulsion at the I-forces actions yet and they still consider
 me a member.
 
 Consequently, with this message, I am asking the GameMaster to make some
 modifications:
 
 1) Add my mail address (cobbjw@ornl.gov) a reciepient of both G-force and
 I-force messages.
 2) Have my mailing responses will only be posted to the G-force list
 
 I will post to game@all.net (which will presumably be G-force) the
 gamemaster's decision. I will also respect the request not to communicate
 outside of the game.
 
 If the gamemaster does concur in granting me this "disaffected" status, he
 may wish at some future time to cut-off my access to I-force messages as a
 part of the scenario where my funnelling of information to G-force becomes
 known within I-force. Moreoever, this time may be a function of the amount
 of I-force messages I convey to G-force - Just a suggesttion.
 
 Finally, given the scenario we were presented (And assuming some parts are
 hidden) we (i.e. G-force) may need to be careful about the security of our
 information exchanges. 1) We may have I-force imposters/sympathizers and 2)
 Our communications are probably very susceptible to interception, piecemeal
 or en-masse.
 
 Now let me give my analysis of the current situation at the start of the
 scenario:
 
 1) We are in severe peril of a Coup. Without action, we can anticipate that
 the situation will deteriorate.
 
 2) The scenario did not specify what are objectives are. We must guess for
 I-force and discuss among ourselves.
 
 3) I-force Endgame objectives are not clear to me (and perhaps G-force).
 Suppose the Coup succeeds, then what does I-force do? Do they believe they
 can replace the government? Do they favor anarchy? Do they understand the
 need to social organization embodied in government? If they do, then we may
 be able to use it as a negotitating point of why I-force's total victory
 over G-force will be self-defeating. That is if I-force "Info-cutes" every
 G-force member, then I-force may not be able to sustain power production
 levels to achieve their goals in seizing power in the first place. Analogy:
 Stalin's purges of the Red Army in the 1930's so weakened the Soviet army
 that it very nearly cost Stalin his position because of the Army's
 inability to defend the motherland.
 
 4) G-force Endgame objectives are not clear. Our primary goal is
 restoration of legitimate government, right? Are there any other objetives
 which, if not met, spell failure? The 920102:12:02 presidential
 communication does say: "...none of which	may involve the widespread use of
 substantial physical force against the people of the United States." So it
 appears that pursuing a civil war strategy is out (even if it means
 governmental collapse). Are we willing to pursue an otherwise "any means
 necessary" strategy? Personally, I am not. Do we take a position of
 eliminating I-force interference "with extreme prejudice". I would favor
 ruling out physical violence if possible (shoot only when shot at).
 
 5) Some aspects of the scenario seem a bit contrived. The energy crisis
 thing seems unrealistic. these things are predictable. How did
 universal-mandantory key escrow get its nose under the tent? - who was
 minding the consitution atthat time? But this is the scenario we are given
 - se live with it. However, there is one thing about the scenario that
 bothers me. If I-force is able to spoof the legitimate government  with
 unspecified "sophisticated simulation techniques" then it sounds like
 G-force has been doomed by fiat. I mean if I am a I-forcer, then anything I
 hear that G-force does I can just say that we used "sophisticated
 simulation techniques" to prevent the message from getting out. I would
 plead for a little easing of this blanket pre-supposed I-force technical
 superiority.
 
 Now let me try to directly answer the President's request to have three
 viable options for re-establishing normal governmental control.
 
 1) Investigate Negotiation/Capitulation: What are I-forces's goals? Let's
 use DIPCOM to ask. If their demands are simply to re-design the power
 allocation algorithm, then we can re-open the power grid, at least
 temporarily, and begin a dialogue. Obviously the current G-forces way
 overplayed their hand in the current allocation scheme by not preparing the
 populace for the effects. Let's get the I-force on board in proposing a
 solution and we can also pin on them the honest, legitimate results of
 their prioritization decisions. Additionally, they might actually have a
 net-positive contribution to make. Heck if they are creative enough to
 forment all of this mischeif, then perhaps they can come up with a
 proposition that moves the frontiers of what is possible within our
 constraints further outward and upward. Pursuing such a coiurse of action
 does not preclude, at any time, withdrawing this option. The only penalty
 for doing so is a lose of faith when and if diplomatic conversations
 resume. However, if the I-force's internal dynamic has changed to the point
 that they seek a Coup for Power's sake, then a diplomatic solution may be
 impossible. In either case, pursuing the diplomatic option can be useful
 for gaining information about the adversary's position.
 
 So my recommendation is to begin diplmatic discussions immediately. Begin
 to lay the groundwork for a negotiated settlement shoule we choose that
 course. Only later will we reach a Go/No-Go decision point on whether to
 commit to a negotiated settlement. A negotiated settlement may achieve or
 goals of re-establishing legitimate governmental control without public
 loss of life.
 
 2) Threaten I-force with denial of power. While G-force may not be able to
 immediately establish control over the power grid and the NII, we can
 threaten to "blow up the ship" if we do not get our way. We still have the
 resources to either physically, or more practically, electronically deny
 access (and perhaps electric power) to the entire country, and hence
 I-force. We may not be able to "take and hold" power generation and
 infrastructure across the country, but we can project power enough to deny
 these services. We may take public opinion hits in so doing. Such harm
 could be repaired after the conflict.
 
 The primary reasoning behind this course of action is that it will blunt
 I-force's reason for planning the Coup to being with - to make sure they
 have enough power to run their computers. We may or may not be able to
 achieve vistory, but we can still make sure that they are defeated and when
 we force them to realize this fact, accomodation may be possible.
 
 We must be careful to make sure that pursuing this strategy does not remove
 the optin for other strategies. For instance, turning out the lights, and
 capitulation do not seem compatible, but threatening to turn out the lights
 as a fallback position if we feel I-force is not negotiating in good faith
 is a consistent position. This course of action, in and of itself will not
 meet the objective of re-establishing governmental control, but it is a
 good candidate for an opening move. A mid-game position can be staked out
 based on I-force's response.
 
 3) We can try a direct public appeal. As others have mentioned "grandmother
 is freezing" and other PR offensives may have some impact. However, my
 interpretation of the statement of scenario seems to be prejudiced against
 this type of action.
 "Through sophistocated
  simulation techniques and by exploiting their control of the NII, the
  I-force has managed to simulate well-known personalities to the point
  where the vast majority of the people now believe that the G-forces
  represent a military coup attempt, and that the I-force has the support
  of most of the civilian government. "
 Thus a PR offensive seems doomed to being twisted by the I-force
 Spin-Doctors against us. the way I read the scenario setup, we have to
 accept that until we change the fundamentals of the scenarios, we do not
 have the ability to press the levers of public opinion for our ends.
 
 So I guess I am really only giving 2 options and arguing for why a third
 option has been denied to us (or at least pre-destined to failure by the
 game-master).
 To what extent are their information dissimination means that are beyond
 I-forces ability to control: Broadcast TV/Radio? Shortwave? Postal Service?
 Telephony? How extensive are their manipulation capabilities?
 
 sorry if I ramble on too long.
 
 -john .w cobb
 
 John W. Cobb                                    cobbjw@ornl.gov
 Office of Computing and Network Management       423.576.5439
 Oak Ridge National Laboratory
 MS-6486                                         "Quietly Making Noise"
 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6486                        -Jimmy Buffett
 
 
---------------------------
 From winn@Infowar.Com  Tue Jan  2 16:26:21 1996
 Received: from mailhost.IntNet.net by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA13857 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 16:26:21 EST
 Received: from 198.252.40.157 by mailhost.IntNet.net (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
 	id QAA28355; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 16:30:52 -0500
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 16:30:52 -0500
 Message-Id: <199601022130.QAA28355@mailhost.IntNet.net>
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/plain
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 From: winn@Infowar.Com
 Subject: Re: WarGame Communication
 To: game@all.net (WarGame)
 In-Reply-To: <9601022110.AA13067@all.net>
 X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
 
 We have a fundamental bottleneck to deal with:
 
 Are we going to use the US military for these operations? Normally, the FBI and 
 SS and domestic law enforcement are used, but they have limited capability for 
 secure comm and show of force (whether we use it or not.)
 
 The VERY SECOND that Congress is back in DC, Mr. President, we should have a 180 
 repeal of the Posse Comatatus Act (spelling?) that prohibits the use of US 
 military in domestic operations. The repeal must be carefully done so that the 
 civilian population does not buy into the COUP theory being put forth by the 
 I-Force. 
 
 We need their capabilities, tools, comm and manpower. They could easily report 
 to the FBI or FEMA or other agency and not function on their own. A combined 
 annoucement: 
 	- Pres, 
 	- Defense
 	- FBI
 	- FEMA
 etc. will be necessary.
 
 Peace & Happy Holidays
 Winn
 
 		        Winn Schwartau - Interpact, Inc.
 		        Information Warfare and InfoSec
 		       V: 813.393.6600 / F: 813.393.6361
 			    Winn@InfoWar.Com
 
---------------------------
 From winn@Infowar.Com  Tue Jan  2 16:33:03 1996
 Received: from mailhost.IntNet.net by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA14154 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 16:33:03 EST
 Received: from 198.252.40.157 by mailhost.IntNet.net (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
 	id QAA28685; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 16:37:34 -0500
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 16:37:34 -0500
 Message-Id: <199601022137.QAA28685@mailhost.IntNet.net>
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/plain
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 From: winn@Infowar.Com
 Subject: Re:
 To: game@all.net (WarGame)
 In-Reply-To: <9601021808.AA06211@all.net>
 X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
 
 To make this a little more "team like" I'd like to know who my fellow team mates 
 are at least by name.
 
 ANyone else concur?
 
 
 Peace & Happy Holidays
 Winn
 
 		        Winn Schwartau - Interpact, Inc.
 		        Information Warfare and InfoSec
 		       V: 813.393.6600 / F: 813.393.6361
 			    Winn@InfoWar.Com
 
---------------------------
 From game  Tue Jan  2 16:40:13 1996
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 96 16:40:13 EST
 From: game (WarGame)
 Received: by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA14473 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 16:40:13 EST
 Message-Id: <9601022140.AA14473@all.net>
 Apparently-To: game@all.net
 
 ***** ICOM *****
 
 Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential
 
 A technical mastermind in your information warfare department has just
 found a way to tap into enemy communications.  Beginning very soon, your
 team will be able to read what the other team's members are typing.
 
 At this time, we believe that the other team is unaware of this activity.
 
 Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential
---------------------------
 From adept@minerva.cis.yale.edu  Tue Jan  2 16:45:13 1996
 Received: from minerva.cis.yale.edu by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA14679 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 16:45:13 EST
 Received: (from adept@localhost) by minerva.cis.yale.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA14511; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 16:44:54 -0500
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 16:44:54 -0500 (EST)
 From: Ben 
 X-Sender: adept@minerva
 To: WarGame 
 Subject: Re: WarGame Communication
 In-Reply-To: <9601022140.AA14529@all.net>
 Message-Id: 
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
 
 >  A technical mastermind in your information warfare department has just
 >  found a way to tap into enemy communications.  Beginning very soon, your
 >  team will be able to read what the other team's members are typing.
 >  
 >  At this time, we believe that the other team is unaware of this activity.
 
 This would be very important to correctly ascertain.  If they realize 
 that we have this capability, then they can use disinformation techniques 
 to mislead us(this is known as 'blowback').
 
 Otherwise, even ifthe scheme is compromised, they will still need to give 
 us throw away information in order to generate bona fides as to the 
 veracity of information from our intercepts in order to convince us that 
 the source is trustworthy.  This may be of some use.
 
 Ben.
 ____
 Ben Samman..............................................samman@cs.yale.edu
 "If what Proust says is true, that happiness is the absence of fever, then
 I will never know happiness. For I am possessed by a fever for knowledge,
 experience, and creation."                                      -Anais Nin
 PGP Encrypted Mail Welcomed        Finger samman@suned.cs.yale.edu for key
 Want to hire a soon-to-be college grad? 		Mail me for resume
 
---------------------------
 From game  Tue Jan  2 16:53:42 1996
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 96 16:53:42 EST
 From: game (WarGame)
 Received: by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA15020 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 16:53:42 EST
 Message-Id: <9601022153.AA15020@all.net>
 Apparently-To: game
 
 ***** ICOM *****
  From winn@Infowar.Com  Tue Jan  2 16:26:21 1996
  Received: from mailhost.IntNet.net by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
          id AA13857 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 16:26:21 EST
  Received: from 198.252.40.157 by mailhost.IntNet.net (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
  	id QAA28355; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 16:30:52 -0500
  Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 16:30:52 -0500
  Message-Id: <199601022130.QAA28355@mailhost.IntNet.net>
  Mime-Version: 1.0
  Content-Type: text/plain
  Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
  From: winn@Infowar.Com
  Subject: Re: WarGame Communication
  To: game@all.net (WarGame)
  In-Reply-To: <9601022110.AA13067@all.net>
  X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
  
  We have a fundamental bottleneck to deal with:
  
  Are we going to use the US military for these operations? Normally, the FBI and 
  SS and domestic law enforcement are used, but they have limited capability for 
  secure comm and show of force (whether we use it or not.)
  
  The VERY SECOND that Congress is back in DC, Mr. President, we should have a 180 
  repeal of the Posse Comatatus Act (spelling?) that prohibits the use of US 
  military in domestic operations. The repeal must be carefully done so that the 
  civilian population does not buy into the COUP theory being put forth by the 
  I-Force. 
  
  We need their capabilities, tools, comm and manpower. They could easily report 
  to the FBI or FEMA or other agency and not function on their own. A combined 
  annoucement: 
  	- Pres, 
  	- Defense
  	- FBI
  	- FEMA
  etc. will be necessary.
  
  Peace & Happy Holidays
  Winn
  
  		        Winn Schwartau - Interpact, Inc.
  		        Information Warfare and InfoSec
  		       V: 813.393.6600 / F: 813.393.6361
  			    Winn@InfoWar.Com
  
---------------------------
 From cobbjw@ornl.gov  Tue Jan  2 17:06:19 1996
 Received: from cosmail3.ctd.ornl.gov by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA15510 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 17:06:19 EST
 Received: from [128.219.80.88] (cobbjwmac.cmo.ornl.gov [128.219.80.88]) by cosmail3.ctd.ornl.gov (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id RAA19970 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 17:05:57 -0500 (EST)
 X-Sender: z19@cosmail3.ctd.ornl.gov
 Message-Id: 
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 17:05:48 -0500
 To: game@all.net (WarGame)
 From: cobbjw@ornl.gov (John W. Cobb)
 Subject: Re: WarGame Communication
 
 At 11:15 AM 12/31/1, WarGame wrote:
 >X-Class: Fast
 >Precedence: first-class
 >Priority: fast
 >>From: game@all.net
 >To: cobbjw@ornl.gov
 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
 >Status: RO
 >
 > From winn@Infowar.Com  Tue Jan  2 16:15:13 1996
 > Received: from mailhost.IntNet.net by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management
 >Analytics);
 >         id AA13252 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 16:15:13 EST
 > Received: from 198.252.40.157 by mailhost.IntNet.net (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
 > 	id QAA27807; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 16:19:40 -0500
 > Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 16:19:40 -0500
 > Message-Id: <199601022119.QAA27807@mailhost.IntNet.net>
 > Mime-Version: 1.0
 > Content-Type: text/plain
 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 > From: winn@Infowar.Com
 > Subject: Re: G Force
 > To: game@all.net (WarGame)
 > In-Reply-To: <9601021938.AA09746@all.net>
 > X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
 >
 >
 Two of Winn Schwartau's Last comments were:
 
 
 > I fully agree on 100% openness. We have to also reassure our intl
 >partners that
 > we are in control.
 >
 and later says
 
 > We might have to take the step and outlaw crypto for X period of time in
 >order
 > to perform a traffic analysis of those that are using it. This will not
 >go over
 > well, but we should play up the FBI cases of terrorism in the late 1990's
 >where
 > strong crypto would have been disasterous: (1) Poisoning the water supply of
 > Boston (2) rocket launchers at the end of Ohare runway, Chicago, (3) teeenage
 > sex'n'snuff films, Richmond Virginia. Use emotion over the channels we use to
 > speak to America.
 >
 
 Does anyone else see an inconsistency here? One the one-hand we need 100%
 openness to establish credibility, but on the other it is suggestted that
 we engage in some pretty intense spin-doctoring in order to manipulate
 opinion but this will also cost us credibility. If we are fighting a losing
 PR battle as the scenario outlines, then engaging in spinning is handing
 the IF'ers the ropes to twist our words and tie us with. As an alternative,
 why don't we call for completely decrypted nets. We are at a
 Crypto-disadvantage now. We may be able to turn this into a GF Public
 Relations advantage with 100% open statements like "We are the good guys
 and we are so sure that we will communicate in the open and let anyone else
 see everthing we are communicating. If the IF'ers aren't lying to you then
 why won't they do the same?" Either we neutralize their crypto-advantage or
 we have a chance to score a PR success.
 
 I would caution care in trying to scare the populace about freezing cold.
 It's effect is to escalate the stakes. Scare the public and that will force
 them to commit to a group sooner. At the start of the scenario we are the
 underdogs. If we force them to place their loaylties somewhere, they may
 place it with the IF'ers. Picture this: GF'ers cry "the IF'ers are freezing
 your grandma". They IF'ers respond, no we aren't, it is the GF'ers who are.
 They started the blackouts, remember?" and then the IF'ers couple this with
 a subterfuge using their "sophisticated simulation capability". Now what
 does Joe Public do? He is alarmed because this now directly affects his
 family and he is motivated to do something, like join a side. Based on the
 amount of what's flying, IF'ers are more likely to win his allegiance.
 
 My vote would be to say that all is fine now, but if we do not implement
 the GF power allocation scheme, or some similar negotiated scheme, that
 grandma will freeze sometime in the future. That is, get the public
 interested, but not scared, yet. Also score the same point about GF caring
 about all of the country but IF only about keeping the computers and the
 net up. Again, 100% open and honest. It also leavers us open to playing our
 trump card of denying service to the IF'ers as a last stand position. At
 that point we can rightly blame the loss of service on their intransigence.
 
 In terms of the discussion about bringing congress back into session. Again
 I find a weakness in the scenario here/ Who is the "we" of the G-force? I
 am beginning to think that the scenario designer thinks it is only the
 C-in-C and the military. If this is the case, then it is only the executive
 branch of government. We cannot hold the judiciary and legislative in
 contempt, otherwise we risk acting extra-consitutionally and become, by
 definition "The bad guys".
 We must bring congress along by peron-to-person communications. Even in
 this advanced future of 21st century, personal communication among 435
 people is most easily accomplished directly and not by means of "High
 Falooting, Whiz-bang, Rocket Science, Nuk-U-Lar physics" information
 technology. Authneticity is guarenteed as it is today by looking into one's
 eyes and shaking of hands.
 
 We must also assess what happens if we do manage to re-assemble congress
 and still not get a mandate. I for one would not advocate military coup at
 that point in order to continue the GF position - again, we must take care
 to not become the bad guys. We must make a very careful decision. We  do
 not want congress to weigh in if they are going to weigh in on the other
 side. Don't ask a question unless you know the answer you want and you have
 a good idea that you can get it. Thus our priority should be to persuade
 Congress and the judiciary, but we should wait to ask for their support
 until we are fairly confident of obtaining it.
 
 Just a process note: Many of the responses to the president's request have
 spent a great deal of time discussing what is technically possible in 1996.
 IMO, we may be wasting our mental capacities in this scenario on such
 issues (eventhough I find much of the information about current
 capabilities and thinking interesting). The reason is that the scenario
 occurs 25 years in the future so while we may carefully map out what is
 technically possible, someone else may wave a magic-technology-wand in the
 scenario and trump our realistic assessments. (Like presuming that escrow
 gets broken and all keys get publicly distributed.) I would suggest that
 the nature of the game forces us to focus on conceptual issues and favors
 creative responses over realistic ones. Just another one of my 2 cents
 worth.
 
 Note: I'm "off-duty" until ~10:00 EST 960103
 
 -john .w cobb
 
 John W. Cobb                                    cobbjw@ornl.gov
 Office of Computing and Network Management       423.576.5439
 Oak Ridge National Laboratory
 MS-6486                                         "Quietly Making Noise"
 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6486                        -Jimmy Buffett
 
 
---------------------------
 From 0005514706@mcimail.com  Tue Jan  2 17:08:18 1996
 Received: from gatekeeper2.mcimail.com by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA15688 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 17:08:18 EST
 Received: from mailgate2.mcimail.com (mailgate2.mcimail.com [166.38.40.100]) by gatekeeper2.mcimail.com (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id WAA26525; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 22:09:19 GMT
 Received: from mcimail.com by mailgate2.mcimail.com id ah25972;
           2 Jan 96 22:08 WET
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 96 17:06 EST
 From: Michael Wilson <0005514706@mcimail.com>
 To: WarGame 
 Subject: RE: WarGame Communication
 Message-Id: <15960102220651/0005514706DC4EM@MCIMAIL.COM>
 
 I'm having a hell of a time with the way we have comm set up.  I'm going
 to assume that as team leader I'm supposed to rationalize the comments
 we are making into a stable document that will serve as our first turn
 in the game.  Most of our team appears to be in sync with the way I have
 been viewing the problem, and I also see that we share a lack of
 understanding as to what I-force actually seeks to gain.  I think by
 putting the power back on as a first move, we disrupt their political
 capital.  I'm fairly certain that any civvie satellites, U.S. or other,
 can be considered perverted.  I'm assuming that we must regain control
 from hard sites of control, flush the prior cipher system, and move
 to the next keygen.  I don't know about our errant team member gaining
 access to both message sets; I'll wait until I get a ruling from admin.
 I also do not endorse any moves that disrupt the U.S. NII; too much
 politcal capital to the I-force, too little use to us.  We also seem to
 be in agreement on the use of military resources in general; I think
 we handle all movement through national guard.  By, of, and for the
 people.  Back-up, of course, comes from professional military and intel.
 
 As for introductions, I'm Michael, nominal G-force team leader (as bit
 odd, as I not only prefer heterarchies, but my personal inclinations
 lie as I-force).  Having seen this from the other point of view, let
 me reinforce that the strengths of a G-force are manpower, time, inertia,
 seemingly boundless resources, a willingness to believe on the part of
 the voter, professional law enforcement and military; we need to also
 retain our flexibility here.
 
 MW
 
---------------------------
 From game  Tue Jan  2 17:19:03 1996
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 96 17:19:03 EST
 From: game (WarGame)
 Received: by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA16161 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 17:19:03 EST
 Message-Id: <9601022219.AA16161@all.net>
 Apparently-To: game@all.net
 
 ***** GCOM *****
 
 Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential
 
 One of our deep cover agents in the enemy's headquarters has just
 relayed the following partial message:
 
 	"Enemy decoding messages - STOP - Has been reading comms for"
 
 Communications terminated at that point.  Based on incoming intel, we
 believe that this agent is now dead.
 
 This message has been hand-delivered at great peril to our people to
 assure that it is not intercepted, however, several of the people who
 helped to transport this message have failed to report in.  We do not
 believe we can hand carry another such message for the forseeable future.
 
 Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential
---------------------------
 From joelm@eskimo.com  Tue Jan  2 18:07:32 1996
 Received: from mail.eskimo.com by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA17906 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 18:07:32 EST
 Received: from joelm (joelm@tia1.eskimo.com [204.122.16.40]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA07344 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 15:07:11 -0800 (PST)
 Message-Id: <199601022307.PAA07344@mail.eskimo.com>
 X-Sender: joelm@mail.eskimo.com
 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
 Date: Tue, 02 Jan 1996 15:06:42 -0800
 To: game@all.net
 From: Joel McNamara 
 Subject: 
 
 My inclination is use standard Low Intensity Conflict strategies and tactics
 and go after the I-Force infrastructure.
 
 We need to use our ELINT capabilities to understand their communications
 channels and structure.
 
 We need to identify leaders within the I-Force movement and either remove
 them from play or turn them.
 
 We need to discredit the I-Force among the general population.
 
 General suggestions (tactics should be highly compartmentalized due to the
 alleged breaches in security):
 
 Identify I-Force leaders.  Every effort should be made to identify leaders
 and cadre within the I-Force movement.  The lessons and tactics learned in
 Vietnam with Phoenix and subsequent programs in Latin America should be applied.
 
 Disrupt I-Force electronic communications.  The Internet and various
 sub-nets are  being used heavily among cadres and supporters for
 communication purposes.  Targeted viruses/trojans should be developed that
 will disrupt communications.  Examples include alledged enhanced crypto
 applications, macro viruses inserted in documents describing supposed
 government abuses, etc.  Viruses/trojans should have staggered, random
 execution times, so as not to immediately alert the I-Force
 cadre/supporters.  Resulting actions could be covert packet flooding of
 connected sites, corrupting encrypted messages, and monitor frequency
 overloading to destroy hardware. Other appropriate tactics as to
 communication types, such as packet radio jamming should be employed.  In
 concentrated I-Force areas, EMP disruption may be necessary.  The I-Force
 appears to be highly technology biased, and likely will not be able to
 quickly establish communication channels that are less-technology based.
 
 Discredit I-Force.  A range of disinformation tactics could be employed.
 These could range from false press releases from leaders, forged e-cash
 drawn on I-Force supporter accounts, to more severe methods such as
 terrorist actitivities against small segments of the population which could
 be blamed on the I-Force.  With the current nationalistic and isolationist
 trends, it would be fairly easy to produce evidence the I-Force is in
 partnership with some foreign entity.  Although there is presently public
 suspicion of the government, a correctly tsaged event could galvanize
 support for the government and against the I-Force movement.
 
 Comments?
 
 Joel McNamara
 
---------------------------
 From winn@Infowar.Com  Tue Jan  2 18:08:30 1996
 Received: from mailhost.IntNet.net by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA18028 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 18:08:30 EST
 Received: from 198.252.40.157 by mailhost.IntNet.net (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
 	id SAA03385; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 18:13:00 -0500
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 18:13:00 -0500
 Message-Id: <199601022313.SAA03385@mailhost.IntNet.net>
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/plain
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 From: winn@Infowar.Com
 Subject: Re: WarGame Communication
 To: game@all.net (WarGame)
 In-Reply-To: <9601022207.AA15647@all.net>
 X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
 
 > Two of Winn Schwartau's Last comments were:
 > 
 > 
 > > I fully agree on 100% openness. We have to also reassure our intl
 > >partners that we are in control. and later says
 > 
 > > We might have to take the step and outlaw crypto for X period of time in
 > >order to perform a traffic analysis of those that are using it. This will not
 > >go over well, but we should play up the FBI cases of terrorism in the late 
 1990's where  strong crypto would have been disasterous: (1) Poisoning the water 
 supply of  Boston (2) rocket launchers at the end of Ohare runway, Chicago, (3) 
 teeenage sex'n'snuff films, Richmond Virginia. Use emotion over the channels we 
 use to speak to America.
 > >
 > 
 > Does anyone else see an inconsistency here? One the one-hand we need 100%
 > openness to establish credibility, but on the other it is suggestted that
 > we engage in some pretty intense spin-doctoring in order to manipulate
 > opinion but this will also cost us credibility. 
 
 There's no inconsistency. We are OPEN about everything we do. We tell everyone 
 everything - including that we are going to get the IFers by outlawing crypto 
 and doing the analysis. This is not, in this case, spin doctoring, but saving 
 the country, which is our prime directive, and we should do everything we can to 
 accomplish that goal.
 
 The credibility through the events I've outlined from the early 1990's (and 
 similar ones which have occured in the last decades) is that we, the GFers are 
 coming out of the closet with those secrets we have thought so important to 
 national security. 
 
 We have to admit some past oops's to get that credibility.
 
 Winn
 
 Peace & Happy Holidays
 Winn
 
 		        Winn Schwartau - Interpact, Inc.
 		        Information Warfare and InfoSec
 		       V: 813.393.6600 / F: 813.393.6361
 			    Winn@InfoWar.Com
 
---------------------------
 From winn@Infowar.Com  Tue Jan  2 18:12:59 1996
 Received: from mailhost.IntNet.net by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA18298 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 18:12:59 EST
 Received: from 198.252.40.157 by mailhost.IntNet.net (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
 	id SAA03593; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 18:17:31 -0500
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 18:17:31 -0500
 Message-Id: <199601022317.SAA03593@mailhost.IntNet.net>
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/plain
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 From: winn@Infowar.Com
 Subject: Re: WarGame Communication
 To: game@all.net (WarGame)
 In-Reply-To: <9601022219.AA16215@all.net>
 X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
 
 This only reinforces the need for instant secure comm. We don't know what 
 they're gonna do, or why . . . but we have to assume they know some/all of 
 today's comm. (who's got PGP? hehehe) 
 
 LEADER: When can we assume to have secure comm?
 
 Peace & Happy Holidays
 Winn
 
 		        Winn Schwartau - Interpact, Inc.
 		        Information Warfare and InfoSec
 		       V: 813.393.6600 / F: 813.393.6361
 			    Winn@InfoWar.Com
 
---------------------------
 From joelm@eskimo.com  Tue Jan  2 18:22:03 1996
 Received: from mail.eskimo.com by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA18735 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 18:22:03 EST
 Received: from joelm (joelm@tia1.eskimo.com [204.122.16.40]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA09998 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 15:21:45 -0800 (PST)
 Message-Id: <199601022321.PAA09998@mail.eskimo.com>
 X-Sender: joelm@mail.eskimo.com
 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
 Date: Tue, 02 Jan 1996 15:21:14 -0800
 To: game@all.net (WarGame)
 From: Joel McNamara 
 Subject: Re: WarGame Communication
 
 I agree with Winn's statements about admitting past mistakes and building
 credibility.  However, I also believe there needs to be both an above ground
 and below ground effort here.
 
 I think we need to clarify what rules of engagements we're using in this
 case.  In my opinion, the severe threat to the government may call for
 extra-ordinary actions.
 
 Joel
 
---------------------------
 From game  Tue Jan  2 18:24:27 1996
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 96 18:24:27 EST
 From: game (WarGame)
 Received: by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA18948 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 18:24:27 EST
 Message-Id: <9601022324.AA18948@all.net>
 Apparently-To: game@all.net
 
 ***** GCOM *****
 
 Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential
 
 The folks in crypto have just come up with a brilliant new scheme for
 secure communications and have upgraded all systems.  We believe the
 new systems are now secure from enemy taps.
 
 Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential
---------------------------
 From winn@Infowar.Com  Tue Jan  2 18:26:36 1996
 Received: from mailhost.IntNet.net by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA19110 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 18:26:36 EST
 Received: from 198.252.40.157 by mailhost.IntNet.net (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
 	id SAA04192; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 18:31:08 -0500
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 18:31:08 -0500
 Message-Id: <199601022331.SAA04192@mailhost.IntNet.net>
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/plain
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 From: winn@Infowar.Com
 Subject: Re: WarGame Communication
 To: game@all.net (WarGame)
 In-Reply-To: <9601022209.AA15823@all.net>
 X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
 
 I guess I'm the General Curtis LeMay for this game . . . :-)
  
 > I'm having a hell of a time with the way we have comm set up.  I'm going
 > to assume that as team leader I'm supposed to rationalize the comments
 > we are making into a stable document that will serve as our first turn
 > in the game.  
 
 Aren't you the man who culls and decides?
 
 Most of our team appears to be in sync with the way I have
 > been viewing the problem, and I also see that we share a lack of
 > understanding as to what I-force actually seeks to gain.  
 
 Have they made any demands? What more are they telling the people?
 
 I think by
 > putting the power back on as a first move, we disrupt their political
 > capital.  I'm fairly certain that any civvie satellites, U.S. or other,
 > can be considered perverted.  
 
 UNLESS we use the circuits and put good secure end-to-end comm on them with the 
 new crypto. 
 
 I'm assuming that we must regain control
 > from hard sites of control, flush the prior cipher system, and move
 > to the next keygen. 
 
 Yes.
 
 > I also do not endorse any moves that disrupt the U.S. NII; too much
 > politcal capital to the I-force, too little use to us.  
 
 Won't that shut down their ability to communicate which is how they've made 
 theirt political inroads in the first place? I vote: shut down the comm and PSN 
 portions of the NII until we establish a means to comm to the people reliably.
 
 We also seem to
 > be in agreement on the use of military resources in general; I think
 > we handle all movement through national guard.  By, of, and for the
 > people.  Back-up, of course, comes from professional military and intel.
 
 We need Congressional approval for the MIL. The National Guard are weekend 
 warriors. I have little faith in them except as back end support for the front 
 line mil.
 > 
 > As for introductions, I'm Michael, nominal G-force team leader (as bit
 > odd, as I not only prefer heterarchies, but my personal inclinations
 > lie as I-force).  Having seen this from the other point of view, let
 > me reinforce that the strengths of a G-force are manpower, time, inertia,
 > seemingly boundless resources, a willingness to believe on the part of
 > the voter, professional law enforcement and military; we need to also
 > retain our flexibility here.
 > 
 Take control of the field of battle in any way we can and then give it back to 
 the people when the IF-ers are out of the way.
 
 WE also need Congress to consider what to do with the IF-ers once we have 
 prevailed, and this is also critical to 100% openness. Are the IF-ers 
 terrorists? Are they seditionists? Do we hang 'em? Let 'em go? Deport them to 
 Liberia? 
 
 How we think we want to handle them tomorrow will help us decide what to do 
 today.
 
 > MW
 > 
 >
 >
 Peace & Happy Holidays
 Winn
 
 		        Winn Schwartau - Interpact, Inc.
 		        Information Warfare and InfoSec
 		       V: 813.393.6600 / F: 813.393.6361
 			    Winn@InfoWar.Com
 
---------------------------
 From joelm@eskimo.com  Tue Jan  2 18:28:03 1996
 Received: from mail.eskimo.com by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA19221 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 18:28:03 EST
 Received: from joelm (joelm@tia1.eskimo.com [204.122.16.40]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA11192 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 15:27:44 -0800 (PST)
 Message-Id: <199601022327.PAA11192@mail.eskimo.com>
 X-Sender: joelm@mail.eskimo.com
 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
 Date: Tue, 02 Jan 1996 15:27:14 -0800
 To: game@all.net (WarGame)
 From: Joel McNamara 
 Subject: Re: WarGame Communication
 
 What are the rules for using "real" measures and counter-measures during
 this simulation?  We know Padgett is the I-Force commander, and I assume his
 machine (as well as all.net) is secure.  But would probes, message
 interception, denial of service be allowed?  If so, we should assume that
 the I-Force may likely be reading all of these communications in realtime.
 Should we be encrypting?
 
 Joel
 
---------------------------
 From winn@Infowar.Com  Tue Jan  2 18:31:50 1996
 Received: from mailhost.IntNet.net by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA19411 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 18:31:50 EST
 Received: from 198.252.40.157 by mailhost.IntNet.net (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
 	id SAA04530; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 18:36:23 -0500
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 18:36:23 -0500
 Message-Id: <199601022336.SAA04530@mailhost.IntNet.net>
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/plain
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 From: winn@Infowar.Com
 Subject: Re: WarGame Communication
 To: game@all.net (WarGame)
 In-Reply-To: <9601022322.AA18858@all.net>
 X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
 
 > From: Joel McNamara 
 > Subject: Re: WarGame Communication
 > 
 > I agree with Winn's statements about admitting past mistakes and building
 > credibility.  However, I also believe there needs to be both an above ground
 > and below ground effort here.
 > 
 > I think we need to clarify what rules of engagements we're using in this
 > case.  In my opinion, the severe threat to the government may call for
 > extra-ordinary actions.
 
 Touche! The President said, "The nation is depending upon you for its very 
 survival."  I have no problem saving our country even if it means some localized 
 death and destruction. ("The good of the many outweights the needs of the one.")
 
 Our instructions said no major force against the people of the US. 
 
 Should we consider the leader's of the IF as Americans or insurgents? If they've 
 been up to this for very long, we must have some clue who/where and why not take 
 out their leaders with whatever means necessary? 
 
 Am I wrong here, or is this War?
 
 Winn
 
 > Joel
 > 
 >
 >
 Peace & Happy Holidays
 Winn
 
 		        Winn Schwartau - Interpact, Inc.
 		        Information Warfare and InfoSec
 		       V: 813.393.6600 / F: 813.393.6361
 			    Winn@InfoWar.Com
 
---------------------------
 From shimeall@cs.nps.navy.mil  Tue Jan  2 19:05:57 1996
 Received: from cs.nps.navy.mil by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA20759 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 19:05:57 EST
 Received: from prudence.cs.nps.navy.mil by cs.nps.navy.mil (4.1/SMI-4.1)
 	id AA03951; Tue, 2 Jan 96 16:05:48 PST
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 96 16:05:48 PST
 From: shimeall@cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall)
 Message-Id: <9601030005.AA03951@cs.nps.navy.mil>
 To: game@all.net
 Subject: Re: WarGame Communication
 
 
 >From game@all.net Tue Jan  2 15:32:09 1996
 >Return-Path: 
 >From: game@all.net (WarGame)
 > Touche! The President said, "The nation is depending upon you for its very 
 > survival."  I have no problem saving our country even if it means some localized 
 > death and destruction. ("The good of the many outweights the needs of the one.")
 > 
 > Our instructions said no major force against the people of the US. 
 > 
 > Should we consider the leader's of the IF as Americans or insurgents? If they've 
 > been up to this for very long, we must have some clue who/where and why not take 
 > out their leaders with whatever means necessary? 
 > 
 > Am I wrong here, or is this War?
 
 Ummm, one problem with that, Winn -
 according to the input scenario, we DON'T know who the I-force is.  As in,
 past identification has been proven (by what means?) to be wrong.  So taking
 out the identified I-force people is (at least) premature until more 
 verification is made.
 
 I also assume that the constitution has not been altered or suspended by
 this crisis.
 
 			Tim
---------------------------
 From joelm@eskimo.com  Tue Jan  2 19:14:08 1996
 Received: from mail.eskimo.com by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA21113 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 19:14:08 EST
 Received: from joelm (joelm@tia1.eskimo.com [204.122.16.40]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA20238 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 16:13:49 -0800 (PST)
 Message-Id: <199601030013.QAA20238@mail.eskimo.com>
 X-Sender: joelm@mail.eskimo.com
 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
 Date: Tue, 02 Jan 1996 16:13:18 -0800
 To: game@all.net (WarGame)
 From: Joel McNamara 
 Subject: Re: WarGame Communication
 
 It's my general understanding that in issues dealing with nuclear
 weapons/power, there is a tremendous amount of latitude available when it
 comes to the use of force.  I'm assuming the actions of the I-Force do not
 strictly have to do with hydro-electric.  Viewing this, I would say the
 G-Force likely has powers to operate outside of the standard law enforcement
 rules of engagement.
 
 If the I-Force has the ability to disrupt the power grid, it is very likely
 they have the ability to present a nuclear threat to the government and
 citizens.
 
 Considering this, extreme force would seem to be a legal option.  From a
 political standpoint, it would also seem reasonable to position the I-Force
 as dangerous nuclear terrorists.  The threat of nuclear oblivion would
 definitely strike a chord with the general population.
 
 Joel
 
 
---------------------------
 From mdevost@chelsea.ios.com  Tue Jan  2 19:29:46 1996
 Received: from chelsea.ios.com by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA21726 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 19:29:46 EST
 Received: from ios.ios.com (ppp-22.ts-1.dc.idt.net [169.132.17.81]) by chelsea.ios.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA29277 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 19:20:53 -0500
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 19:20:53 -0500
 Message-Id: <199601030020.TAA29277@chelsea.ios.com>
 X-Sender: mdevost@chelsea.ios.com
 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
 To: game@all.net
 From: mdevost@chelsea.ios.com (Matthew G. Devost)
 Subject: I Force Comms
 
 I have only received one communication from fellow I-Force team members.
 Has anyone tried to send messages?
 
 Regarding the interception of G-Force comms, there are three points we need
 to act on:
 
 1)  We must be prepared to politically counter Winn's (G-Force) proposal to
 repeal the Posse Comatatus Act.  Have our spin on this issue prepared or
 even create a press release to release ASAP indicating that we expect the
 government to pursue that option and state that they are trying to create
 bloody civil war that may result in the loss of human life.  Appeal to the
 public to rise up against this action should the G-Force decide to pursue it.
 
 2)  The G-Force seems to be aware that their lines of communication are not
 secure.  The last message intercepted seems to indicate that they were given
 reasonable warning about insecure communications so they probably will try
 to through us off course in the near future.
 
 3)  We need to work on our three actions that are do within 16 hours!  A
 three part approach to this problem is going to be necessary.  1)  Actually
 come up with ideas for I-Force.  2)  Come up with a list of anticipated
 G-Force moves  3)  Tie 1 & 2 together to come up with the three best actions
 to propose for tomorrow.
 
 I also curious as to the membership of our group.  Does the team leader have
 a list of members?  What are our collective areas of expertise?
 
 Until later,
 
 Matt
 ________________________________________________________________
 Matthew G. Devost          They tell me that this is "cyberspace."
 mdevost@chelsea.ios.com    I don't know what cyberspace is.
                            But, it sure feels like home.
                                             -Garth Brooks
 
---------------------------
 From 0005514706@mcimail.com  Tue Jan  2 20:08:30 1996
 Received: from gatekeeper.mcimail.com by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA23251 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 20:08:30 EST
 Received: from mailgate.mcimail.com (mailgate.mcimail.com [166.38.40.3]) by gatekeeper.mcimail.com (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id BAA27481; Wed, 3 Jan 1996 01:05:51 GMT
 Received: from mcimail.com by mailgate.mcimail.com id ab05569; 3 Jan 96 1:08 WET
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 96 20:07 EST
 From: Michael Wilson <0005514706@mcimail.com>
 To: WarGame 
 Subject: RE: WarGame Communication
 Message-Id: <82960103010728/0005514706DC4EM@MCIMAIL.COM>
 
 G-force:
 I will indeed have to make some sense of all this mess.  I'm going to be
 live for about another 6 hours, and then I'm out of the loop with a client
 for the next 24, with maybe one check in there.  So I'll be submitting my
 last draft on what our move is in about 6 hours from now, barring any
 updates, which I'll pass the baton on--first to steele (most familiar
 with his judegement) then to winn.
 
 Comments:
 I can't tell if we are penetrated in comsec or not--frankly, it doesn't
 matter as far as I'm concerned.  Let I-force know what our moves are.
 My read on their motivation is that they didn't like govt setting
 priorities with them on the downside; I favor a full restoration of power
 service to all parties.  Our first priority is restoration of civil
 stability; removal of the proximate cause of that instability puts us on
 that road.  I don't have to hang for their initial mistake--some politician
 will not get elected.  Next order of business is damage control.  Show I-force
 for what they are, show the people they need to support their duly elected
 government.  Next comes neutralization of future moves to disrupt by I-force.
 This is done by changing the crypto paths, regaining civil control using
 civil forces, minor backup with military forces ONLY AS NEEDED.  Have the
 LEA and intelligence community acting posthaste to track and neutralize
 I-force members.  Long term public relations will come from explanation of the 
 problem (power, penetration of comm systems) and move to solution (crash program
 to new power sources, upgrade in NII security system regardless of cost).  We 
 must do right, and BE SEEN to do right.  Remember, most insurgent forces will
 back off the insurgency if the original source of 'wrong' is removed.  We must 
 be certain to show that we are NOT operating as de facto government; the civil 
 authorities are still in control, and we will not take advantage of any moment 
 of weakness.  I suspect that I-force will back off; if they don't, we know we 
 have a horse of a different colour on our hands, and we will change the rules of
 engagement appropriately.
 
 Game notes:  I'm assuming this is all being logged, and all moves will 
 eventually become public material.  Toward that end, I would prefer not to move 
 towards a PKS solution for our team's comm.  I would much rather have an 
 assurance from game admin that our comm is secure or not; I'm also willing to 
 renounce any right to I-force comm in exchange for that.  While I would not do 
 so in a real conflict, I believe it a necessary move for the sake of this (and 
 future, since I would enjoy doing this more often) simulation.
 
 Additionally, notes from game admin need to be prefaced as such, with far 
 clearer messages included.  Because of a variety of comm confusions already, I 
 need to hold suspect the variety of comm I have seen so far.
 
 Back to the war,
 MW
 
---------------------------
 From 0005514706@mcimail.com  Tue Jan  2 20:27:50 1996
 Received: from gatekeeper.mcimail.com by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA24101 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 20:27:50 EST
 Received: from mailgate.mcimail.com (mailgate.mcimail.com [166.38.40.3]) by gatekeeper.mcimail.com (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id BAA22479; Wed, 3 Jan 1996 01:25:11 GMT
 Received: from mcimail.com by mailgate.mcimail.com id al09862; 3 Jan 96 1:27 WET
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 96 20:26 EST
 From: Michael Wilson <0005514706@mcimail.com>
 To: WarGame 
 Subject: RE: WarGame Communication
 Message-Id: <61960103012616/0005514706DC2EM@MCIMAIL.COM>
 
 ***** DIPCOM *****
 Fr:	Team Leader, G-Force
 To:	Team Leader, I-Force
 Re:	Communications
 
 Acting as a duly empowered body by the President of the United States, we are 
 attempting to restore civil order, including restoration of the rightful 
 governing bodies, those being the properly elected President/ 
 Commander-in-Chief, and the Congress.
 
 Towards such end, it is in our best interests, for -both- of our groups, to 
 understand each other.  I have only an understanding from the actions of your 
 group, just as you only have an understanding from our actions.
 
 I believe that your intent is good, but your methods have violated the 
 Constitution of the United States, a covenant we are sworn to uphold.  I 
 recognize that the Consititution grants the power -to the People-, in several or
 in part, to resist the unlawful or unjust actions of their Government.  It is my
 belief, personally, that the government was attempting to make the right 
 choice--spreading the burden of decreasing resources as equitably as possible.  
 Obviously, your group disagrees.  How can you reconcile your beliefs with the 
 outcomes of your actions?  Is it possible that you did not foresee the 
 repercussions?
 
 Possibly together we can reach some understanding or solution to restore power, 
 both electrical -and- political, to those with whom it rests, the American 
 people.
 
 MW, G-force
 
---------------------------
 From game  Tue Jan  2 20:31:49 1996
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 96 20:31:49 EST
 From: game (WarGame)
 Received: by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA24801 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 20:31:49 EST
 Message-Id: <9601030131.AA24801@all.net>
 Apparently-To: game@all.net
 
  From 0005514706@mcimail.com  Tue Jan  2 20:27:50 1996
  Received: from gatekeeper.mcimail.com by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
          id AA24101 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 20:27:50 EST
  Received: from mailgate.mcimail.com (mailgate.mcimail.com [166.38.40.3]) by gatekeeper.mcimail.com (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id BAA22479; Wed, 3 Jan 1996 01:25:11 GMT
  Received: from mcimail.com by mailgate.mcimail.com id al09862; 3 Jan 96 1:27 WET
  Date: Tue, 2 Jan 96 20:26 EST
  From: Michael Wilson <0005514706@mcimail.com>
  To: WarGame 
  Subject: RE: WarGame Communication
  Message-Id: <61960103012616/0005514706DC2EM@MCIMAIL.COM>
  
 ***** ICOM *****
  Fr:	Team Leader, G-Force
  To:	Team Leader, I-Force
  Re:	Communications
  
  Acting as a duly empowered body by the President of the United States, we are 
  attempting to restore civil order, including restoration of the rightful 
  governing bodies, those being the properly elected President/ 
  Commander-in-Chief, and the Congress.
  
  Towards such end, it is in our best interests, for -both- of our groups, to 
  understand each other.  I have only an understanding from the actions of your 
  group, just as you only have an understanding from our actions.
  
  I believe that your intent is good, but your methods have violated the 
  Constitution of the United States, a covenant we are sworn to uphold.  I 
  recognize that the Consititution grants the power -to the People-, in several or
  in part, to resist the unlawful or unjust actions of their Government.  It is my
  belief, personally, that the government was attempting to make the right 
  choice--spreading the burden of decreasing resources as equitably as possible.  
  Obviously, your group disagrees.  How can you reconcile your beliefs with the 
  outcomes of your actions?  Is it possible that you did not foresee the 
  repercussions?
  
  Possibly together we can reach some understanding or solution to restore power, 
  both electrical -and- political, to those with whom it rests, the American 
  people.
  
  MW, G-force
  
 ---------------------------
 
---------------------------
 From ceo@oss.net  Tue Jan  2 21:43:23 1996
 Received: from aed.aed.org by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA28623 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 21:43:23 EST
 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by aed.aed.org (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id VAA17074 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 21:49:25 -0500
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 21:43:03 -0500 (EST)
 From: Robert Steele 
 X-Sender: ceo@cais3.cais.com
 To: WarGame 
 Subject: ****DIPLOMATIC****Greetings, and Good-Bye
 Message-Id: 
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
 
 
 	I have made a separate peace with I-Force, many
 of whom have been my friends for years.  As their guru
 Kevin Kelly notes, this *is* the neo-biological civilization,
 and the current degeneration of the G's and the rise of the
 I's is part of the natural order of things.
 
 	I am now going underground and will not be heard
 from again.
---------------------------
 From padgett@gdi.net  Tue Jan  2 21:45:52 1996
 Received: from gdi4.gdi.net by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA28796 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 21:45:52 EST
 Received: from pm2_01.gdi.net by gdi4.gdi.net with SMTP (5.65/1.2-eef)
 	id AA05037; Tue, 2 Jan 96 21:39:45 -0500
 Return-Path: 
 Message-Id: 
 In-Reply-To: <9601030029.AA21757@all.net>
 References: Conversation <9601030029.AA21757@all.net> with last message <9601030029.AA21757@all.net>
 Priority: Normal
 To: WarGame 
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 From: The Petersons 
 Subject: Re: WarGame Communication
 Date: Tue, 02 Jan 96 22:49:25 EST
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; X-MAPIextension=".TXT"
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 
 1> Having just assumed leadership of the I-team. I am not aware of 
 any illegal acts that have been performed nor do I assume any 
 responsibility for prior actions.
 
 2> The leader of the G-team has expressed a willingness to open
  a dialog however stipulation of item (1) must be accepted before 
 any such meaningful dialog can be established. It is appreciated 
 that by doing so the G-team has acknowleged our existance as a 
 political power.
 
 3> While in disagreement with the G-team actions, we, the I-team 
 are commited to operation only under the laws and constitutional  
 freedoms of the United States. We have been informed that a 
 radical group, the R-team, exists and has been the instrunent of 
 certain illegal and quasi-legal actions. The I-team is no part of this.
 
 4> We, the I-team have become aware of certain actions by the 
 G-team to supend part of the constitutional freedoms guarenteed 
 by the constitution. We are categorically against any attempt by 
 the G-team to supend constitutional protections under the guise of 
 terrorist activities.
 
 5> In the Boston resovoir incident we have genetic proof that the 
 drugs instituted were a product of the Savannah River facility 
 operated for CBW production by the United States government. 
 These genetic samples have been provided to the University of 
 Delft in the Netherlands for confirmation.
 
 6> We do not use encryption of any kind to pass secret messages 
 however some of our members are enguaged in biblical studies 
 which require chapter/verse references  from a modern version of 
 the King James Bible. To reduce bandwith, these are sent as 
 pointers to a copy of Strong's which was reproduced 
 electronically on CD-ROM. Unfortunately, copyright restrictions 
 prevent us from furnishing a copy to the G-team . If required, this 
 can be made available on a dial-up however this is hosted on an 
 Apple III which has  a 50 baud modem and can be reached only via 
 a 900 number.  It will also be necessary to use a mock-swedish 
 interpreter.
 
 7> We have word that the R-team has discovered a fundamental 
 flaw in the Yankee Nuclear Reactor software which will 
 necessitate shutdown of those systems in the morning. Since the 
 loss of Niagara power, this will effectively close down the entire 
 northeast. If these systems are kept on line, the safety of the 
 NorthEast corridor from a radiation spill during a temperature 
 excursion cannot be guarenteed.
 
 End transmission.
  
---------------------------
 From mdevost@chelsea.ios.com  Tue Jan  2 22:23:27 1996
 Received: from chelsea.ios.com by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA00294 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 22:23:27 EST
 Received: from ios.ios.com (ppp-15.ts-1.dc.idt.net [169.132.17.74]) by chelsea.ios.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA06836 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 22:14:40 -0500
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 22:14:40 -0500
 Message-Id: <199601030314.WAA06836@chelsea.ios.com>
 X-Sender: mdevost@chelsea.ios.com
 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
 To: game@all.net (WarGame)
 From: mdevost@chelsea.ios.com (Matthew G. Devost)
 Subject: Re: WarGame Communication
 
 > From padgett@gdi.net  Tue Jan  2 21:45:52 1996
 
 > 2> The leader of the G-team has expressed a willingness to open
 >  a dialog however stipulation of item (1) must be accepted before 
 > any such meaningful dialog can be established. It is appreciated 
 > that by doing so the G-team has acknowleged our existance as a 
 > political power.
 
 Perhaps the G-Team is simply trying to keep us busy with friendly chat while
 they prepare themselves to bring down our prized infrastructure.  Talk if we
 must, but we must also move ahead with our strategy formulation so as to
 have valid moves to offer come tomorrow noon.
  
 > 3> While in disagreement with the G-team actions, we, the I-team 
 > are commited to operation only under the laws and constitutional  
 > freedoms of the United States. We have been informed that a 
 > radical group, the R-team, exists and has been the instrunent of 
 > certain illegal and quasi-legal actions. The I-team is no part of this.
 
 Laws open to very broad interpretation.  We will get nowhere if we argue
 about what is within legal boundaries.  I think our major objective, are far
 as limits are concerned should be not to inflict harm or permanent damage on
 U.S. citizens or property.  By taking down DC power, one could argue that we
 have already broken the law.  We are also operating in violation of
 encryption laws.  Lets not get bogged down with PC issues and lets actually
 work on strategy!
 
 > 5> In the Boston resovoir incident we have genetic proof that the 
 > drugs instituted were a product of the Savannah River facility 
 > operated for CBW production by the United States government. 
 > These genetic samples have been provided to the University of 
 > Delft in the Netherlands for confirmation.
 
 Hmmm...I haven't gotten this message yet.
 
 > 
 > 6> We do not use encryption of any kind to pass secret messages 
 > however some of our members are enguaged in biblical studies 
 > which require chapter/verse references  from a modern version of 
 > the King James Bible. 
 
 I must have the wrong I-Force.  According the scenario we use encryption.
 Perhaps you are referring to Winn's comment about the G-Team using PGP?
 
 > 7> We have word that the R-team has discovered a fundamental 
 > flaw in the Yankee Nuclear Reactor software which will 
 > necessitate shutdown of those systems in the morning. Since the 
 > loss of Niagara power, this will effectively close down the entire 
 > northeast. If these systems are kept on line, the safety of the 
 > NorthEast corridor from a radiation spill during a temperature 
 > excursion cannot be guarenteed.
 
 Are the R-Force folks supposed to be strategic, yet extremist, allies of
 ours?  If so, why shut down power in the NE?  That will have a negative
 effect on our communication capabilities.  I think one of our three actions
 should be to pool our collective expertise and help debug the reactor
 software to keep it safely online.  Of course, this could be a ruse to
 distract us and the whole R-Force might just be govt psyops.  It seems odd
 that this flaw must be fixed or shut down within this time period since the
 reactor has been operating fine for many years.  Too convenient or else
 unnecessary intervention by the game contollers.
 
 Second thought...I don't buy it.  Lets do everything in our power to keep
 that system online and running and take our chances with meltdown, unless we
 are allowed to examine the code and see this critical flaw for ourselves.
 In fact, don't even ask...I propose we hack into the system and look for the
 error...if found we try to fix it and if we are unable to fix it, then we
 agree to let the system shut down.
 
 Any other thoughts?  Anyone?
 
 Matt
 ________________________________________________________________
 Matthew G. Devost          They tell me that this is "cyberspace."
 mdevost@chelsea.ios.com    I don't know what cyberspace is.
                            But, it sure feels like home.
                                             -Garth Brooks
 
---------------------------
 From 0005514706@mcimail.com  Tue Jan  2 23:31:05 1996
 Received: from gatekeeper.mcimail.com by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA02783 for /u/game/bin/game; Tue, 2 Jan 96 23:31:05 EST
 Received: from mailgate.mcimail.com (mailgate.mcimail.com [166.38.40.3]) by gatekeeper.mcimail.com (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id EAA11714; Wed, 3 Jan 1996 04:28:26 GMT
 Received: from mcimail.com by mailgate.mcimail.com id aa21592; 3 Jan 96 4:30 WET
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 96 23:29 EST
 From: Michael Wilson <0005514706@mcimail.com>
 To: G-Force 
 Subject: First move...
 Message-Id: <33960103042933/0005514706DC6EM@MCIMAIL.COM>
 
 Barring any yelling about changes, this is my pass on what I think we
 should submit to the President.  Now that Steele has taken the coward's
 way out, I'll baton pass to Winn in the event I'm out of the loop for
 too long.  I have about three hours before I'm out of the loop (with
 possibly one check of the mail) for 24 hours, maybe 36.  So this may
 be the move...
 ----
 To:	President of the United States
 Fr:	G-Force Team
 Re:	A course of action
 
 Mr. President, you have asked that we provide you with three courses of action; 
 I find, as leader of G-Force, that I can only provide you with one solid course 
 of action.  This course of action, however, does contain redundant fall-back 
 points; it is hoped that by striving for maximum effect in our moves, the few 
 points that we might accept partial success on will not hurt the overall effect 
 of the strategy.
 
 Two philosophical points are important to follow--
 
 First, that we endorse a policy of full disclosure.  This means that the 
 complete details of the crisis--the depth of the country's power difficulty and 
 the threat posed by the domestic rebel group--be made public.  It is my belief, 
 and the belief of the team, that we already suffer under a public perception 
 handicap; the only path to redemption is to offer the truth.  It will be 
 politically unpopular, leaders will suffer at the hands of pundits and polls, 
 but the price paid now is cheaper than the price paid later with interest.
 
 Second, the order the problem must be dealt with is as such:
 -- Remove the proximate cause of the civil unrest.  Clearly the political 
 solution of power rationing has met with opposition; this stance must be backed 
 away from.
 -- Restore civil order.  The public, those for whom the Constitution was 
 formulated, must be reassurred that the government is still acting for them, by 
 their rightfully elected officials.
 -- Damage control.  Resources critical to the proper functioning of government 
 must be restored to secure and trusted functionality.
 -- Protect the future.  Systems and safeguards must be put in place to assure 
 that the situation that has arisen may never happen again; subversion of the 
 proper function of majority rule must not be allowed to happen.  If majority 
 democratic rule is no longer acceptable to a majority of the electorate, 
 mechanisms are in place for a new system to be put tried.  Otherwise, the system
 must be made resistant to the whim of a minority--no matter how powerful or 
 proficient.
 -- Punish the guilty.  Damage has been done.  It remains to be seen at this 
 point whether this has been done with malice, or whether it was an unplanned 
 side-effect of an action that a few thought to be justified.  Government has a 
 function--to sustain the rule of law; it has another function, that being to 
 protect the opportunity for life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  Sometimes 
 the two functions are placed at odds with each other.  It may be worthwhile, in 
 the event that it appears functionally feasible and the individuals in question 
 pose no further threat, to offer amnesty as a mechanism for a quick and peaceful
 resolution to this crisis.
 
 Specific recommendations endorsed by the team:
 
 -- Restore full power across the board.
 - If necessary, use national guard units, FEMA resources, and law enforcement to
 re-establish civilian control and complete service.  It is the belief of the 
 team that local units, while not backed with overwhelming physical force, gain 
 much by being tied to the local community and region; this reduces the necessity
 for force, and also demonstrates that a civilian force and not a military coup 
 are in control.
 - Doing so removes the proximate cause of the current conflict we are engaged 
 in, and restores the opportunity for civil order.
 - With power restored, and details of the energy crisis given, perhaps another 
 solution will be put forth; if not, at least an attempt can be made to secure 
 popular support for austerity measures.
 
 -- Initiate a crash program for energy sources.
 - Emergency measures have allowed massive technical strides in the past, for 
 instance with the space program.
 - Such a massive government initiative demonstrates the very function of 
 government--there are some things we do best as a collective unit.  The country 
 faces a crisis of uncalculable magnitude; programs to conserve the current 
 resources are much more acceptable in the face of a continuing effort to solve 
 the situation once and forever.  We also restore public faith in the purpose of 
 government, and the willingness of the currently constituted body to act in such
 faith.
 
 -- Devolve critical governmental functions from a centralized system; secure or 
 critical functions that are not already independently viable must be moved to 
 support by the military infrastructure.
 - Be certain to show they remain under civilian command; do not move social 
 support programs to military, head off accusations of coup or military 
 subversion of governmental functions.
 - Use the military infrastructure, but only as a tool.
 
 -- Disclosure by rightfully elected political structure on the details of the 
 energy problem.
 - There should be given a special briefing to Congress, through a physical 
 assembly, facilitated by military transport where necessary.  All courtesy must 
 be extended to Congressmen and Senators; possibly having military escorts carry 
 a briefing package (in a multimedia format) prepared by President with 
 individual-by-individual authentication explaining the problem.  To reduce the 
 burden on the President for this effort, it is suggested that the President 
 first tap the local resources of Congress; in all likelihood, Committee chairs 
 and other key members have remained in the Capital.  Presentations must be given
 to them to understand the scope of the problem, and they may also be used to 
 create presentations, or act as envoys to convince Congress to assemble 
 physically.
 
 -- Disclosure of radical domestic rebel group.
 - Initiate a top priority LEA investigation, with full contact tracing, usage of
 informers, an 800 number for people to report leads.  While this forces a 
 criminalization of those involved in the rebel group, such a position can be 
 backed off from at a later time for the protection of an amnesty, if such is 
 granted.
 - Create and continue a media campaign about "...how the government was 
 attempting to cope with a nation breaking energy crisis, in a fair and balanced 
 fashion to prevent the innocent from suffering ; the radical group acted to exploit 
 weaknesses in our democratic system for their own benefit, and the benefit of 
 their chosen few ..."  It is 
 possible that an I-force propaganda campaign to associate blame for such back on
 the government; in such case, the government must stress that the initial 
 program was intended to be fair, and share the burden among all, not to give any
 preferential treatment, as was actually implemented by the I-Force.
 - Reassure the public that the situation is harsh, but will be under control.  
 Give considerable exposure to efforts to maximize energy resources, cautionary 
 tales about certain media sources and accuraccy.  Implement Emergency Broadcast 
 System across media spectrum to counter I-force propaganda with redundancy in 
 each media group and region (e.g. multiple radio freqs broadcasting the same 
 message to limit local-based spoofing or jamming) to stretch opposition 
 resources.
 - Have elected political leaders reassure their regions in person, facilitated 
 by military energy resources; establish a secure courier mechanism with 
 political bodies to avoid future perversions of communications.
 
 -- Restore communications security.
 - Move all government systems to harsh security practices, including fully 
 isolated systems.
 - Roll-over key distribution system to move to a new keyset.  It is the belief 
 of the team that necessary government services never used key-escrow 
 cryptographic systems, but if so, such practice must be discontinued.  Key 
 distribution must be by secure method or physical courier.
 - If control of U.S. equipment cannot be regained, it may be necessary to appeal
 to outside sources for satellite connections; in all likelihood, the domestic 
 military and intelligence systems can be secured and put into use.
 - Disclose the depth of penetration to marketplace, and we suggest new schemes 
 be made available from NSA.  Such systems must be strong, and also withstand 
 public scrutiny and review of the cipher process.
 - Inform key decision makers that careful review of their data and markets may 
 be necessary, as penetration has already been seen to be selfishly oriented, and
 it may have been profit motivated, at least by some elements.  It is important 
 to have the confidence of the financial markets; it is also important that they 
 be on their guard to prevent I-Force leverage from that domain.
 - While it might be seen as an option to shut down access to the NII, it is 
 viewed by the team that such an option may be too drastic.  While it would slow 
 efforts by the I-Force to continue their subversion, the economic price is seen 
 as being too great except in a drastic situation.  It is also possible that 
 I-Force will stand-down from their current position; if so, it is critical that 
 they have some channel of communication that they themselves trust.
 - Strong cryptographic systems should not be made illegal.  This would become a 
 rallying cry for the opposition, as it limits the right to free speech, and the 
 G-Force believes that we must not subvert the Constitution; it should be made 
 known, however, that for a time, until the I-Force is dealt with, that strong 
 cryptography will be viewed with some suspicion and subject to investigation, 
 but necessarily so.  Strong cryptosystems are a commercial necessity; they can 
 also be abused.  For a time it will be beneficial to adopt a 'trust but verify' 
 policy.
 
 We believe that these measures will begin to set the situation right.  Toward 
 that end, we have also initiated contact with the leader of the rebel group, in 
 a hope to resolve this situation quickly; it may in fact be considered 
 worthwhile to inform them of this plan of action, showing we are acting 
 publically and in good faith.
 
 MW, G-Force leader
 
---------------------------
 From game  Wed Jan  3 07:59:25 1996
 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 96 07:59:25 EST
 From: game (WarGame)
 Received: by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA20256 for /u/game/bin/game; Wed, 3 Jan 96 07:59:25 EST
 Message-Id: <9601031259.AA20256@all.net>
 Apparently-To: game@all.net
 
 ***** DIPCOM *****
 
 All Players - Please Be Aware
 -----------------------------
 
 Move 1 is scheduled for completion in less than 4 hours.
 
 An End-of-move message will be sent in 3 hours - at that time, team
 leaders should finalize their reports and send them to game@all.net
 
 Move 2 will begin at 12:00 EST - Full details will be provided at that
 time.
 
---------------------------
 From game  Wed Jan  3 07:59:54 1996
 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 96 07:59:54 EST
 From: game (WarGame)
 Received: by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA20340 for /u/game/bin/game; Wed, 3 Jan 96 07:59:54 EST
 Message-Id: <9601031259.AA20340@all.net>
 Apparently-To: game@all.net
 
 ***** GCOM *****
 
 Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential
 
 The folks in IW have really done it this time.  Talk about a crazy
 scheme.  We asked them to rig it so we could listen in on the enemy's
 communications, but instead, they figured out a clever scheme in which a
 supposedly weakened computer is put in place of a broken system, and the
 enemy is allowed to think they broke into it and that they can now
 listen to all outbound communications from our team leader.  Their
 breakin attempt is currently underway.  From now on, any communications
 with the following line in their body sent from our fearless leader will
 be automatically sent to the enemy.
 
 			***** SPOOF *****
 
 Please note that this line must appear by itself within the body of the message
 and the message must come from the team leader. (Currently Winn - send mail to
 fc@all.net to change leaders again.)
 
 Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential
---------------------------
 From game  Wed Jan  3 08:00:04 1996
 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 96 08:00:04 EST
 From: game (WarGame)
 Received: by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA20374 for /u/game/bin/game; Wed, 3 Jan 96 08:00:04 EST
 Message-Id: <9601031300.AA20374@all.net>
 Apparently-To: game@all.net
 
 ***** ICOM *****
 
 Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential
 
 The folks in IW have really done it this time.  An enemy computer broke
 down, and when it was replaced, our people were able to plant a Trojan
 horse before the system was fully and securely configured.  We think we
 will now be able to intercept communications from their leader.
 
 Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential
---------------------------
 From mdevost@chelsea.ios.com  Wed Jan  3 08:25:33 1996
 Received: from chelsea.ios.com by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA22714 for /u/game/bin/game; Wed, 3 Jan 96 08:25:33 EST
 Received: (from mdevost@localhost) by chelsea.ios.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id IAA28311; Wed, 3 Jan 1996 08:16:48 -0500
 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 08:16:48 -0500 (EST)
 From: Matthew Devost 
 To: WarGame 
 Subject: Re: WarGame Communication
 In-Reply-To: <9601031259.AA20310@all.net>
 Message-Id: 
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
 
 >  Move 1 is scheduled for completion in less than 4 hours.
 
 I doubt that we (I-Force) will be able to contribute as we have not yet 
 had any discussions on this topic.  Are there only three of us on this 
 team?  I have been receiving the moderators messages so I am going to 
 assume that there is nothing wrong at my end and that people just aren't 
 participating.  
 
 Awaiting your responses...
 
 Matt
---------------------------
 From ab129@dayton.wright.edu  Wed Jan  3 10:12:31 1996
 Received: from selene.wright.edu by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA26960 for /u/game/bin/game; Wed, 3 Jan 96 10:12:31 EST
 Received: from dayton.wright.edu by mailhost.wright.edu (PMDF V5.0-5 #2485)
  id <01HZKJ2RVF74005AVN@mailhost.wright.edu> for game@all.net; Wed,
  03 Jan 1996 10:11:53 -0500 (EST)
 Received: by dayton.wright.edu; id AA10778; Wed, 03 Jan 1996 10:11:43 -0500
 Date: Wed, 03 Jan 1996 10:11:43 -0500
 From: Mark Perry 
 Subject: WarGame Comm
 To: game@all.net
 Message-Id: <9601031511.AA10778@dayton.wright.edu>
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
 
 It appears that I am on the "G-force" team, as I received a message
 intended for G-force members.  Assuming this is the case, I
 would note that years ago (back in the 1990's) US electric utilities,
 although they bought and sold power from each other, controlled their
 power production and distribution independently.  They were, afterall,
 separate companies.  We need to breakup ConFed back into independent
 companies.  Most electricity in the US is produced by coal and nuclear 
 fuel, oil being used mainly for "peaking".  Most electrical
 distribution problems are therefore going to be with Utilities with a
 winter peak, which is mainly the Northeast.  As far as the
 telecommunications problem, the key to solving this one is
 decentralization, remember, that was the original idea with ARPANet
 back in the cold war.  The bigger the levers, the more of these
 would-be Napoleans will be grabbing for them.  By the way we might
 want to get some of our overseas deployed military forces back here
 soon, afterall the Bosnia situation doesn't seem to be getting any
 better and we have been over there for 25 years now.
 
 MSP
---------------------------
 From game  Wed Jan  3 10:15:45 1996
 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 96 10:15:45 EST
 From: game (WarGame)
 Received: by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA27117 for /u/game/bin/game; Wed, 3 Jan 96 10:15:45 EST
 Message-Id: <9601031515.AA27117@all.net>
 Apparently-To: game@all.net
 
 ***** ICOM *****
 
 Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential
 
 The people in IW think they have made a big mistake.  They now have
 reason to believe that the enemy has found out about our recent tap.  It
 is almost certain that some of the recent messages may have been
 deliberate attempts at deception, but we don't know what portion of them
 were legitimate. 
 
 Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential
---------------------------
 From game  Wed Jan  3 10:15:55 1996
 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 96 10:15:55 EST
 From: game (WarGame)
 Received: by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA27148 for /u/game/bin/game; Wed, 3 Jan 96 10:15:55 EST
 Message-Id: <9601031515.AA27148@all.net>
 Apparently-To: game@all.net
 
 ***** GCOM *****
 
 Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential
 
 One of our agents reports that the enemy now believes that some of the
 spoofed messages we have sent were deliberate attempts at deception.
 We have therefore resecured the system the enemy was permitted to break
 into so as to retain an appearance that we only recently noticed their
 entry.  Spoofing will no longer work.
 
 Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential
---------------------------
 From ab129@dayton.wright.edu  Wed Jan  3 11:09:26 1996
 Received: from selene.wright.edu by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA29290 for /u/game/bin/game; Wed, 3 Jan 96 11:09:26 EST
 Received: from dayton.wright.edu by mailhost.wright.edu (PMDF V5.0-5 #2485)
  id <01HZKL2BP2EO00BMC4@mailhost.wright.edu> for game@all.net; Wed,
  03 Jan 1996 11:08:47 -0500 (EST)
 Received: by dayton.wright.edu; id AA04276; Wed, 03 Jan 1996 11:08:38 -0500
 Date: Wed, 03 Jan 1996 11:08:38 -0500
 From: Mark Perry 
 Subject: Re: WarGame Communication
 To: game@all.net
 Message-Id: <9601031608.AA04276@dayton.wright.edu>
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
 
  Are we going to use the US military for these operations? Normally, the FBI
 and
 SS and domestic law enforcement are used, but they have limited capability for
  secure comm and show of force (whether we use it or not.)
 
  The VERY SECOND that Congress is back in DC, Mr. President, we should have a
 180
  repeal of the Posse Comatatus Act (spelling?) that prohibits the use of US
 military in domestic operations. The repeal must be carefully done so that the
  civilian population does not buy into the COUP theory being put forth by the
  I-Force.
 
 We need their capabilities, tools, comm and manpower. They could easily report
  to the FBI or FEMA or other agency and not function on their own. A combined
  annoucement:
         - Pres,
         - Defense
         - FBI
         - FEMA
  etc. will be necessary.
 
  Peace & Happy Holidays
  Winn
 
 Be VERY careful with the Posse Comitatus Act.  Securing the trust of the
 populace is essential.  Let me quote from a book by one of the original
 Info Warfare experts back in the 1990's, Winn Schwartau:
 
 "When law enforcement abuses its power, trust of authority
 disintegrates.  As a result, some people are openly antagonistic
 toward the government an consider themselves technological
 survivalists-small, ingenious Davids up against the big
 Brother Goliath."
 
 These problems have been simmering for decades and heavy-handed
 measures only make it worse.  Got to go losing my link.
 
 MSP
 
---------------------------
 From game  Wed Jan  3 11:13:53 1996
 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 96 11:13:53 EST
 From: game (WarGame)
 Received: by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA29546 for /u/game/bin/game; Wed, 3 Jan 96 11:13:53 EST
 Message-Id: <9601031613.AA29546@all.net>
 Apparently-To: game@all.net
 
 ***** DIPCOM *****
 
 The current move in the WarGame is now officially over.  Reports from the
 team leaders are due in Email within 30 minutes.
 
 The next move should commence in 1 hour from now.
---------------------------
 From padgett@gdi4.gdi.net  Wed Jan  3 11:21:36 1996
 Received: from gdi4.gdi.net by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA00298 for /u/game/bin/game; Wed, 3 Jan 96 11:21:36 EST
 Received:  by gdi4.gdi.net (5.65/1.2-eef)
 	id AA11432; Wed, 3 Jan 96 11:15:33 -0500
 Return-Path: 
 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 11:07:19 -500 (EST)
 From: Padgett Peterson 
 Subject: Re: WarGame Communication
 To: WarGame 
 In-Reply-To: <9601030323.AA00320@all.net>
 Message-Id: 
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
 
 As I-team leader, the major problem we face is that we have no secure
 communications available. In fact the membership of the I-team is not
 even known, nor is it known if the game moderator can be trusted since
 there have been no published rules provided before the start of the session
 and anything received in-channel after the start is suspect.
 
 Consequently all communications must be assumed to be available to the
 G-force. Given that the position must be taken that no illegal activities
 can be condoned or attempted. Instead only known true information that
 can be made public may be exchanged.
 
 It is my feeling that the goals of the I-team can be accomplished through
 simple quid-pro-quo exchange with the G-force since they need the 
 infrastructure which we control to sustain themselves.
 
 Suggestions on how to best proceed in light of the above facts will be 
 appreciated.
 
 L-I
 
---------------------------
 From padgett@gdi4.gdi.net  Wed Jan  3 11:26:41 1996
 Received: from gdi4.gdi.net by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA00500 for /u/game/bin/game; Wed, 3 Jan 96 11:26:41 EST
 Received:  by gdi4.gdi.net (5.65/1.2-eef)
 	id AA11473; Wed, 3 Jan 96 11:20:38 -0500
 Return-Path: 
 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 11:17:06 -500 (EST)
 From: Padgett Peterson 
 Subject: Re: WarGame Communication  
 To: WarGame 
 In-Reply-To: <9601031300.AA20440@all.net>
 Message-Id: 
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
 
 
 Only problem is that we have no way of knowing a) who sent this
 or
 b: who it refers to
 or
 c: which computer is compromised
 
 L-I
 >  
 >  Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential
 >  
 >  The folks in IW have really done it this time.  An enemy computer broke
 >  down, and when it was replaced, our people were able to plant a Trojan
 >  horse before the system was fully and securely configured.  We think we
 >  will now be able to intercept communications from their leader.
 >  
 >  Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential - Confidential
 > 
 
---------------------------
 From padgett@gdi4.gdi.net  Wed Jan  3 11:31:05 1996
 Received: from gdi4.gdi.net by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA00717 for /u/game/bin/game; Wed, 3 Jan 96 11:31:05 EST
 Received:  by gdi4.gdi.net (5.65/1.2-eef)
 	id AA11507; Wed, 3 Jan 96 11:25:02 -0500
 Return-Path: 
 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 11:23:56 -500 (EST)
 From: Padgett Peterson 
 Subject: Re: WarGame Communication
 To: WarGame 
 In-Reply-To: <9601031614.AA29578@all.net>
 Message-Id: 
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
 
 
 Having nocertain knowlege of who is playing and who is on which side,
 the only was to win is not to play at all. - Padgett
 
 On Wed, 3 Jan -1, WarGame wrote:
 
 > X-Class: Fast
 > Precedence: first-class
 > Priority: fast
 > >From: game@all.net
 > To: padgett@gdi.net
 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
 > Status: RO
 > 
 >  From game  Wed Jan  3 11:13:53 1996
 >  Date: Wed, 3 Jan 96 11:13:53 EST
 >  From: game (WarGame)
 >  Received: by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
 >          id AA29546 for /u/game/bin/game; Wed, 3 Jan 96 11:13:53 EST
 >  Message-Id: <9601031613.AA29546@all.net>
 >  Apparently-To: game@all.net
 >  
 >  
 >  The current move in the WarGame is now officially over.  Reports from the
 >  team leaders are due in Email within 30 minutes.
 >  
 >  The next move should commence in 1 hour from now.
 > 
 
---------------------------
 From 0005514706@mcimail.com  Wed Jan  3 11:31:32 1996
 Received: from gatekeeper.mcimail.com by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA00777 for /u/game/bin/game; Wed, 3 Jan 96 11:31:32 EST
 Received: from mailgate.mcimail.com (mailgate.mcimail.com [166.38.40.3]) by gatekeeper.mcimail.com (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id QAA31888; Wed, 3 Jan 1996 16:28:50 GMT
 Received: from mcimail.com by mailgate.mcimail.com id ao02755;
           3 Jan 96 16:31 WET
 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 96 11:28 EST
 From: Michael Wilson <0005514706@mcimail.com>
 To: WarGame 
 Subject: RE: WarGame Communication
 Message-Id: <92960103162829/0005514706DC3EM@MCIMAIL.COM>
 
 AUTOFORWARD, BARRING OVERRIDE:
 ----
 To:	President of the United States
 Fr:	G-Force Team
 Re:	A course of action
 
 Mr. President, you have asked that we provide you with three courses of action; 
 I find, as leader of G-Force, that I can only provide you with one solid course 
 of action.  This course of action, however, does contain redundant fall-back 
 points; it is hoped that by striving for maximum effect in our moves, the few 
 points that we might accept partial success on will not hurt the overall effect 
 of the strategy.
 
 Two philosophical points are important to follow--
 
 First, that we endorse a policy of full disclosure.  This means that the 
 complete details of the crisis--the depth of the country's power difficulty and 
 the threat posed by the domestic rebel group--be made public.  It is my belief, 
 and the belief of the team, that we already suffer under a public perception 
 handicap; the only path to redemption is to offer the truth.  It will be 
 politically unpopular, leaders will suffer at the hands of pundits and polls, 
 but the price paid now is cheaper than the price paid later with interest.
 
 Second, the order the problem must be dealt with is as such:
 -- Remove the proximate cause of the civil unrest.  Clearly the political 
 solution of power rationing has met with opposition; this stance must be backed 
 away from.
 -- Restore civil order.  The public, those for whom the Constitution was 
 formulated, must be reassurred that the government is still acting for them, by 
 their rightfully elected officials.
 -- Damage control.  Resources critical to the proper functioning of government 
 must be restored to secure and trusted functionality.
 -- Protect the future.  Systems and safeguards must be put in place to assure 
 that the situation that has arisen may never happen again; subversion of the 
 proper function of majority rule must not be allowed to happen.  If majority 
 democratic rule is no longer acceptable to a majority of the electorate, 
 mechanisms are in place for a new system to be put tried.  Otherwise, the system
 must be made resistant to the whim of a minority--no matter how powerful or 
 proficient.
 -- Punish the guilty.  Damage has been done.  It remains to be seen at this 
 point whether this has been done with malice, or whether it was an unplanned 
 side-effect of an action that a few thought to be justified.  Government has a 
 function--to sustain the rule of law; it has another function, that being to 
 protect the opportunity for life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  Sometimes 
 the two functions are placed at odds with each other.  It may be worthwhile, in 
 the event that it appears functionally feasible and the individuals in question 
 pose no further threat, to offer amnesty as a mechanism for a quick and peaceful
 resolution to this crisis.
 
 Specific recommendations endorsed by the team:
 
 -- Restore full power across the board.
 - If necessary, use national guard units, FEMA resources, and law enforcement to
 re-establish civilian control and complete service.  It is the belief of the 
 team that local units, while not backed with overwhelming physical force, gain 
 much by being tied to the local community and region; this reduces the necessity
 for force, and also demonstrates that a civilian force and not a military coup 
 are in control.
 - Doing so removes the proximate cause of the current conflict we are engaged 
 in, and restores the opportunity for civil order.
 - With power restored, and details of the energy crisis given, perhaps another 
 solution will be put forth; if not, at least an attempt can be made to secure 
 popular support for austerity measures.
 
 -- Initiate a crash program for energy sources.
 - Emergency measures have allowed massive technical strides in the past, for 
 instance with the space program.
 - Such a massive government initiative demonstrates the very function of 
 government--there are some things we do best as a collective unit.  The country 
 faces a crisis of uncalculable magnitude; programs to conserve the current 
 resources are much more acceptable in the face of a continuing effort to solve 
 the situation once and forever.  We also restore public faith in the purpose of 
 government, and the willingness of the currently constituted body to act in such
 faith.
 
 -- Devolve critical governmental functions from a centralized system; secure or 
 critical functions that are not already independently viable must be moved to 
 support by the military infrastructure.
 - Be certain to show they remain under civilian command; do not move social 
 support programs to military, head off accusations of coup or military 
 subversion of governmental functions.
 - Use the military infrastructure, but only as a tool.
 
 -- Disclosure by rightfully elected political structure on the details of the 
 energy problem.
 - There should be given a special briefing to Congress, through a physical 
 assembly, facilitated by military transport where necessary.  All courtesy must 
 be extended to Congressmen and Senators; possibly having military escorts carry 
 a briefing package (in a multimedia format) prepared by President with 
 individual-by-individual authentication explaining the problem.  To reduce the 
 burden on the President for this effort, it is suggested that the President 
 first tap the local resources of Congress; in all likelihood, Committee chairs 
 and other key members have remained in the Capital.  Presentations must be given
 to them to understand the scope of the problem, and they may also be used to 
 create presentations, or act as envoys to convince Congress to assemble 
 physically.
 
 -- Disclosure of radical domestic rebel group.
 - Initiate a top priority LEA investigation, with full contact tracing, usage of
 informers, an 800 number for people to report leads.  While this forces a 
 criminalization of those involved in the rebel group, such a position can be 
 backed off from at a later time for the protection of an amnesty, if such is 
 granted.
 - Create and continue a media campaign about "...how the government was 
 attempting to cope with a nation breaking energy crisis, in a fair and balanced 
 fashion to prevent the innocent from suffering ; the radical group acted to exploit 
 weaknesses in our democratic system for their own benefit, and the benefit of 
 their chosen few ..."  It is 
 possible that an I-force propaganda campaign to associate blame for such back on
 the government; in such case, the government must stress that the initial 
 program was intended to be fair, and share the burden among all, not to give any
 preferential treatment, as was actually implemented by the I-Force.
 - Reassure the public that the situation is harsh, but will be under control.  
 Give considerable exposure to efforts to maximize energy resources, cautionary 
 tales about certain media sources and accuraccy.  Implement Emergency Broadcast 
 System across media spectrum to counter I-force propaganda with redundancy in 
 each media group and region (e.g. multiple radio freqs broadcasting the same 
 message to limit local-based spoofing or jamming) to stretch opposition 
 resources.
 - Have elected political leaders reassure their regions in person, facilitated 
 by military energy resources; establish a secure courier mechanism with 
 political bodies to avoid future perversions of communications.
 
 -- Restore communications security.
 - Move all government systems to harsh security practices, including fully 
 isolated systems.
 - Roll-over key distribution system to move to a new keyset.  It is the belief 
 of the team that necessary government services never used key-escrow 
 cryptographic systems, but if so, such practice must be discontinued.  Key 
 distribution must be by secure method or physical courier.
 - If control of U.S. equipment cannot be regained, it may be necessary to appeal
 to outside sources for satellite connections; in all likelihood, the domestic 
 military and intelligence systems can be secured and put into use.
 - Disclose the depth of penetration to marketplace, and we suggest new schemes 
 be made available from NSA.  Such systems must be strong, and also withstand 
 public scrutiny and review of the cipher process.
 - Inform key decision makers that careful review of their data and markets may 
 be necessary, as penetration has already been seen to be selfishly oriented, and
 it may have been profit motivated, at least by some elements.  It is important 
 to have the confidence of the financial markets; it is also important that they 
 be on their guard to prevent I-Force leverage from that domain.
 - While it might be seen as an option to shut down access to the NII, it is 
 viewed by the team that such an option may be too drastic.  While it would slow 
 efforts by the I-Force to continue their subversion, the economic price is seen 
 as being too great except in a drastic situation.  It is also possible that 
 I-Force will stand-down from their current position; if so, it is critical that 
 they have some channel of communication that they themselves trust.
 - Strong cryptographic systems should not be made illegal.  This would become a 
 rallying cry for the opposition, as it limits the right to free speech, and the 
 G-Force believes that we must not subvert the Constitution; it should be made 
 known, however, that for a time, until the I-Force is dealt with, that strong 
 cryptography will be viewed with some suspicion and subject to investigation, 
 but necessarily so.  Strong cryptosystems are a commercial necessity; they can 
 also be abused.  For a time it will be beneficial to adopt a 'trust but verify' 
 policy.
 
 We believe that these measures will begin to set the situation right.  Toward 
 that end, we have also initiated contact with the leader of the rebel group, in 
 a hope to resolve this situation quickly; it may in fact be considered 
 worthwhile to inform them of this plan of action, showing we are acting 
 publically and in good faith.
 
 MW, G-Force leader
 
---------------------------
 From game  Wed Jan  3 11:54:50 1996
 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 96 11:54:50 EST
 From: game (WarGame)
 Received: by all.net (4.1/3.2.012693-Management Analytics);
         id AA01700 for /u/game/bin/game; Wed, 3 Jan 96 11:54:50 EST
 Message-Id: <9601031654.AA01700@all.net>
 Apparently-To: game@all.net
 
 ***** DIPCOM *****
 
 NOTICE - NOTICE - NOTICE - NOTICE - NOTICE - NOTICE - NOTICE - NOTICE
 
 Today's WarGame is being suspended to allow us to assess the results to
 date.  We would appreciate your opinions on the game and ask that you
 send them to iw@all.net.
 
 Enclosed please find a copy of the initial report on the game likely to
 appear in this evening's iw mailing list.  Please feel free to comment
 on this to iw@all.net. 
 
 As of now - Noon EST - the game is suspended.  All game mail will be
 automatically forwarded to iw@all.net.
 
 ==========================================================================
 
 WarGame Report - preliminary findings
 =====================================
 
 We learned a great deal from this first game, and I wanted to briefly
 summarize (and get comments from the game and list members) some initial
 reactions.  I have given 3 examples of each of the initial thoughts I
 have - more analysis is appropriate at a later time. 
 
 	1 - Information technology is supposed to eliminate the
 	"fog of war", but at least in this game, it created a fog
 	of its own.
 
 		- Long delay times were present in many of the players'
 		mail services.  For example, one player had delays in
 		the range of several hours (at fastest) because of a
 		military gateway.  Some messages may have never passed
 		(because security stopped them?)
 
 		- The server hosting the game (all.net) had very good
 		turn-around times - average communications were processed
 		in less than 1 minute (from first arrival to full dispatch).
 		The people with direct Internet connections seemed to be
 		able to almost interact, while others seemed to be left out
 		in the cold.  This time delay issue creates problems in the
 		way people dominate the conversation.
 
 		- The opportunities for spoofing and bugging that were
 		presented were never really exploited properly - or even
 		considered very deeply.  In one case, a team that knew they
 		were being listened to identified the fact to the other team
 		in their communications - a possible blunder.
 
 	2 - Organizational issues were never settled among the team
 	members.
 
 		- It was anticipated that the teams would form some sort
 		of organization and create a method for addressing issues
 		for the game, but neither group did anything more than
 		bounce a few ideas around - at least organizationally.
 
 		- In all of the in-person games I have seen, personalities
 		play a role in interaction and people talk about small
 		issues in some detail.  In this game, several people came with
 		laundry lists of items in long communications.  This style
 		difference may be an important thing to control or understand.
 
 		- Nobody seemed to have any structure in their approach to the
 		issues.  Most people simply expressed a series of seemingly
 		independent ideas with no organizing principles behind them.
 
 	3 - Interaction levels were very low.
 
 		- G-team got started in the afternoon, but I-team didn't do
 		anything at all until the evening - and when they did, their
 		interaction was very light - dispite a lot of chances.
 
 		- This game was all volunteer with no day-time allocated to
 		it.  As a result, some people could not communicate while at
 		work , while others could ONLY communicate while at work.
 
 		- Some people didn't like the style of interaction and the
 		"header" information provided by the game software.  Nobody
 		seemed to investigate this as a possible information source.
 
 	4 - G-team made significant progress - I-team seemed unable to start.
 
 		- G-team quickly covered the issues of communications security
 		and decided that honest and openness were the best things for
 		them to follow.  They didn't appear to care that I-team might
 		be listenning in - and when they found out about a tap, they
 		continued unhindered.
 
 		- I-team started late, failed to follow through, couldn't adapt
 		to the scenario very well, harped on things they couldn't change,
 		and found it hard to get into the scenario.
 
 		- Both teams had problems dealing with not knowing their teammates
 		but G-team seemed to be able to get past it, while I-team just
 		got frustrated.
 
 ==========================================================================
 
  END   -  END   -  END   -  END   -  END   -  END   -  END   -  END
 NOTICE - NOTICE - NOTICE - NOTICE - NOTICE - NOTICE - NOTICE - NOTICE

================================================================================