Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/content/30/8410730/html/index.php:2) in /home/content/30/8410730/html/wp-includes/feed-rss2.php on line 8
The Orlando Doctrine » Proportionality http://orlandodoctrine.com The Network Use of Force Continuum Wed, 28 Jan 2015 18:40:21 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.33 Claims that cyberspace is now cyberbattlefield http://orlandodoctrine.com/?p=272 http://orlandodoctrine.com/?p=272#comments Tue, 12 Nov 2013 12:46:49 +0000 http://orlandodoctrine.com/?p=272 http://resources.infosecinstitute.com/classified-nsa-exploit-tools-radon-dewsweeper-work/

From the article:

Security expert Bruce Schneier is one of the most authoritative experts who revealed that the NSA has a wide-ranging arsenal of zero-day exploits to use for cyber operations. The revelation isn’t surprising, the security community is aware of the great effort spent by governments on cyber operations. Many intelligence agencies have created dedicated internal units, specialized in hacking for sabotage and cyber espionage. Almost every government is improving its cyber capabilities, in many cases they’re working in the development of cyber weapons.

The article goes on to describe two alleged NSA tools, one using RF to communicate. So, my question is:

Does a government data collection / espionage activity, even one that that has the ability to become malicious, rise to the level of warfare? Espionage is not war. Thats why the US sent a Russian supermodel packing a few years ago, rather than fire missiles on Moscow, back before Anna Chapman appeared in Playboy, or proclaimed her love for Snowden.

Lets be clear, espionage is not war.

But maybe its preparation for it. Right, China, Russia, Israel, DPRK, UK, FRG, Australia, Brazil?

http://orlandodoctrine.com/?feed=rss2&p=272 5
Cyber mass shooter http://orlandodoctrine.com/?p=264 http://orlandodoctrine.com/?p=264#comments Fri, 04 Oct 2013 17:02:03 +0000 http://orlandodoctrine.com/?p=264 http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/3/cyber-mass-shooter-poses-future-threat-computer-se/

What a great article. Of course General Hayden’s comments beg the question, how do you stop a criminal, if you can’t defend yourself? This really goes directly to the need to be able to respond to an immediate threat with a proportional use of force in self-defense. Of course, some will argue that it is illegal, and some will say that it invites retaliation, and others will continue the attribution arguments. I will point to the Network Use of Force Continuum, which indicates that if you are not appropriately defending your networks, then it is difficult to justify a more aggressive form of self defense.

From the article:

The fastest-growing cyber threat is from a kind of digital mass shooter, a deranged or outraged hacker able to obtain cyberweapons currently available only to nation-states and organized crime, a former senior U.S. intelligence official said Thursday.

“They’re just mad, they’re mad at the world,” said retired Air ForceGen. Michael Hayden. “They may have demands that you or I cannot understand.”

Mr. Hayden warned that within five years hackers “will acquire the [cyberattack] capabilities that we now associate with criminal gangs or nation states,” such as being able to conduct online sabotage of industrial control systems that run power plants, factories and utilities.

Thanks General Hayden! You set them up and we’ll keeping knocking them down, sir.

http://orlandodoctrine.com/?feed=rss2&p=264 1
WhiteRabbit, on why Hackback is a bad idea http://orlandodoctrine.com/?p=244 http://orlandodoctrine.com/?p=244#comments Tue, 04 Jun 2013 03:06:37 +0000 http://orlandodoctrine.com/?p=244 hp’s Rafal Los, the WhiteRabbit on why hackback is a bad idea.

No argument. Its probably a bad idea to hackback, unless you are reasonably certain that:

a) you are the toughest kid on the playground; or
B) you have nothing left to lose, because it is a matter of life or death.

Much like in the real-world. Which begs the question:

Why are we still stuck in the 90’s mentality that what happens on the Internet is not IRL?

  • Kids are committing suicide over cyber-bullying.
  • Businesses go bankrupt because of cybercrime.
  • Your company is probably paying Millions to protect itself from network crime, terror, hacktivists and state sponsored espionage. Probably way more than it pays for physical security.

Can we agree that this is a real problem, not an imaginary one, where a cyber bully flicks your cyber ear, and you cyber respond with a cyber insult? Instead a real person did something really bad to you using the dangerous weapon attached to his keyboard, and you have to demonstrate an immediate ability to protect yourself, or the bad guy will do it again. This is real life, and there are real losses, do you hire armed, or unarmed cybersecurity guards to mitigate your risk?

http://orlandodoctrine.com/?feed=rss2&p=244 0
Spat between two Dutch companies sparks record-breaking 300Gbps DDoS attack – Yahoo! News http://orlandodoctrine.com/?p=243 http://orlandodoctrine.com/?p=243#comments Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:30:28 +0000 http://orlandodoctrine.com/?p=243 Spat between two Dutch companies sparks record-breaking 300Gbps DDoS attack – Yahoo! News.

So, Spamhaus blacklists a hosting company, then Spamhaus gets hit by 300 GBPS of DDOS action. Looks like for Cyberbunker, there was immediacy, and there was a proportional response in the Disrupt spectrum, at least if Cyberbunker is doing it.

Why proportional? The blacklisting would have disrupted the business of Cyberbunker.

What do you think?

http://orlandodoctrine.com/?feed=rss2&p=243 0
Schneier on Security: More on Chinese Cyberattacks http://orlandodoctrine.com/?p=239 http://orlandodoctrine.com/?p=239#comments Thu, 21 Feb 2013 20:34:21 +0000 http://orlandodoctrine.com/?p=239 Schneier on Security: More on Chinese Cyberattacks.

Schneier disagrees with active defense. From the post:

Because espionage unfolds over months or years in realtime, we can triangulate the origin of an exfiltration attack with some certainty. During the fog of a real cyber war attack, which is more likely to happen in milliseconds, the kind of forensic work that Mandiant did would not be possible. (In fact, we might just well be “Gandalfed” and pin the attack on the wrong enemy.)

“Gandalfed” cool word to indicate that you attack the wrong enemy, or attribute the attack to the wrong group. I agree with the post that we have not solved that attribution problem. I continue to argue that during the long millisecond where the attack is active, there is no need to attribute. There is simply a need to make the attack stop. Find out where the attack originates after you halt the attack with an appropriate use of force.

http://orlandodoctrine.com/?feed=rss2&p=239 0