Cyberwarfare is now becoming increasingly serious business:

[underlankers]

In another illustration of how, given any sufficient length of time to develop any new technology, humans inevitably seek to develop its potential to harm others, especially other humans, cyberwarfare is becoming a topic not just for nerds but for US media as a whole. This all began with this:

[this is a spoiler link]

http://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/automated-toolkits-

Comments

[root_fu]

Space isn't demilitarized.

It isn't a cost effective war zone to commit violence in & carries no war profiteering benefits.

Considering the united states government has long since been buying up software exploit code and flame malware contains unknown collision attacks which must have required high level talent to develop. Considering the government was probably behind ddos attacks against wikileaks servers given Julian Assange and wikileaks have been branded enemies of the state / terrorists. And considering its its been shown that there is an existing market for surveillance for existing gadgets and services. And other things I won't go into.

Its way too late to talk about turning back the clock.

We're as likely to give up electronic surveillance and warfare as we are to give up nuclear weapons.

AKA - never.

[underlankers]

This isn't the same as giving up electronic warfare, that goes all the way back to substituting radio and coding machines for couriers and basic cyphers. This is about whether or not the free exchange of information should wind up being yet another pawn of states in warfare. Space is de-militarized officially by treaties signed by the Great Powers.

[root_fu]

A. Internet warfare is a form of electronic warfare.

Space is de-militarized officially by treaties signed by the Great Powers.

B. Cruel and unusual punishment is mandated by the geneva convention, this is why soldiers and intelligence agencies in the middle east waterboard prisoners.

Bottom line no one gives 2 schlepps about national law or treaties. The main reason for the lack of warfare in space is the fact that it is neither cost effective, feasible and there is so little to gain not a signature on a piece of paper.

[underlankers]

A) A form of, yes. Outlawing one portion of it is not akin to outlawing the whole thing. Scrapping Internet warfare would not mean destroying radar.

B) On the contrary, people do give a damn about them. Why do you think the USA has to use secret prisons and outsource torture to the Saudis and Pakistanis?

[anfalicious]

p*in? Pain? I can think of a p**n that is the main reason for the internet :P

[peristaltor]

Poon? Pone? Peen? Is the internet really a resource for harpoons, corn-like breads and specialty hammers?

I'm stumped.

As to Pain, there are some good BD/SM sights you might want to - oh, wait. Ah. Got it.

[oportet]

It's hard for people to recognize and acknowledge an act of aggression if the body count stays at 0 - and knowing this only encourages more cyber attacks.

If it remains at Threat Level - Inconvenience, I don't see governments putting much effort into stopping it.

[sandwichwarrior]

Pretty much.

Not that this is a bad thing either.

If rather than killing a bunch of people in a border skirmish nations start fucking with eachother's train schedules and payrolls I still think that's an overall win for humanity.

[terminator44]

It's a mistake to see cyberwarfare as a mere inconvenience. Think of it this way: if a virus strikes the electrical grid and causes blackouts, that means hospitals don't get power, that means hospitals are without power, that means the economy grinds to a halt, and in some cases, it means riots. If these stations were bombed, it would be seen as an act of war, even if nobody was killed in the bombing itself. With so much of current society dependent on computers and the Internet, a computer virus has the potential to do more damage than any bomb, even a nuclear one.

[sophia_sadek]

The issue of Chinese attacks reminds me of a remark one of our guys made when a major leak was discovered in a DoD computer network. He said it was actually great news for the Pentagon since they could now contract with Beijing or Moscow for backup services.

The DoD has a great program for hackers. When someone succeeds in hacking one of their systems, they make the hacker an offer that is difficult to refuse: a job hacking other systems for hundreds of dollars per hour. If the job does not prove enticing, three hots and a cot await as the alternative.

[terminator44]

I'm glad somebody has made a post about this subject, as it's something I've been wanting to talk about for a while. I would have made a post myself, but I'm trying to finish college and don't have the time :(.

Really, this trend of cyberspace becoming a theater of war has been going on for years. Russia attacked the Georgian government's website in conjunction with operation in South Ossetia. What bothers me about the U.S. going on the offensive, so to speak, is that it isn't much more secure against these kind of attacks than Iran is. Pentagon's defense networks have been breached with humiliating regularity. They're getting more proactive with the creation of USCYBERCOM, but it's clear the U.S. isn't as dominant in this field as it is in physical warfare. I envision Stuxnet opening the floodgates for other nations and organizations to start furthering their own cyberweapons programs