Interesting Article Thread v.2

[Nielk1]

"Sir, incoming Rick Roll!"

"Quick, take evasive maneuvers and call in the Trololo guy!"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/9 ... anual.html

The ironic thing is that no properly secured system is susceptible. Every type of Cyber Attack can be avoided though proper implementation of defenses.

[Roscoe]

War is what happens when everybody stops following the rules. Rules about how to conduct a war are stupid.

[Red Spot]

No they are not. War is something for trained soldiers, not for civilians.
So any decent state that wages war for its civilians should only employ soldiers to fight, and those soldiers should only fight other soldiers.

War does not mean you stop being human or humane.

War is what happens when diplomacy fails, wether its pushed into that direction or not.

[MrTwosheds]

Lol, very idealistic, very 19th century. War among developed nations is now about destroying infrastructure and your enemy's ability to mount attacks or defend itself. That "infrastructure" clearly includes civilians and their information technology.

[Ded10c]

Lol, very idealistic, very 19th century. War among developed nations is now about destroying infrastructure and your enemy's ability to mount attacks or defend itself. That "infrastructure" clearly includes civilians and their information technology.

You have heard of the Geneva Convention, have you not?

[Nielk1]

When do we get to the point of "A Taste of Armageddon"?

[MrTwosheds]

You have heard of the Geneva Convention, have you not?

I simply observe what happens. In Iraq for example, clearly the countries infrastructure was targeted, power stations, water supplies, TV and radio stations, factory's of all sorts. We watched it all on TV. "Laws" have become an irrelevance. These days war is more about economics than territory, opponents will do whatever they can to harm each others ability to sustain a fight.
I have no doubt that much effort is currently being put into developing "economic attack/defence" software solutions. This would clearly now be the first strike weapon of choice for any serious aggressor.
Its all very jolly pretending to play by the rules while your fighting guys on camels via satellite with drones, modern fighter jets and tanks... but if the gloves come off between equals then the fools who play by the rules will deserve to lose.

[Nielk1]

Your mis-characterization is laughable and needs no retort. You sound like a show of Coast to Coast AM.

[Roscoe]

Lol, very idealistic, very 19th century. War among developed nations is now about destroying infrastructure and your enemy's ability to mount attacks or defend itself. That "infrastructure" clearly includes civilians and their information technology.

You have heard of the Geneva Convention, have you not?

The Geneva Convention is only imposed on the losers.

[Red Spot]

That would perhaps be so, but that means you have a winner and a loser and so you are now discussing post-wartime stuff. Not actual wartime stuff.
There is a big difference there.

... but if the gloves come off between equals then the fools who play by the rules will deserve to lose.

If that were true the allied forces should have lost WW2. But they didnt, and the single most important reason is something that every great power in history has crumbled for. Rebellion and resistance of the people that are 'conquered'. Which again is also the reason post-war Germany wasnt completelly paralised as it was after WW1, which in effect allowed everything to come together to make a WW2 reality.

[MrTwosheds]

If that were true the allied forces should have lost WW2

I don't know why you think that. We firebombed their cities at just the right time for it to work really well, we blew up their dams with full knowledge of the civilian casualties it would cause. Had they held out a few years longer we would have dropped atom bombs on them. The gloves were off. They lost because they were lead by lunatics who had no idea where or when to stop.
Having "rules" for cyber warfare makes about as much sense as agreeing to not crack each others codes, you might go to great lengths to hide the fact that you could do it, but you would still do it anyway when fighting for your lives.
Rules for cyber warfare? pull the other one, its got our nuclear power stations plugged into it.

[Ded10c]

You make that sound like we were giving worse than we got. Neither Allies nor Axis were holding back.

And when you consider Operation Unthinkable, you come to realise Churchill didn't know when to stop either.

[Nielk1]

You make that sound like we were giving worse than we got. Neither Allies nor Axis were holding back.

And when you consider Operation Unthinkable, you come to realise Churchill didn't know when to stop either.

That looks like your standard plan for attack and plan for defense. You do both to better plot your actual action.

[Ded10c]

Still, hardly a good idea to launch an attack on your allies just as the most devastating war ever seen draws to a close.

[MrTwosheds]

Having the plans, or a cyber warfare capability, is the only sensible plan. Knowing when to use them or not, is the important part.
My most cynical take on the Nato cyber warfare manual, tells me that an audit of our status has taken place and we have been found to be extremely vulnerable and that the cost of rectifying this situation is very large and politically unwelcome. Hence the rather ridiculous move of trying to get others to agree to "rules" that would obviously only actually be followed in peacetime.
As Nielk1 points out IT security is probably pretty good, thanks to the hacktivists keeping people on their toes But our energy networks are hopelessly vulnerable, being dependent on centralised generation and the economics of mass distribution. Any hostile force would only need to hit a few power stations to bring our country to a halt. The solution is a far more distributed network of micro/localised power generation. Exactly the same solution that is required for non reliance on fossil fuels. Carry on watching it not happen.