RE: military strike possible?

From: Mickey S. Olsberg (mickey.olsberg_at_pc-ems.com)
Date: 10/31/03

  • Next message: J Kallberg: "Re: military strike possible?"
    Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 22:34:11 -0700
    To: "Charles Smith" <softwar@softwar.net>, "Ranjeet Shetye" <ranjeet.shetye2@zultys.com>, "Raymer, Dan" <DRaymer@webmd.net>
    
    

    Just to chime in here, and put this thing back into topic:

    The arguments listed in this thread seem to be a little misguided, or
    perhaps even naive to the workings of the US Military. You have taken a
    legitimate thread about cyber-terrorism (information, or rather
    unconventional warfare) and linked it to bombs and WMD (more
    conventional warfare). While one possibly could lead to the other, it is
    more likely that one (info.) will be used to assist with the other
    (conv.). If an enemy is attacking by conventional means, isn't it safe
    to say that the enemy might want to access their networks to determine
    where the troops are going and with what supplies? Wouldn't they want to
    hack that system and divert those troops and supplies to a place of
    their choosing? This is too simplistic of an example, but you get the
    point. The next part of what I have to say should serve to clue some in
    to how the Government works. To say that the opinions of one person, no
    matter how high up, can effect change throughout something as large as
    the DoD; is about like saying that a President can snap his fingers and
    produce jobs. People that need workers hire people, and unless the
    President is going to start hiring more people into the Government he
    cannot "create" jobs. He can only make it easier for the people that can
    to do it. The same is true for Military policy. Donald doesn't turn his
    head a certain way and the Military copies his action. These are all
    people we are talking about, with their own opinions (look at Wes Clark
    on that one). While I'm sure that the NSA, CIA, FBI, DHS, etc would love
    it if the Military could retaliate against hackers, it just won't
    happen. As an example, the Military is expressly FORBIDDEN from even
    pinging a host that does something "questionable". One of the branches
    is only allowed to do an nslookup or dig against a host, even when that
    host is doing a port scan or a DoS attack. That's it, nslookup and dig.
    How does that work into the conspiracy theory?

    As a side note, some foreign governments treat a simple ping against one
    of their networks as an Act of War (we all do know the capabilities of
    ICMP don't we?). Because of this, and because IP spoofing is pretty
    easy, we are very careful. Russia sees Joe Black sitting on BellSouth
    ping them, so what. North Korea sees a US Military IP address ping them,
    whole 'nuther ball game.

    By the way, on the IMHO thing, when you use it, are you like saying that
    all of your other opinions aren't honest (the ones without it)? Just
    something from a person that has had to testify in Court (they tell you
    never to say things like "to be honest"...). ;)

    Mickey Olsberg
    Network Management/Security Instructor
    US Military

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Charles Smith [mailto:softwar@softwar.net]
    Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 11:57 AM
    To: Ranjeet Shetye; Raymer, Dan
    Cc: 'Meritt James'; security-basics@securityfocus.com
    Subject: Re: military strike possible?

    In ref. to the bombing of the PRC embassy in Belgrade...

    Isn't it amazing that the USAF B-2 put only two bombs into the embassy -
    one
    in the computer center and one into the communications center. Its also
    amazing that the two so called reporters that were killed were never
    seen on
    the job as journalists.

    In ref. to this entire thread - e.g. would you start WWIII just because
    someone hacked the FAA or something similar...

    I find it amazing the guy who started this thread is:

    James W. Meritt CISSP, CISA
    Booz | Allen | Hamilton
    phone: (410) 684-6566

    Last time I talked to Booz Allen - it was to interview former NSA
    Director
    Adm. McConnell. I put some of the interview online at
    http://www.softwar.net/mcc.html

    Perhaps Mr. Meritt needs to ask some of the former NSA employees working
    at
    Booz Allen on the subject line and report back to us.

    Charlie Smith
    Softwar
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Ranjeet Shetye <ranjeet.shetye2@zultys.com>
    To: Raymer, Dan <DRaymer@webmd.net>
    Cc: 'Meritt James' <meritt_james@bah.com>;
    <security-basics@securityfocus.com>
    Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 7:29 PM
    Subject: RE: military strike possible?

    > On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 13:08, Raymer, Dan wrote:
    > > considering that intelligence can't even tell a Chinese embassy from
    a
    > > warehouse or where senior leadership is having a meeting, how do
    they
    expect
    > > to hit a bunch of teenage script kiddies (or heavens forbid, REAL
    crackers)
    > > coordinating an attack via IRC?
    >
    > word on the streets was that the Chinese embassy was actively helping
    > the Yugoslavs track American planes and co-ordinate attacks on
    American
    > planes by adapting Russian technology. Remember the stealth fighter
    > F-117A that was lost initially ? After the Chinese embassy was
    > "counselled out", no more American F-117A were lost.
    >
    > http://www.fair.org/activism/embassy-bombing.html
    >
    > as i said, no solid proof, just word on the streets.
    >
    > >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: Meritt James [mailto:meritt_james@bah.com]
    > > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 11:11 AM
    > > To: 'security-basics@securityfocus.com'
    > > Subject: military strike possible?
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Going from the premptive strike philosophy demonstrated in
    Mideastern
    > > countries, what are your thoughts on a military strike against (as
    yet
    > > unseen) "cyberterrorists" a'la
    > > http://www.msnbc.com/news/985295.asp?0si=- if there were
    extranational
    > > agents tampering with identified components of the infrastructure to
    > > the extent that they were risking human life?
    > --
    >
    > Ranjeet Shetye
    > Senior Software Engineer
    > Zultys Technologies
    > Ranjeet dot Shetye2 at Zultys dot com
    > http://www.zultys.com/
    >
    > The views, opinions, and judgements expressed in this message are
    solely
    > those of the author. The message contents have not been reviewed or
    > approved by Zultys.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    --
    -
    > Forum Systems PRESIDIO: PGP / XML GATEWAY APPLIANCE
    > The Presidio integrates PGP data encryption and XML Web Services
    security
    to
    > simplify the management and deployment of PGP and reduce overall PGP
    costs
    > by up to 80%.
    > FREE WHITEPAPER & 30 Day Trial -
    >
    http://www.securityfocus.com/sponsor/ForumSystems_security-basics_031027
    >
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --
    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ---
    Forum Systems PRESIDIO: PGP / XML GATEWAY APPLIANCE
    The Presidio integrates PGP data encryption and XML Web Services
    security to 
    simplify the management and deployment of PGP and reduce overall PGP
    costs 
    by up to 80%.
    FREE WHITEPAPER & 30 Day Trial - 
    http://www.securityfocus.com/sponsor/ForumSystems_security-basics_031027
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ----
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Forum Systems PRESIDIO: PGP / XML GATEWAY APPLIANCE
    The Presidio integrates PGP data encryption and XML Web Services security to 
    simplify the management and deployment of PGP and reduce overall PGP costs 
    by up to 80%.
    FREE WHITEPAPER & 30 Day Trial - 
    http://www.securityfocus.com/sponsor/ForumSystems_security-basics_031027 
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    

  • Next message: J Kallberg: "Re: military strike possible?"