blademaster
I'm moving to Brazil
+2,075|6671
For all of those who have seen the terminator movies you'll know what skynet is and the article below should make some sense.

The Air Force wants a suite of hacker tools, to give it "access" to -- and "full control" of -- any kind of computer there is.  And once the info warriors are in, the Air Force wants them to keep tabs on their "adversaries' information infrastructure completely undetected."

The government is growing increasingly interested in waging war online.  The Air Force recently put together a "Cyberspace Command," with a charter to rule networks the way its fighter jets rule the skies. The Department of Homeland Security, Darpa, and other agencies are teaming up for a five-year, $30 billion "national cybersecurity initiative."  That includes an electronic test range, where federally-funded hackers can test out the latest electronic attacks.  "You used to need an army to wage a war," a recent Air Force commercial notes.  "Now, all you need is an Internet connection."

On Monday, the Air Force Research Laboratory introduced a two-year, $11 million effort to put together hardware and software tools for "Dominant Cyber Offensive Engagement." "Of interest are any and all techniques to enable user and/or root level access," a request for proposals notes, "to both fixed (PC) or mobile computing platforms... any and all operating systems, patch levels, applications and hardware." This isn't just some computer science study, mind you; "research efforts under this program are expected to result in complete functional capabilities."

Unlike an Air Force colonel's proposal,to knock down enemy websites with military botnets, the Research Lab is encouraging a sneaky, "low and slow" approach. The preferred attack consists of lying quiet, and then "stealthily exfiltrat[ing] information" from adversaries' networks.

But, in the end, the Air Force wants to see all kinds of "techniques and technologies" to "Deceive, Deny, Disrupt, Degrade, [or] Destroy" hostile systems.  And "in addition to these main concepts," the Research Lab would like to see studies into "Proactive Botnet Defense Technology Development," the "reinvent[ion of] the network protocol stack" and new antennas, based on carbon nanotubes.

Traditionally, the military has been extremely reluctant to talk much about offensive operations online.  Instead, the focus has normally been on protecting against electronic attacks.  But in the last year or so, the tone has changed -- and become more bellicose.  “Cyber, as a warfighting domain . . . like air, favors the offense,” said Lani Kass, a special assistant to the Air Force Chief of Staff who previously headed up the service's Cyberspace Task Force. "If you’re defending in cyber, you’re already too late."

"We want to go in and knock them out in the first round," added Lt. Gen. Robert Elder, commander of the 8th Air Force, which focuses on network issues.

"An adversary needs to know that the U.S. possesses powerful hard and soft-kill (cyberwarfare) means for attacking adversary information and command and support systems at all levels," a recent Defense Department report notes.  "Every potential adversary, from nation states to rogue individuals... should be compelled to consider... an attack on U.S. systems resulting in highly undesireable consequences to their own security."

source
RoosterCantrell
Goodbye :)
+399|6506|Somewhere else

scary.  That is a dangerous ability the government wants to wield.   Throws alot of consitutional rights into question, or simply skirt around them.

Howeer, in this day and age, as is with any military, adept and evolve to survive.   You cannot win a war with bows and arrows, and as the world becomes as it is, it's pretty much a necessity to evolve.

Last edited by RoosterCantrell (2008-05-16 23:30:44)

SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6156|North Tonawanda, NY
It's funny how when criminals want to do this, they get prosecuted, but when the military wants to do it, they get grant money.
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|5853
And when a criminal kills someone he gets arrested but when a soldier does it he gets a medal.

Where's the problem?
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6156|North Tonawanda, NY

ZombieVampire! wrote:

And when a criminal kills someone he gets arrested but when a soldier does it he gets a medal.

Where's the problem?
If the military creates a botnet of computers whose owners are unaware of their participation, then there would be a problem.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6700|Canberra, AUS
My issue here isn't so much the creation of 'skynet'. It's the egregrious breach of privacy that this would entail.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|5853

SenorToenails wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

And when a criminal kills someone he gets arrested but when a soldier does it he gets a medal.

Where's the problem?
If the military creates a botnet of computers whose owners are unaware of their participation, then there would be a problem.
And if the military starts shooting civilians there would be a problem.  Do you want them to disarm?
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6675

SenorToenails wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

And when a criminal kills someone he gets arrested but when a soldier does it he gets a medal.

Where's the problem?
If the military creates a botnet of computers whose owners are unaware of their participation, then there would be a problem.
I'm assuming that it would be created entirely out of military computers. I could be wrong though.
mikkel
Member
+383|6627

ZombieVampire! wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

And when a criminal kills someone he gets arrested but when a soldier does it he gets a medal.

Where's the problem?
If the military creates a botnet of computers whose owners are unaware of their participation, then there would be a problem.
And if the military starts shooting civilians there would be a problem.  Do you want them to disarm?
You're reaching really far.

ghettoperson wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

And when a criminal kills someone he gets arrested but when a soldier does it he gets a medal.

Where's the problem?
If the military creates a botnet of computers whose owners are unaware of their participation, then there would be a problem.
I'm assuming that it would be created entirely out of military computers. I could be wrong though.
The effectiveness of a botnet relies on the topological disparity of participating machines. It could be done without unknowingly infecting non-government computers, but it'd be hugely expensive to set up and maintain a net strong enough to cause significant damage to a broad range of network services.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-05-17 06:23:02)

HurricaИe
Banned
+877|5987|Washington DC

SenorToenails wrote:

It's funny how when criminals want to do this, they get prosecuted, but when the military wants to do it, they get grant money.
I think it's because generally, criminals do this for some sort of illegal gain. I'm assuming the military would want to do this for cases of warfare... not for stealing your credit card (considering they've got the federal government funding them, I don't think they want my paltry money).

As long as they don't infect random civilian computers... sounds kinda badass.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6437|'Murka

With all due respect to the Col who wrote the botnet article (I know him personally)...he's a lawyer. He knows nothing about employment of those kinds of capabilities or the realities of warfare. He was out of his league in writing that article and I'm betting that at this point, he's wishing he hadn't. As are a lot of other people.

So you all know: The AF isn't planning on building a botnet and doing DDoS on anyone. It's a militarily useless capability.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
mikkel
Member
+383|6627

FEOS wrote:

With all due respect to the Col who wrote the botnet article (I know him personally)...he's a lawyer. He knows nothing about employment of those kinds of capabilities or the realities of warfare. He was out of his league in writing that article and I'm betting that at this point, he's wishing he hadn't. As are a lot of other people.

So you all know: The AF isn't planning on building a botnet and doing DDoS on anyone. It's a militarily useless capability.
China and Russia are proving that it definitely isn't a useless asset. Being an offensive weapon, it would make sense to put it under military command.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6437|'Murka

mikkel wrote:

FEOS wrote:

With all due respect to the Col who wrote the botnet article (I know him personally)...he's a lawyer. He knows nothing about employment of those kinds of capabilities or the realities of warfare. He was out of his league in writing that article and I'm betting that at this point, he's wishing he hadn't. As are a lot of other people.

So you all know: The AF isn't planning on building a botnet and doing DDoS on anyone. It's a militarily useless capability.
China and Russia are proving that it definitely isn't a useless asset. Being an offensive weapon, it would make sense to put it under military command.
You misunderstand. It's the botnet he was describing in the article that is a useless military capability. Network attack capabilities are certainly useful...just not the one he was describing.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
=NHB=Shadow
hi
+322|6391|California
Well guys better prepare your self for Judgement Day
Steel
on_Target
+65|6343|Sarasota Fl
the AF already trains haxrs, this article/story is smoke and mirrors 5x5
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6437|'Murka

pierro wrote:

-To the military 11 million is pocket change at best
-Compared to the Chinese and the Russians...the US is behind the curb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberattac … tonia_2007), serious investment in the area is long overdue and still does not appear to be coming
I agree completely.

But the Estonia stuff is WAY overblown and the military relevance of the event is nearly nil.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|5853

mikkel wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:


If the military creates a botnet of computers whose owners are unaware of their participation, then there would be a problem.
And if the military starts shooting civilians there would be a problem.  Do you want them to disarm?
You're reaching really far.
How d'you figure?
Laura
your girlfriend a freak like cirque du soleil
+149|5856|u fucking wot m8
Why wage war when you can poke them in the eye with a stick.
https://i52.tinypic.com/98cz7p.png
Deadmonkiefart
Floccinaucinihilipilificator
+177|6732
So, what are the connections between this and "Skynet"?
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|6794
so long a they stay out of my "stuff" folder I dont mind.
blademaster
I'm moving to Brazil
+2,075|6671

BN wrote:

so long a they stay out of my "stuff" folder I dont mind.
hehehe
blademaster
I'm moving to Brazil
+2,075|6671
u know how the skynet took control of all of the computers and became aware, thats what the article is kind of about, in which the military is planning to take over any PC they wish.
Nappy
Apprentice
+151|6255|NSW, Australia

how come when the military does stuff with computers, they make it sound really lame

cyberspace
cybersecurity

cyber is a pretty gay word imo
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6437|'Murka

Nappy wrote:

how come when the military does stuff with computers, they make it sound really lame

cyberspace
cybersecurity

cyber is a pretty gay word imo
Truer words have never been written.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard