this statement: "Convincing an enemy to invest in technology that you know will be useless in 20 years (e.g. US Littoral Combat Ship) or adopting a really bad policy (e.g. giving bad education to people or plundering their savings) will be truly a strategic advantage."
is a meta-rule that applies to all "best practices of hacking" - how is the information embedded in economic, political and societal structures (overlapping and nested, depending on how we draw boundaries and label them as abstractions) and therefore how can it be used STRATEGICALLY to accomplish longer term objectives - which must be constantly reinterpreted in light of rapidly changing conditions (i.e. real life)? an old example of how this works compared to the slash-and-burn techniques apparently used by current hacker squadrons (unless those tactics are diversionary, an act of misdirection while the longer term objective is pursued) - when quiz shows like the 64,000 dollar question were outed as frauds, the contestants went down but the executives at CBS hunkered down while the storm passed and continued executing their strategy - and they aren't even names we know, much less called "anonymous CEOs" - when one is content with results and does not need public feedback loops to validate one's activity, the sky's the limit. Konrads Smelkovs wrote: > I think it is kind of simple and goes from specific to general: > 1. 5 year hacking plan is the same as your next 6 month hacking plan. > Industry trends shift slowly and Fortune 100 doesn't change that > quickly - the decline often is a slow dive. At this level, you hack > have a list of specific organisations. > > 2. At 10 years, changes in industry may be significant, so it is > better to focus on a segment, like Defence or Biomed or X. If you > trojan a few important systems now, it is likely they will be around > (or your access to their successors will) for a while. Company names > may change, but the research will be sold & acquired & divested as > divisions - those will stick around. > > 3. At 50 years, a lot will change - countries may rise & fall, we may > be wearing space suits and neural implants or sporting an extra pair > of arms. However, thinking inertia won't. It is best to hack attitudes > & cultures. Convincing an enemy to invest in technology that you know > will be useless in 20 years (e.g. US Littoral Combat Ship) or adopting > a really bad policy (e.g. giving bad education to people or plundering > their savings) will be truly a strategic advantage. > -- > Konrads Smelkovs > Applied IT sorcery. > > > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:53 AM, Dave Aitel <[email protected]> wrote: > >> In my imaginary hacking strategy class the first essay question is this: >> 1. What would you build now that would let you hack into what you want to >> hack into in five years? >> 2. Ten years from now? >> 3. Fifty years from now? >> If you already know what you want to hack into five years from now, you're a >> rare person, no? >> -dave >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Dailydave mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Dailydave mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave > > _______________________________________________ Dailydave mailing list [email protected] https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave
