Big boys are used to think in campaigns and campaigns require man-power who in turn need roof, electricity, pay, internet connection, moral support and so on. Clamping down on this then reduces the number of cyber-attacks.
It of course may be possible that military leaders think that nmap and metasploit come with a five digit price tag, but that's unlikely - enough people have read about hacktivists and enough people have in turn provided support to patriotic hacking groups to know that this isn't true. -- Konrads Smelkovs Applied IT sorcery. On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 8:34 PM, dave aitel <[email protected]> wrote: > http://www.nbr.org/publications/specialreport/pdf/Free/06192016/SR57_US-China_April2016.pdf > > Reading down into the cyber section... > """ > Beijing and Washington share an interest in preventing extremist groups > and other third parties from attacking critical infrastructure and > should discuss joint measures to stop the proliferation of capabilities > to nonstate actors. > """ > > That's the kind of sentence that only makes sense if you're thinking > about export control actually working as if "Cyber Capabilities" were > something more than "code" and "information". But what else could you be > thinking about here? What does this actually MEAN? > > -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
