Dear "you-know-who",
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:14 PM, andrew. wallace <[email protected]> wrote: > > If "cyber war" is just web site defacement then I don't think we ever > need to take "cyber war" too seriously. Starting -- all of a sudden, with wrong and fallacious premises cannot obviously lead to solid conclusions. Defacements constitute compromised information integrity, and that is serious. > > It seems to me that "cyber war" just means protesters protesting and > no actual cyber war is there, as a cyber war would mean two sides > fighting, although two sides aren't fighting in "cyber" its all > one-way script kid web defacement, not real war in any sense. > > Two sides fighting, a government and some other entity and the > internet stuck in the middle, now that would mean "cyber war", there > has been no cyber war and is unlikely to be one. > > If people are marching in London today in the streets against the > Israel-Gaza conflict is that called "war"? Of course not, so why are > the media so quick to call protesting on-line, a war? [1] > > What it really is, is folks protesting... a cyber protest, not a war. > > Why are we using the wrong words to describe stuff? It's not even the > media, it was Gary Warner on a web log. [2] > > [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7809656.stm > > [2] > http://garwarner.blogspot.com/2008/12/muslim-hackers-declare-cyberwar-on.html > > We as a community should be cautious about using the wrong words to > describe stuff, because the media take influence from us guys on > mailing lists and blogs and at security conferences, so its important > we use "cyber protest" when script kids deface some web sites. > > To put the right angle on this, it's unlikely to be new people doing > the defacements, its likely to be script kids who were defacers > anyway, and just change their political message to go with *whatever > the current climate is*. > > Tomorrow the same folks will be defacing with a new message, they > don't care *really* about the message, defacers will find any reason > to deface. > > It's unlikely the Israel-Gaza conflict defacers were only sprung into > action because of what is going on in the world, they would be > defacing anyway and looking for any excuse to do so. > > Let's be careful from now on I don't like to see the wrong buzzwords > used and i'm sure Gadi doesn't either. > > If Hamas cyber attacked Israel and Israel had a cyber response, then > that would be cyber war. This is not cyber war folks, this is a cyber > protest those kids are doing, they are unlikely to be connected with > anything thats going on and were web defacers anyway with a different > defacement message the day before. > > Please I hope we as security experts know the difference. > > I wrote this Email just incase because i'm sick of certain buzzwords > like cyber war when there isn't a cyber war. > > When the day comes that a government and another entity is two-way > cyber fighting and say for instance critical national infrastructure > is affected then you can talk about cyber war, until then please > describe web site defacers as "cyber protest". > > A cyber war is two-way fighting, one-way fighting is not a war! > > And to clarify, a bunch of kids defacing a web site and you applying a > patch afterwards is not classed as two-way fighting and cannot be > considered "cyber war" either. > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ -- Marcio Barbado, Jr. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
