On Mar 23, 2011, at 12:22 PM, imipak wrote: > > On 14 March 2011 17:24, bk <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mar 14, 2011, at 10:04 AM, imipak wrote: > >> On 14/03/11 16:51, bk wrote: >> >> >> The point you missed is that almost all the examples we've seen so far >> >> have >> >> been closer to espionage than to actual warfare. >> >> [...] >> >> > Despite that, I agree. Espionage != War. People hyping "cyberwar" are >> > either trying >> > to increase their sales, budget, or jurisdiction. >> > >> >> >> "Report: Iran's paramilitary launches cyber attack" >> >> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlwiVKEhlj8CjRz6dzR-McTlnRHw >> >> -i > > Yes, let's put a lot of stock in propaganda that amounts to "we're in ur > hostin providerz, defacin ur websitez." > > This is from the same regime that photoshopped in extra missiles to make > their capabilities look stronger. > > Grow up. > > > > *cough* > > http://blogs.comodo.com/it-security/data-security/the-recent-ca-compromise/ > > > -i
Spying on your own citizens is considered "cyberwar" now? That's *if* (and it's a big if), we actually believe it was an attack sponsored by the Iranian state. -- chort
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
