Defense, on the modern mechanized air-land battlefield, is more about channeling attackers, or choosing the ground on which engagements take place, than the static "defense" of the Napoleonic and pre-blitzkrieg wars.
That very definitely DOES have a parallel in cyberdefense. And I disagree that offense, especially as a counterpunch, is something that is off-limit to respectable actors. If I can detect and own a botnet that is attacking me, and reverse it on its herders, I think that is a highly respectable thing to do. >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >On Behalf Of Larry Seltzer >Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 6:32 AM >To: Gadi Evron; Gary Warner >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [funsec] Mutually Assured DDoS > >>> To be clear, I don't hold the view that Clausewitz is right when >looking at the Internet... > >I guess I'm with you on this. But no matter which side he took I don't >see why principles like that should be so universal that they should >apply to network attacks as well as conventional human warfare. My >impression from what I've seen of the private wars we've had on the >Internet so far is that defense is possible, but expensive and >disadvantaged. The battleground was designed (unintentionally) for >offense. > >On the other hand, offense as a defensive counterpart, what Dempsey >would call a counterpunch, is not available to respectable actors, so >we've never really seen it tested in earnest. > >Larry Seltzer >Contributing Editor, PC Magazine >[email protected] >http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/ > > >_______________________________________________ >Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. >https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec >Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list. _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
