Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
> 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.
Of course offense has a place in cyber space, just look at the Internet
today. But while deterrence strategies do have a use, MAD strategies are
technically pointless as your attacker can be a kid somewhere, and you
are likely to hurt yourself more if you go botnets rather than smart and
targeted.
> 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.
And that is not a "carpet bombing", is it now?
I spent so much time thinking, writing and lecturing on these things I
feel I should move fields.
Gadi.
--
Gadi Evron,
[email protected].
Blog: http://gevron.livejournal.com/
Security blog: http://gadievron.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
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.
