Again. I see Randall's messages just fine. (gmail) BobLQ
On Nov 26, 2007 1:07 AM, DJA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pardon the top post. Maybe it's me, but this seems to be the second post > in this thread in which you (Randall) quoted others in full, but added > no content of your own. > > Is this a result of a dain bramaged MUA, a Doctor Strangelove trigger > finger, or what? Or maybe it's just me being blind. > > > > Randall Shimizu wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Bob La Quey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: Main Discussion List for KPLUG <[email protected]> > > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 12:08:45 AM > > Subject: Re: China has the largest (DoS) Denial of service capability....! > > > > On Nov 25, 2007 9:54 PM, Randall Shimizu > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> ----- Original Message ---- > >> From: Paul G. Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: Main Discussion List for KPLUG <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 8:12:31 PM > >> Subject: Re: China has the largest (DoS) Denial of service > > capability....! > >> > >> > >> Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > >> > >>> Compared to the zillions of zombified Windows machines, I doubt > > China is > >>> that impressive. > >> Maybe China is counting on all those Windows machines. > > > > Only an idiot would not. I do not think the Chinese are idiots. > > > >>> In addition, all of China's traffic gets throttled through a small > >>> number of optic links, IIRC. > >>> > >>> Simply pulling the plug on those links stops anything China wants > > to > >> do. > >> > >> Easier said than done. Not to mention, once an attack has started, > >> pulling the plug after the fact could do nothing to solve stop it See > >> below.) > > > > Yep. The corollary is that China's widely heralded firewall is leaky > > as hell. All those factory managers and the colonels that "controll" > > them in South China want ther porn. They have a gazillion ways to get > > net from the world. I do not expect the Chinese firewall to work any > > better than the Great Wall did. See > > > > Far from it being unbreachable, Chinese emperors relied on the wall > > only as a last resort to fend off their enemies. (The Ming dynasty, > > for instance, found it useless against the victorious Manchus, who > > merely bribed the gatekeepers to let them in.) > > http://www.amazon.com/Great-Wall-China-Against-World/dp/0802118143 > > > > When one has Sex versus Facism I will bet on Sex. And bribery, its > > constant companion. > > > >>> This is not true for the zombies that already exist in our own > >> country. > >> > >> How many of those zombies are (or can be) controlled by the Chinese? > >> How would we know one way or another? What would it take for the > >> Chinese to set the zombies off? > >> > >>> Yes, China has cyber-warfare as one of its goals--*as does our > >> military*. > >> > >>>> China's military is probably ahead, but it's hard to tell how > > their hacking skills compare with the skills that exist in the US today. I > > can certainly see however that a organized force could be more > > effective. > >> China is a lot farther along than we are. > > > > Would you care to support that statement? Even a few > > factual references of almost any kind would be appreciated. > > > > I do _not_ consider PGA's assertions facts. > > > >>> And, if our military *doesn't* have cyber-warfare as one of its > >> goals, > >>> then our military is pathetically stupid. > >>> > >>> One problem is that that military's cyber warfare is not > > coordinated > >>> among the Navy, Army and Air Force. It's hard to see why the > > military > >>> is still using Windows on their critical systems. The militiary > > however > >>> is putting a lot of effort into securing their systems. The > > military > >>> has a set of guides called the STIG's (standard implementation > > guidelines). > > > > > >>>> The US military's advantage is experience. The US military has decades > >>>> of computing experience. China's advantage is that they are highly > >>>> focused on cyber warfare and so are we. So therefore the degree of > >>>> focus and resource allocation is the key. One study noted that China is > >>>> will align all it's resources when it wants to achieve a goal. The other > >>>> factor is number of new engineers it can throw at cyber warfare. > > > > > > > >> The budget of any one of those branches is larger than most > > of the world's military budget's put together. So the fact > > that we have multiple competing strategies could be viewed > > as an advantage. > > > > Here BTW is a reference to Security Technical Implementation Guides > > http://iase.disa.mil/stigs/stig/index.html > > > > Disclaimer: I do _not_ have a clue what is in these documents. > > > >> Having worked extensively with the military (Navy, Marines, and > > Army), > >> I can attest to the fact that they are indeed stupid. They are very > >> limited in their training as it seems focused on purely military > > goals > >> and systems. Not to mention that the people making the decisions as > > to > >> what technology is used have purely political aims in mind. Their > > most > >> important systems use insecure Windows operating systems and > > networks. > >> They are way behind the curve when it comes to computer and network > >> security. There are thousands of computers on military bases with > >> access to military networks that could easily be used in DDoS > > attacks. > > > > > > While I agree that the military is not dominated by brilliance > > I would point out that _you_ are missing one hell of an opportunity > > to cash in on this ignorance. Write me privately for how. > > > >> If I were wanting to effect such an attack on an enemy country, I > > would > >> use that countries own weaknesses against them (as I would do as part > > of > >> any military strategy). In this case, one large weakness are the > >> millions of Windows computers in the country and the thousands of > >> corporate Windows networks. All those zombied machines, all those > >> systems waiting for my bots to take control and effect a DDoS (or > > other > >> cyber warfare). > > > > Agreed. Still, this is hardly a new insight. Sun Tzu understood this > > thousands of years ago. > > > >> Now as a Linux user, I don't have to worry about my systems or > > networks > >> being compromised and being a part of a DDoS by anyone. Not that a > >> Linux system can't be compromised, but it's not as trivial as it is > > with > >> Windows. > > > > Again agreed. > > > > What is remiss in all of this is a fundamental assumption. You seem > > to think that the purpose of the DOD and the entire military-industrial > > complex that controls the DOD is to "defend America." I suggest that > > is _not_ the case. > > > > The purpose is to defend the profits of a number of large players in > > this game. The players are transnational. They will and do sell weapons > > of all kinds to all comers. They _do_ have some inhibitions about > > nuclear weapons. Why? Because nukes are _so_ destabilizing. > > > > The defense of a declining nation state is far less important than > > the positioning of the corporation to take advantage of the emerging > > world order which will likely be far different than the American > > hegemony that has characterized the last sixty years since WWII. > > > > This is worth a read > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony > > > > BobLQ "Born skeptical, I cannot help but question assumptions." > > > -- > Best Regards, > ~DJA. > > > > -- > [email protected] > http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list > -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
