Parsing Cyberwar – Part 3: Synergies and Interference

Summary:  As the cyberwar with Iran continues, we cheer to the news media’s reporting information and misinformation about this next frontier of war.  All fodder for laughter at a future version of The Atomic Cafe.  But there are reliable sources of insight to prepare us for the big cyber-events that lie in the future, such as this series by Marcus Ranum.

Watch for this on your PC!

Article deleted at author’s request.

 

 

(8)  Past chapters and the next up

Parsing Cyberwar:

  1. The Battlefield
  2. The Logistical Train
  3. Synergies and Interference
  4. Patch #1 – Lessons from the Gauss malware
  5. The Best Defense is a Good Defense

In the final part, we will conclude with an assessment of what practical actions are available to corporations and governments in the cyberwar environment.

(9)  For More Information

(a)  For a lengthy bibliography see the FM Reference Page about Cyber-espionage and Cyber-war!, with links to Marcus Ranum’s other posts and a wide range of other resources.

(b)  Articles about CyberWar

  1. Black Ops: How HBGary Wrote Backdoors For The Government, Ars Technica, February 2011
  2. Cyber Warfare, The 0-Day Exploit Market, and the Rest of Us, MindPoint Group’s Information Security & Privacy division, June 2012
  3. Pentagon Sets Up Fast Track for Buying Cyberwar Tools , Reuters, April 2012
  4. Lenny Zeltser’s Classes on Reverse-Engineering Malware, at his website
  5. Gauss Trojan – Nation-state Cyber-surveillance Trojan Meets Online Banking, SecureList, August 2012

.

.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Parsing Cyberwar – Part 3: Synergies and Interference

  1. Marcus – thanks for the cyber info (all 3 parts). Cyber warfare may not be in my top 5 issues (or the 5 Es, Economy, Education, Energy, Environment, frEEdom) but it is more probable than ever, quite easy to get past prevention, and potentially harmful in ways not anticipated.

    The US has known about its cyber vulnerabilities for many years. In the late 90s, a writer of the Y2K report was told that the report was “breathtakingly bad” because it neglected to document such valuable findings. I don’t know if that critique made it to John Hamre (head of the Y2K effort) but the official response seemed to be “go away and be quiet.”

    Like

Leave a Reply to Mike Burski Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s