It's about time as a nation we simply send a STRONG message to this regime. This is in a lot of ways an act of war on the part of North Korea should it be found out that they have been behind it. Our president and I doubt seriously that it will come to pass , should bring all US cyber assets into play against the N. Korean Govt. and shut that country down. It's high time this regime that exports deadly technology the world over and thumbs it nose at every sanction ever imposed on it be sent a message that it will CLEARLY understand.
Well, as an act of war, it was kind of the cyber version of throwing a rock at a tank, but it's good that they're setting up an office for cyber security. I'm surprised that wasn't done sooner.
The question is how far does such an office go and what type of monitoring powers should it have which would maintain some semblance of fourth amendment protections.
More circumstantial evidence has emerged linking the Russian authorities to cyber-attacks on Georgia that coincided with a ground war between the two countries in July and August last year.
Security researchers from Greylogic published a report on Friday which concluded Russia's Foreign Military Intelligence agency (the GRU) and Federal Security Service (the FSB), rather than patriotic hackers, were likely to have played a key role in co-ordinating and organising the attacks.
The Stopgeorgia.ru forum, which became a fulcrum for attacks of key Georgian websites last year, uses an ISP located a few doors down from GRU headquarters. Greylogic reckons the site was added as a front for state-backed cyber-attacks under the cover of cybercrime.
Russian spy agencies linked to Georgian cyber-attacks • The Register
I think it's fairly well established jillian and there is a good reason for a Govt. to have a cyber-ops capability. In fact a cyber attack launched on behalf of a Govt. is an act of war akin to attacking a nations infrastructure such as a power plant, water resources, etc.
A counterstrike on an attackerÂ’s computer network could be launched, Lewis said, but it would be extremely difficult.
“This is a gray area,” said Stewart Baker, who worked on cyber security at the Department of Homeland Security. “But if you know that the North Koreans were doing this, then at a minimum I would have thought you’d be entitled to do the same thing to them to show that you didn’t like it.”
If the attacks caused harm to anyone “you get more serious, and start thinking and talking about it as an act of war or at least state-sponsored violence,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution.
Though the recent computer attacks are considered by many cyber experts to be little more than a nuisance to public Web sites, the incident raised anew old criticism that the U.S. governmentÂ’s policies on cyber warfare are shrouded in secrecy, ill-formed and require broad public debate.
“There’s a lot of thinking that needs to be done about how to respond to attacks like this and what the threshold is for responding to cyber attacks, with other means, whether they be economic sanctions or even military force,” Lord said.
The assault involved more than 100,000 “zombie” computers, used by someone without their owners’ knowledge and linked together in a network known as a “botnet.” Most of those computers were in South Korea, but others were in Japan, China, the U.S. and possibly other countries.
U.S. options limited in cyberattack response - Army News, news from Iraq, - Army Times
As I stated earlier jillian most likely our response would be running to the UN and asking for further sanctions that will be ignored and blustering more about what we will do and then not do. In the end what needs to happen here is a clear signal needs to be sent to this Govt. with a repsonse in kind. To those that think that in kind means commiting American forces to the region then they have not understood the statement. I happen to agree with Gunny, N.K. would be a fairly easy target and it's my contention that it's time we sent them a message that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized..
I fail to see how the 4th Amendment is violated by creating a cyber-ops branch who's tasked with protecting this nation against such attacks violates the 4th Amendment.
It's a way that people can interface with the guardians of the puzzle palace.
