Nato warns of strike against cyber attackers

[tme at americafree.tv (Marshall Eubanks)]

On Jun 8, 2010, at 5:08 PM, Peter Boone wrote:

> So let's say a cyber-attack originates from Chinese script kiddie.
>
> Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark,
> Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia,
> Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
> Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the  
> United States
> will all respond by invading China?

That leaves out the important aspect of selection. You can bet that,  
if they do this, they will pick
a more suitable target, say one without strategic rocket forces.

> Is NATO trying to start a war here?
>

Militaries tend to think in terms of military responses.

What any of this has to do with configuring routers escapes me.

Regards
Marshall



> There's no mention in the article about any kind of electronic  
> response to
> the attack.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J. Oquendo [mailto:sil at infiltrated.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 3:08 PM
> To: nanog at merit.edu
> Subject: Nato warns of strike against cyber attackers
>
>> From the NetSec mailing list...
>
>> At http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article7144856.ece
>>
>> June 6, 2010
>> Nato warns of strike against cyber attackers
>> Michael Smith and Peter Warren
>>
>> NATO is considering the use of military force against enemies who  
>> launch
>> cyber attacks on its member states.
>>
>> The move follows a series of Russian-linked hacking against Nato  
>> members
> and
>> warnings from intelligence services of the growing threat from China.
>>
>> A team of Nato experts led by Madeleine Albright, the former US  
>> secretary
> of
>> state, has warned that the next attack on a Nato country ?may well  
>> come
> down
>> a fibre-optic cable?.
>>
>> A report by Albright?s group said that a cyber attack on the critical
>> infrastructure of a Nato country could equate to an armed attack,
> justifying
>> retaliation.
>>
>> Article 5 is the cornerstone of the 1949 Nato charter, laying down  
>> that
> ?an
>> armed attack? against one or more Nato countries ?shall be  
>> considered an
>> attack against them all?.
>>
>> It was the clause in the charter that was invoked following the  
>> September
> 11
>> attacks to justify the removal of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
>>
>> Nato is now considering how severe the attack would have to be to  
>> justify
>> retaliation, what military force could be used and what targets  
>> would be
>> attacked.
>>
>> The organisation?s lawyers say that because the effect of a cyber  
>> attack
> can
>> be similar to an armed assault, there is no need to redraft existing
>> treaties.
>>
>> Eneken Tikk, a lawyer at Nato?s cyber defence centre in Estonia,  
>> said it
>> would be enough to invoke the mutual defence clause ?if, for  
>> example, a
>> cyber attack on a country?s power networks or critical infrastructure
>> resulted in casualties and destruction comparable to a military  
>> attack?.
>>
>> Nato heads of government are expected to discuss the potential use of
>> military force in response to cyber attacks at a summit in Lisbon in
>> November that will debate the alliance?s future. General Keith  
>> Alexander,
>> head of the newly created US cyber command, said last week there  
>> was a
> need
>> for ?clear rules of engagement that say what we can stop?.
>>
>> The concerns follow warnings from intelligence services across  
>> Europe that
>> computer-launched attacks from Russia and China are a mounting  
>> threat.
>> Russian hackers have been blamed for an attack against Estonia in  
>> April
> and
>> May of 2007 which crippled government, media and banking  
>> communications
> and
>> internet sites.
>>
>> They also attacked Georgian computer systems during the August 2008
> invasion
>> of the country, bringing down air defence networks and  
>> telecommunications
>> systems belonging to the president, the government and banks.
>>
>> Alexander disclosed last week that a 2008 attack on the Pentagon?s
> systems,
>> believed to have been mounted by the Chinese, successfully broke  
>> through
>> into classified areas.
>>
>> Britain?s Joint Intelligence Committee cautioned last year that
> Chinese-made
>> parts in the BT phone network could be used to bring down systems  
>> running
>> the country?s power and food supplies.
>>
>> Some experts have warned that it is often hard to establish  
>> government
>> involvement. Many Russian attacks, for example, have been blamed on  
>> the
>> Russian mafia. The Kremlin has consistently refused to sign an
> international
>> treaty banning internet crime.
>>
>>
>
> Obviously NATO is not concerned with proving the culprit of an  
> attack an
> albeit close to impossibility. Considering that many attackers
> compromise so many machines, what's to stop someone from  
> instigating. I
> can see it coming now:
>
> hping -S 62.128.58.180 -a 62.220.119.62 -p ++21 -w 6000
> hping -S 62.220.119.62 -a 62.128.58.180 -p ++21 -w 6000
>
> So NANOGer's, what will be the game plan when something like this
> happens, will you be joining NATO and pulling fiber. I wonder when all
> types of warm-fuzzy filtering will be drafted into networking: "Thou
> shall re-read RFC4953 lest you want Predator strikes on your NAP
> locations...
>
> -- 
>
> =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
> J. Oquendo
> SGFA, SGFE, C|EH, CNDA, CHFI, OSCP, CPT
>
> "It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to
> ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things
> differently." - Warren Buffett
>
> 227C 5D35 7DCB 0893 95AA  4771 1DCE 1FD1 5CCD 6B5E
> http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x5CCD6B5E
>
>
>
>