Nato warns of strike against cyber attackers
tme at americafree.tv
Tue Jun 8 21:50:52 UTC 2010
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.
> 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
>> cyber attacks on its member states.
>> The move follows a series of Russian-linked hacking against Nato
>> warnings from intelligence services of the growing threat from China.
>> A team of Nato experts led by Madeleine Albright, the former US
>> state, has warned that the next attack on a Nato country ³may well
>> a fibre-optic cable².
>> A report by Albright¹s group said that a cyber attack on the critical
>> infrastructure of a Nato country could equate to an armed attack,
>> Article 5 is the cornerstone of the 1949 Nato charter, laying down
>> armed attack² against one or more Nato countries ³shall be
>> considered an
>> attack against them all².
>> It was the clause in the charter that was invoked following the
>> attacks to justify the removal of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
>> Nato is now considering how severe the attack would have to be to
>> retaliation, what military force could be used and what targets
>> would be
>> The organisation¹s lawyers say that because the effect of a cyber
>> be similar to an armed assault, there is no need to redraft existing
>> Eneken Tikk, a lawyer at Nato¹s cyber defence centre in Estonia,
>> said it
>> would be enough to invoke the mutual defence clause ³if, for
>> example, a
>> cyber attack on a country¹s power networks or critical infrastructure
>> resulted in casualties and destruction comparable to a military
>> 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 alliance¹s future. General Keith
>> head of the newly created US cyber command, said last week there
>> was a
>> for ³clear rules of engagement that say what we can stop².
>> The concerns follow warnings from intelligence services across
>> Europe that
>> computer-launched attacks from Russia and China are a mounting
>> Russian hackers have been blamed for an attack against Estonia in
>> May of 2007 which crippled government, media and banking
>> internet sites.
>> They also attacked Georgian computer systems during the August 2008
>> of the country, bringing down air defence networks and
>> systems belonging to the president, the government and banks.
>> Alexander disclosed last week that a 2008 attack on the Pentagon¹s
>> believed to have been mounted by the Chinese, successfully broke
>> into classified areas.
>> Britain¹s Joint Intelligence Committee cautioned last year that
>> parts in the BT phone network could be used to bring down systems
>> the country¹s power and food supplies.
>> Some experts have warned that it is often hard to establish
>> involvement. Many Russian attacks, for example, have been blamed on
>> Russian mafia. The Kremlin has consistently refused to sign an
>> 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 18.104.22.168 -a 22.214.171.124 -p ++21 -w 6000
> hping -S 126.96.36.199 -a 188.8.131.52 -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
> 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
More information about the NANOG