General Williamson III: US Army Needs a Weaponized Botnet. 
Posted: 15 May 2008 11:28 PM   [ Ignore ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1896
Joined  2006-09-26

http://ubiwar.com/2008/05/13/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-botnet/

“The world has abandoned a fortress mentality in the real world, and we need to move beyond it in cyberspace. America needs a network that can project power by building an af.mil robot network (botnet) that can direct such massive amounts of traffic to target computers that they can no longer communicate and become no more useful to our adversaries than hunks of metal and plastic. America needs the ability to carpet bomb in cyberspace to create the deterrent we lack.”

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2008/05/3375884

Basically, Col. Williamson has noticed that there are bad guys in the swimming pool, and his solution is to piss in their general direction. That’s the kind of behavior that rightly gets you kicked out of the pool and sent home for the summer.

from:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/05/air-force-col-w.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 May 2008 12:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  283
Joined  2007-05-11

It would be interesting to argue the third amendment against this type of tactic in court.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

One could say that their computer/cyberspace, though virtual, is an extension of their house and that the botnet code in some way represents a “soldier” of the military. Although it’s probably already illegal under some other law, and the “laws” of this land mean nothing to the Corporate State.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 May 2008 08:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1896
Joined  2006-09-26

^^That’s a dope angle.

That said, I was reading through the Cryptogon archive for Invisible Experiment material, and I was struck by an old article about the Storm botnet.  Then I remembered this guy talking about a militarized botnet....and I think wait a second.....I bet they already have one.  And it’s Storm.  And they’ll destroy the internet so they can rebuild it like they’ve been demanding for the past decade.

Huh.  Wait and see, eh?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 May 2008 11:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1896
Joined  2006-09-26

Harlimon, you got a shout at Ubiwar:

http://ubiwar.com/2008/05/16/militar-botnets-and-the-third-amendment/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 May 2008 11:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  283
Joined  2007-05-11

Well that was nice of him. The interesting dynamic about the internet is that there are so many interests represented there. It’s a resource that everyone needs and at the same time everyone wants their enemies to not be able to use. Nobody is quite ready to destroy it yet, but there’s a lot of pushing and shoving.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 May 2008 06:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1896
Joined  2006-09-26

More LULZ
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/05/air-force-mater.html

The Air Force wants a suite of hacker tools, to give it “access” to—and “full control” of—any kind of computer there is.  And once the info warriors are in, the Air Force wants them to keep tabs on their “adversaries’ information infrastructure completely undetected.”

The government is growing increasingly interested in waging war online.  The Air Force recently put together a “Cyberspace Command,” with a charter to rule networks the way its fighter jets rule the skies. The Department of Homeland Security, Darpa, and other agencies are teaming up for a five-year, $30 billion “national cybersecurity initiative.” That includes an electronic test range, where federally-funded hackers can test out the latest electronic attacks.  “You used to need an army to wage a war,” a recent Air Force commercial notes.  “Now, all you need is an Internet connection.”

On Monday, the Air Force Research Laboratory introduced a two-year, $11 million effort to put together hardware and software tools for “Dominant Cyber Offensive Engagement.” “Of interest are any and all techniques to enable user and/or root level access,” a request for proposals notes, “to both fixed (PC) or mobile computing platforms… any and all operating systems, patch levels, applications and hardware.” This isn’t just some computer science study, mind you; “research efforts under this program are expected to result in complete functional capabilities.”

Unlike an Air Force colonel’s proposal, to knock down enemy websites with military botnets, the Research Lab is encouraging a sneaky, “low and slow” approach. The preferred attack consists of lying quiet, and then “stealthily exfiltrat[ing] information” from adversaries’ networks.

But, in the end, the Air Force wants to see all kinds of “techniques and technologies” to “Deceive, Deny, Disrupt, Degrade, [or] Destroy” hostile systems.  And “in addition to these main concepts,” the Research Lab would like to see studies into “Proactive Botnet Defense Technology Development,” the “reinvent[ion of] the network protocol stack” and new antennas, based on carbon nanotubes.

Traditionally, the military has been extremely reluctant to talk much about offensive operations online.  Instead, the focus has normally been on protecting against electronic attacks.  But in the last year or so, the tone has changed—and become more bellicose.  “Cyber, as a warfighting domain . . . like air, favors the offense,” said Lani Kass, a special assistant to the Air Force Chief of Staff who previously headed up the service’s Cyberspace Task Force. “If you’re defending in cyber, you’re already too late.”

“We want to go in and knock them out in the first round,” added Lt. Gen. Robert Elder, commander of the 8th Air Force, which focuses on network issues.

“An adversary needs to know that the U.S. possesses powerful hard and soft-kill (cyberwarfare) means for attacking adversary information and command and support systems at all levels,” a recent Defense Department report notes.  “Every potential adversary, from nation states to rogue individuals… should be compelled to consider… an attack on U.S. systems resulting in highly undesireable consequences to their own security.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 May 2008 09:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  215
Joined  2007-06-03

Here’s a new piece of linkage that proclaims - as Freud would say in “Bill And Ted’s 3rd Adventure” - “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and a botnet is just a botnet.”

Or as Bruce Sterling would say in his article “Sterling Vs. Virus Writers”:

It’s not that their depredations scare me. I’ve never been much impressed by the supposed tremendous hazards of computer viruses. A lot of both virus and anti-virus rhetoric is seriously overblown. Virus hype makes computers seem far more dangerous and intimidating than computers actually are. Virus hype helps to keep the computer-illiterate intimidated and in their place.

Yet another link of many that belongs in more than one thread (and much more broad-sweeping and relevant information to come):

“Honeyblog” by Thorsten Holz

Profile