The old is new again, this time with bots
[ by Charles Cameron — John Robb updates Sun Tzu ]
.
Two paras from John‘s post:
Autonomous robots and software bots (collectively “bots”) deeply penetrate the opponent’s territory both physically (territory) and logically (their computer systems). Most would be hidden and remain dormant until activation. Some would actively or passively map opponent networks, analyze them for vulnerabilities, and take advantage of opportunities for stealthy exploitation.
When activated, these forward bots conduct a coordinated attack from inside the opponent’s territory and systems. Damaging, degrading, or taking control of computer systems and physical infrastructure. Advanced robots would emerge from stealth to kinetically engage with opponent forces or physically seize points (airports, ports, etc.) to enable the rapid entry of conventional forces.
Oh, and for additional points, it’s “a very zen concept”!!
February 22nd, 2016 at 5:56 am
Won’t that work only if you stay in the arena so to speak? If you disconnect from the net wholly or in part it seems to me you are much less vulnerable. After all what effect would this type of attack have had on the US of 1956? Not much I think.
.
I know that radical a step seems unthinkable to modern people, in-intering the net, but perhaps we had better start thinking about it.
February 22nd, 2016 at 4:12 pm
If the US as a whole did it, that would be like self-administering the worst case Y2K scenario, an EMP, or a massive solar event, wouldn’t it?
.
As individuals, we might get on okay, but the okay doesn’t scale IMO.
February 22nd, 2016 at 4:46 pm
Charles: I don’t think so if it was done in a thoughtful way. Do power stations really have to be computer controlled? They weren’t in the old days. Perhaps it was less efficient but also less vulnerable. Does all of the infrastructure have to be connected to the net? Why? It worked fine for many, many millions of Americans and perhaps rather more American heavy industry in 1956 and a virus was only something that caused people to miss work. We have a wonderful system that serves us well right now but it seems that it isn’t damage tolerant. The nature of computers when connected altogether makes that so I think.
.
Figure it this way, we bombed the bejabbers out of Germany for years and yet they were still able to keep things going right up until almost the end of the war. Is the system we have now as damage tolerant when subject to a truly determined and malicious cyber attack? We don’t know. I don’t see how it can be with everything connected together.
February 22nd, 2016 at 8:04 pm
We’re well within my interests, Carl, but way beyond anything I have that even remotely resembles expertise.
February 23rd, 2016 at 3:55 am
More less me too but since I’m one of the fools that angels shake their heads at, I speculate anyway.
February 23rd, 2016 at 8:27 am
The goal of zero-day war is to win before the start, but winning doesn’t mean the war would not be fought. My guess is that it would be fought, and more likely to be fought. And, if history has taught anyone anything, once the fighting starts all bets are off.
*
So the goal of zero-day war really should be to put your enemy in a position of strength from which they could negotiate their surrender from.
*
I think, once the fighting starts, the goal of zero-day war is unachievable.