OECD: Concept Of Cyberwar Is Overhyped
from the nice-to-finally-see-this dept
We've spent plenty of time over the past year or so discussing how the concept of a "cyberwar" has been blown totally out of proportion, often by those seeking to get rich off of the fear. We've been ridiculed for this, often getting messages from people saying that we don't know what's really going on. However, now the OECD, a rather respectable organization, has stepped up and said the same thing: the concept of a "cyberwar" is totally overhyped, and while there may be random computer-based hacks and attacks here and there, to label it as a "war" is way beyond reasonable.Attempts to quantify the potential damage that hi-tech attacks could cause and develop appropriate responses are not helped by the hyperbolic language used to describe these incidents, said the OECD report.Part of the problem is that people (again, often with questionable agendas) like to lump all sorts of very different activities under the single heading of "cyberwar" to make it sound like a bigger issue than it really is (and, presumably, to get more money). It's nice to see more level-headed analysis coming out of groups like the OECD. Now, if only governments will actually listen...
"We don't help ourselves using 'cyberwar' to describe espionage or hacktivist blockading or defacing of websites, as recently seen in reaction to WikiLeaks," said Professor Peter Sommer, visiting professor at LSE who co-wrote the report with Dr Ian Brown of the Oxford Internet Institute.
"Nor is it helpful to group trivially avoidable incidents like routine viruses and frauds with determined attempts to disrupt critical national infrastructure," added Prof Sommer.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yup, call in the economists to explain a computer issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dammit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dammit!
Perhaps Rep. King could get right on this ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dammit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: dammit!
Because people actually don't understand it and don't care that much it goes in at a lower-conciousness level and becomes generally accepted wisdom, which is much harder to fight against with reasoned argument because everyone "knows".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: dammit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: dammit!
Bottom line for me: fearful people are much easier to herd and control. This is why 'they' implemented the color-coded turrist alert system, and why 'they' will keep beating the cyberwar drum.
'they' = media, government, paranoid delusionals, pick your poison
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ask the Iranians
My biggest concern is that governments around the world will use the excuse of cyberwar to do lots of other things such as imposing more intrusions into personal freedoms and enhancing IP protections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ask the Iranians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ask the Iranians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Imaginary and the Real
let's also keep in mind the real-world demo of a weapon in this war. Stuxnet, if we believe the analysis, caused major grief in Iran and had a significant impact on the development of their nuclear capabilities.
This appears to have been well architected, tightly targeted, military-grade smart weapon that has been very difficult to remediate and caused serious hardware damage.
I wouldn't want my infrastructure to be the target of Stuxnet 2.0.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Imaginary and the Real
However the real issue is, as you say, the hype - mainly the hype that lumps all sorts of things together as cyberwar. Suddenly spam, fraud, Wikileaks and 4chan are all part of the "cyberwar" - and that's where things start to get silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Imaginary and the Real
I would argue that's much more on the espionage front, than any "war" development.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Imaginary and the Real
I'd consider them as "brain-dead" if they don't enforce physically isolated network in their nuclear development facilities. You don't need a targeted espionage... just some random routine virus/worm can wreak havoc easily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Imaginary and the Real
Nor is it helpful to group trivially avoidable incidents like routine viruses and frauds with determined attempts to disrupt critical national infrastructure," added Prof Sommer.
exactly. stuxnet was a "determined attempt to disrupt critical national infrastructure"
you really need to read more deeply into it, because half of what i,ve read you comment on it is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So yes, Mike, defining a cyberwar as one nation-state using cyber assets to cripple or destroyer another nation-state, the threat of cyberwar is vastly over exaggerated, especially considering that cyber attacks generally augment physical attacks. But who's to say that a "cyberwar" is not what we're seeing right now?
We (the country/world/media) have to decide on a definition of "cyberwar" before you can even think to start discussing if one is likely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Two,
Three,
Four,
I declare a cyberwar
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vison for the future?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stuxnet very real, but statistics are indeed inapplicable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]