The Internet Of Things Is a Security And Privacy Dumpster Fire And The Check Is About To Come Due

Declaring Cyberwar On Russia Because Of The DNC Hack Is A Bad Idea

from the calm-the-fuck-down dept

Tue, Jul 26th 2016 9:32am — Mike Masnick

There's been plenty of talk, of course, about whether or not Russia did the hack that exposed various Democratic National Committee emails and other documents. While we've already pointed out that this shouldn't impact the newsworthy nature of the material leaked, it's still an interesting story. We've highlighted some reasons to be skeptical of the claims attributing the hack to Russia, but it does appear that more and more evidence is pointing in that direction. Thomas Rid, over at Vice, has a pretty good analysis of why much of the evidence points to Russia as being behind the attack, and the FBI is now apparently on board with that as well. While I'd still prefer more evidence, at least at this point, it should be admitted that there's quite a lot of evidence pointing in Russia's direction making it, at the very least, the most likely suspect.

But, then, of course, there's the question about what it means and what should be done about it. And we're seeing some hysterical responses. Over at Ars Technica, they have a "guest editorial" from a cybersecurity firm CEO, Dave Aitel, (who also is, of course, ex-NSA), more or less arguing that we should declare cyberwar on Russia over this:

What occurred with the recently disclosed breach of the Democratic National Committee servers, and the dumping of stolen data on a WordPress site, is more than an act of cyber espionage or harmless mischief. It meets the definition of an act of cyberwar, and the US government should respond as such.

This is insane for a variety of reasons, and hopefully no one is seriously listening to this. First of all, hacking happens all the time. In fact, as Ed Snowden points out, revealed documents show that the US itself has authorized the hacking of foreign political parties. So if Russian hackers possibly doing that to us is a "cyberwar attack" and it's the kind of thing we need to hit back on, then, uh, haven't we been committing "cyberwar" on tons of other parties via the NSA -- for which we, too, deserve retaliation?

Second, the idea that hacking into a political party's servers is "cyberwar" is a ludicrous exaggeration -- especially when their own security practices were suspect. As the ACLU's Chris Soghoian reminds us, it wasn't that long ago that our very own CIA director John Brennan found his personal email hacked by a 16-year-old. Was that a "cyberwar attack" as well? People are going to get hacked. It happens. Sometimes because they have weak security, and sometimes because the hackers are persistent and determined (no system is completely secure). That, alone, should never make it something that escalates to the level of "war."

Finally, beware of so-called "cybersecurity" firms continuing to beat this drum. Their entire business relies on keeping people freaked out about this stuff, including the idea that "nation state" hackers are trying to break into everything. They have lots of incentive to play up attacks and get people worked up about "war." "Cyberwar" (whatever the hell that means) is good for business for cybersecurity companies. In fact, some of those companies admit that the lessening of "cyber" tensions between the US and other countries is bad for their business:

Reminder: Cybersecurity firms like FireEye & Crowdstrike have a $$ incentive to keep nation-state hacking fears high pic.twitter.com/HIkSAGmEXg
— Trevor Timm (@trevortimm) July 25, 2016

None of this is to deny that nation state-level hacks may very well be happening. But let's keep things in perspective. Even if something like a "cyberwar" (again, whatever that means) happens, it's likely to be a lot less bloody than an actual war, and so much of the talk about this seems to be driven entirely by people who have a vested interest in promoting greater fear -- with little reason to suggest that, perhaps, this isn't a huge deal. In fact, perhaps a lot of this could be helped by simply employing better security practices and more encryption. But, you know, those kinds of solutions don't make headlines. "Cyberwar" does.

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

Filed Under: cybersecurity, cyberwar, dnc hack, exaggeration, russia

38 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Machin Shin (profile), 26 Jul 2016 @ 8:24am

Cyberwar
You know, I think we are actually getting very close to the perfect kind of war. We just need the countries to come together and agree to a neutral third party to regulate things

Then both countries will send in their best solders who will fight it out in the ultimate game of team fortress. Whatever side wins has won the war. Suddenly "Cyberwar" becomes a lot less deadly and much more fun way to handle wars.

Of course depending on the conflict the countries could choose different games, but same idea still would apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2016 @ 9:45am
  
  Re: Cyberwar
  no, we are heading to the star trek episode where they were on a planet where the wars were done by computer proxy simulations, then the people declared to have been killed in the computer simulation have to report to the euthanasia booths to make it so, number one !
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Machin Shin (profile), 26 Jul 2016 @ 9:58am
    
    Re: Re: Cyberwar
    Yeah, I can't think of any way that kind of system would make sense though. I guess you could argue that it cuts down on damage to infrastructure, but if I am going to die from a war I would prefer to actually fight in it.
    
    Now having a virtual reality war, that I can see making sense considering if we get the technology good enough we could fight an entirely virtual war and prevent any real death or damage.
    
    Sadly though I think we are more likely to just keep going with the "lets build robots that can kill" idea. So in the end we can all die a horrible death at the hands of our own robots.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 26 Jul 2016 @ 10:16am
  
  Re: Cyberwar
  That's a pleasant utopian idea, but it ignores the entire point of any war: to take something of economic value from the enemy and/or to eliminate the ability of the enemy to do something that war-maker objects to.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 26 Jul 2016 @ 10:27am
    
    Re: Re: Cyberwar
    entire point of any war: to take something of economic value from the enemy and/or to eliminate the ability of the enemy to do something that war-maker objects to.
    
    That's a pleasant view of war, if this was 100 years ago I would agree. Now its all about enriching the coffers of companies that manufacture weapons, plus what you said.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 26 Jul 2016 @ 10:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Cyberwar
      Yes, that's a huge factor as well. It's not even new -- weapons-makers stoking war to increase their sales was a problem even in ancient times.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Machin Shin (profile), 26 Jul 2016 @ 12:48pm
    
    Re: Re: Cyberwar
    Yeah, sadly there is also the whole ego thing. I would love to see us move away from all this stupid fighting and direct that energy elsewhere, but idiots will be idiots.
    
    I mean come on, what are these wars even over these days? Lot of times it seems to be stupid religious fighting. You don't follow same god as me so I must kill you junk. How about we all just drop the stupid fighting and instead focus on more fun things like going into space.
    
    Imagine the things we could do if all the military budgets world wide were taken away and directed at space programs. I bet we would have already colonized a few planets by now.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2016 @ 9:42am

pointless... the loser will just just claim cheating and go to actual war.

At the end of the day, physical violence is the only solution. Those that say it is not, well, tell them to talk things out in a kangaroo court with false evidence against them and a lying judge, cop, prosecutor, and ignorant as fuck jury after their life.

Might makes right, no matter how wrong any asshole is!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2016 @ 9:42am
  
  Re:
  sorry this was in reply to @Machin Shin.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Machin Shin (profile), 26 Jul 2016 @ 10:03am
  
  Re:
  Real irony though is strength doesn't necessarily win wars. A small poorly armed group could take on the largest of armies and still win. Strategy plays a huge part in a war, as does moral of your troops.
  
  Really just look around the world today. I don't think anyone would call the US military weak, yet they are sure having a lot of trouble with these little terror groups.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wendy Cockcroft, 27 Jul 2016 @ 5:40am
    
    Re: Re:
    That's because bombing the crap out of stuff is not a good strategy. It's great for bomb manufacturers, though.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Padpaw (profile), 27 Jul 2016 @ 5:11pm
  
  Re:
  the only way to limit wars would be to make those that decalre the war actually fight instead of sending off conscripted soldiers and exempting their own children and friends from said "draft"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
I.T. Guy, 26 Jul 2016 @ 9:44am

Hypocrisy is running high lately.

"So if Russian hackers possibly doing that to us is a "cyberwar attack" and it's the kind of thing we need to hit back on, then, uh, haven't we been committing "cyberwar" on tons of other parties via the NSA -- for which we, too, deserve retaliation?"

How do we know this isn't? We've been doing shitty things all around the world and in Cyberspace. Why is it we think there are no repercussions for our actions? Do as I say not as I do? It doesn't work that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Jul 2016 @ 10:16am
  
  Re:
  How much of this is due to our 3 letter agencies (who are charged with cybersecurity) believing the best defense is a good offence, rather than the other way around? It seems that, to them, defense is for sissy's.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2016 @ 10:39am
  
  Re:
  The irony and hypocrisy are found in people who are in a tizzy over Russia "hacking" the DNC email servers (Just to be clear, given how ridiculously clueless about computer security many democrats seem to act, I wouldn't at all be surprised if Russia just brute forced the password for root.), yet thought Hillary's email server was much ado about nothing.
  
  This whole fiasco is clearly a case of 'chicken coming home to roost' for democrat.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - I.T. Guy, 26 Jul 2016 @ 12:47pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Much ado about nothing? You know why I run my own email server and have done so since 2000... Because I wanted control of what goes where and where the information is housed. Letter agencies can goto my isp all they want and they will say I have never used their email. Sensitive stuff gets digitally signed and encrypted.
    
    Now... if you're a Senator... particularly one that has gone through what her and Bill did... you know DAMN WELL that running your own server is a big no no, and the only thing I can conclude is she wanted to be a sneaky bitch. And it worked too.
    
    https://www.google.com/search?q=hillarys+missing+emails&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=hillary%27s+miss ing+emails
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2016 @ 1:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You do understand I'm mocking democrats... right?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2016 @ 9:53am

Hacking email vs. hacking infrastructure vs. war apparatus
Before we declare a cyberwar we should consider the cost. Is it really worth possibly turning it into a real war just for an email server hack? Now if a nation-state is hacking infrastructure or the war machine then it might be worth considering.

Of course it is worth considering having real security to prevent such attacks in all circumstances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Machin Shin (profile), 26 Jul 2016 @ 10:08am
  
  Re: Hacking email vs. hacking infrastructure vs. war apparatus
  You really think they aren't hacking the "war machine"? It is one thing to hack an email server and then brag/showoff. It is quite different when you hack into a system to steal plans for weapons.
  
  You don't want anyone to know their classified weapons system is leaking valuable data, they might plug the leak. Their email though? That is rather useless and boring and not such a big deal if you loose access for a bit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ryunosuke (profile), 26 Jul 2016 @ 9:55am

I am only half worried. I mean, yes russian hackers are top-notch. but... on the other hand, you have Russian Internet censors, censoring themselves
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2016 @ 10:20am

I wonder if Obama will regret putting gas on this fire that Russia "may" have hacked the DNC, only to be surprised with calls to start a cyberwar with Russia (which I don't think he wants).

Then again, he hopes Clinton would win the election, and then it would just be her problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2016 @ 10:27am

Isn't the DNC a private organization? How would this qualify as an act of Cyberwarfare unless some branch of our actual government is targeted. In any case, the fact that the FBI is backing the "Russia did it" theory doesn't mean much. Aren't they in bed with the DNC anyways?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2016 @ 10:29am

The schadenfreude is over the top on this story for me considering how democrats, just 4 years ago totally lambasted Romney is ignorant, out of touch, and stuck in the 1980's for naming Russia as our #1 geopolitical foe.

Well, little donkeys, quit your whining and enjoy the bed you've made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Berenerd (profile), 26 Jul 2016 @ 10:35am

I wonder if the people who ran Hilary's email server, also worked on the DNC email server. As I hear more and more it sounds like the same security practices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2016 @ 10:39am
  
  Re:
  Too true
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
KJ (profile), 26 Jul 2016 @ 11:05am

Thanks to Putin for finally bringing transparency to our country's nominating process. Returning the favor doesn't seem like a bad thing as long as the "war" modifier is removed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2016 @ 11:06am

A few cuise missles up Russia's butt
might teach them a thing or two. But the libs in the Whitehouse are too weak to do anything like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Padpaw (profile), 27 Jul 2016 @ 5:12pm
  
  Re: A few cuise missles up Russia's butt
  just remember they have a powerful military just as much as America and refuse to be bullied.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2016 @ 12:00pm

Oh, it's really not.
This is insane for a variety of reasons, and hopefully no one is seriously listening to this.

It's not insane. It's profitable -- for Dave Aitel, and for every specious "expert" like him who is willing to hype threats so that they can line their own pockets. Why should he care about the hundreds of millions of people who'd be adversely affected...as long as the cash register is ringing?

If you want sober commentary on security, dismiss self-promoting frauds like Aitel and turn to academic researchers. The typical post-doc researcher offers a much more reasoned and nuanced analysis, devoid of the necessity of exaggeration for profit's sake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2016 @ 12:41pm

Definition?
"It meets the definition of an act of cyberwar..." (emphasis added).

Um, whose definition, and where can I review it, Dave?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peter (profile), 26 Jul 2016 @ 1:01pm

There a plenty of stories of Chinese hackers and Russian hackers walking away with American data as they please. On a regular basis, some British teenager is shipped over to the US for breaking into CIA and DoD and Pentagon computers.

Other than the Snowden-papers, which are more bragging about capabilities than evidence for successful data retrieval, there are few stories of US hackers getting anywhere with breaking into foreign systems. One can't help but wonder if the US cyberwarriors are really playing in the same league.

If they aren't, it might not be such a good idea to start a cyberwar ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2016 @ 1:20pm
  
  Re:
  They created malware that destroyed equipment worth 10s of millions of dollars and infected systems world wide.
  I'd say that's pretty good.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2016 @ 4:18pm

As long as the information is truthful and accurate why does it matter the motivation or the label of group behind it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jim, 26 Jul 2016 @ 4:42pm

But:
Interesting side note. NATO general quiting? He is the one pushing for war. Don't look at Hillery on that one. Seems as if every general and department SRS is Republican. Me wonders?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
orbitalinsertion (profile), 26 Jul 2016 @ 6:29pm

But Putin is trying to annex my refrigerator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2016 @ 8:50pm

I'm pretty sure cyberwar was declared after Sony got hacked.

And look how that (didn't) turn out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Padpaw (profile), 27 Jul 2016 @ 3:33pm

Amusing that they would declare this the last straw when the US agencies keep getting caught hacking other countries networks and constantly breaking international law.

The whole it's not a crime when we do it doesn't work if the other guy has just as strong a military as you do. You can't bully them then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sallyride20 (profile), 27 Jul 2016 @ 6:37pm

cyber warfare
I am not sure why you didn't contact more intelligence officials for this article, it was not accurate. We already are considered to be in a cyber war with Russia. Cyber war is different from typical hacking. It specifically seeks to alter the political outcome or destroy another countries trajectory and move it to towards the originators direction. Think of it as if you were able to drop a bomb to change a government or political outcome but it's not needed, you can now use code. We have already been at war with Russia for years. Trump just asked Russia to intervene in our political system, he thinks it wasn't treason. He knows nothing about cyber warfare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]