The cyber-weapons paradox: 'They're not that dangerous'

Mushroom

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong

Although I agree there is some scaremongering going on, I do think cyber-weaponry has already demonstrated its potency and there is growing potential for doing more damage.

What is even worse, nobody knows how much spying is going on by means of cyber-attacks. Defintely there is lots of activity, that's what we know.

Examples:

1.) Stuxnet. Serious damage to the Iranian nuclear program. Not terminal, though.

2.) Syrian Reactor bombed. They managed to do that w/o the Syrian radar detecting them. How did that happen, despite no stealth a/c used ??

Of course, cyber attacks/reconnaissance must be seen as a tool in the big toolbox of militaries and their attached intel agencies. Serious damage can be done by combining cyber operations with conventional ops like air attacks or submarine attacks.

Use cyber means to reconnoiter and disable and then conventional forces to precisely strike on a supposedly unknown location/system based on the intel gained from cyber. That is probably what matters in the future.

In the electronics circles there is already much discussion about electronic warfare and cyber attacks, whether it is the same or something different. But there are very few doubts cyber attacks can and will be done.

Finally, modern intel gathering systems could be easily the target of cyber attacks. All one needs to do is to send a poisoned PDF via satcom and wait for the payload to report back. I am absolutely sure the gobbermints didn't bother to write their own PDF parsers and probably they all have integrated libpoppler or the Adobe crap into their vaccum cleaners.

Picture of an A380 crashed by cyber attack.

0
0

Back to the forum

Forums