RE: [iwar] Statics On Cyber-terrorism.htm


From: Wanja Eric Naef \(IWS\)
From: w.naef@iwar.org.uk
To: iwar@egroups.com

Thu, 28 Dec 2000 18:25:45 -0000


fc  Thu Dec 28 10:27:07 2000
Received: from 207.222.214.225
	by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0)
	for fc@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:27:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by multi33.netcomi.com for fc
 (with Netcom Interactive pop3d (v1.21.1 1998/05/07) Thu Dec 28 18:22:55 2000)
X-From_: w.naef@iwar.org.uk  Thu Dec 28 12:21:55 2000
Received: from hj.egroups.com (hj.egroups.com [208.50.99.212]) by multi33.netcomi.com (8.8.5/8.7.4) with SMTP id MAA15569 for ; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 12:21:49 -0600
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-848-978027959-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.4.54] by hj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 28 Dec 2000 18:26:00 -0000
X-Sender: w.naef@iwar.org.uk
X-Apparently-To: iwar@egroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 28 Dec 2000 18:25:59 -0000
Received: (qmail 79274 invoked from network); 28 Dec 2000 18:25:58 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Dec 2000 18:25:58 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ruthenium) (194.73.73.138) by mta3 with SMTP; 28 Dec 2000 19:27:03 -0000
Received: from [213.123.142.116] (helo=vanya) by ruthenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14BhkR-0001ya-00 for iwar@egroups.com; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 18:25:55 +0000
To: 
Message-ID: 
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: 
From: "Wanja Eric Naef \(IWS\)" 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list iwar@egroups.com; contact iwar-owner@egroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: 
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 18:25:45 -0000
Reply-To: iwar@egroups.com
Subject: RE: [iwar] Statics On Cyber-terrorism.htm
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Cyberterrorism, some parts of an old unpublished draft paper on digital
terrorism (I prefer this term to cyberterrorism)

(Copyright IWS)

   Conclusion

 Thus we have seen, our information society is vulnerable to attacks, but
one has to keep in mind that vulnerability does not automatically translate
into threats. It is very difficult to estimate the real threat to IIN by
terrorist organisations, as we have to deal with two of our basic fears: the
fear of technology and the fear of random violence, i.e. terrorism.
Economic information warfare consisting of manipulation of information
exchanged in trade through either denial or exploitation might be a future
instrument of coercion for terrorists of the new millennium.

We need to protect ourselves against such potential threat through a clear
policy of information assurance between the state, private industry and even
the individual

Information warfare may yet become a tempting weapon for coercion by
terrorist organisations. But most of today's terrorist organisations prefer
to use physical, trusted weapons, which have worked well previously and will
continue to be used in the future. Ambassador Michael Sheehan, US
Co-ordinator for Counterterrorism stressed this, but also warned that in
future terrorists might turn to WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction.)

' Today's weapon of choice for terrorists remains the AK-47, the car bomb,
and the rocket. But terrorists looking for a bigger impact will increasingly
turn to weapons of mass destruction and cyberterrorism.[1][ '

How many AK-47's do you need to bring down the United States Army? But how
many directed digital attacks does a terrorist organisation need to
undermine the 'New Economy'. Not many, but currently it is not yet possible
to wage a strategic information warfare campaign.  The over hyped  'First
Cyberattack by Terrorists'[2] by Internet Black Tigers was nothing more than
just email spamming which can be done with simple programs such as Digital
Warfare 1.0.





Program for email bombing



In the very long run information warfare capabilities might prove to be the
great equaliser terrorists have always longed for but could never hope to
attain.

Furthermore digital attacks represent the perfect tool for organisation to
influence their target audience through perception management. It might take
the terrorists a while till they understand that 'beneath the rule of men
entirely great, the pen is mightier than the sword.'[3] It will be difficult
for a Middle Eastern terrorist organisation to explain that a major attack
on, for example, Yahoo.com, had more impact than a traditional car bomb
aimed at heart of the enemy. Nevertheless, IW will prove to be effective
against Third Wave societies as they are highly dependent on computers and
information systems. But IW will not have a big impact on Second or even
First Wave societies. Therefore, their weapon of choice will still be a
conventional one as the enemy is not highly dependent on information and
consequently it would not make sense to waste the terrorists' limited
resources on such a digital attack.

IW has to become more cost-effective to terrorists. It must be possible for
them to embark on such a campaign while sustaining their conventional
operations. IW represents the modern day Marxist ideal of attacking the
means of production in the 'New Economy'.

Nevertheless, terrorists have made good use of information technology for
communication and intelligence gathering. IT currently enables terrorists to
communicate and exchange information over the Internet without limitations
of the physical world.[4] Strong encryption makes it virtually impossible to
read the communication of terrorist groups.[5]

IT also offers terrorists the opportunity to spread word of their cause and
ideology through e-mail and web sites.[6]

To conclude one could say that terrorist groups based in Third Wave
societies are more likely to employ weapons of that society. While terrorist
groups of the Second or even First Wave society are more likely to use
conventional weapons and are unlikely to employ digital weapons in the near
future. Furthermore those organisations which want to wage an information
attack will have to change their organisational culture. They will have to
explain to their followers that IW on the enemy with hardly any casualties
is currently more powerful than a violent bomb attack on a symbolic enemy
target, such as embassies, world trade buildings, national airlines.

 In the end role of information technology at this moment might be summed up
as - 'ploughshares, but not yet swords'.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

[1] Michael Sheehan, Post-Millennium Terrorism Review (February, 2000)
[online] available:
http://www.state.gov/www/policy_remarks/2000/000210_sheeehan_brookings.html
[March 2000]

[2] Reuters, U.S.: First Cyberattack by Terrorists

[3] Quote taken from Edward Bulwer-Lytton (1803-73) British novelist and
politician. Richelieu, II:2

[4] Kevin Soo Hoo, Seymour Goodman and Lawrence Greenberg, Information
Technology and the Terrorist Threat in Survival Autumn 1997, p. 136

[5] Dorothy E. Denning, Information Warfare and Security, p. 292

[6] Kevin Soo Hoo, Seymour Goodman and Lawrence Greenberg, Information
Technology and the Terrorist Threat, p. 139


Wanja Eric Naef

Webmaster & Researcher
IWS - The Information Warfare Site
http://www.iwar.org.uk




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/595019/_/978027959/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

------------------
http://all.net/