Return-Path: <jsforza@isrisk.net> Delivered-To: fc@all.net Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 11 Jun 2001 06:54:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 24630 invoked by uid 510); 11 Jun 2001 12:54:26 -0000 Received: from mailout2-1.nyroc.rr.com (HELO mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.165) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 11 Jun 2001 12:54:26 -0000 Received: from isriskxcurrent (roc-24-169-96-20.rochester.rr.com [24.169.96.20]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with SMTP id f5BDqHW21417 for <fc@all.net>; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:52:22 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: <jsforza@isrisk.net> From: "John Sforza" <jsforza@isrisk.net> To: <fc@all.net> Subject: RE: [iwar] Arab/Israeli "CyberWar" of our own making Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:53:31 -0400 Message-ID: <000301c0f27d$e7477e70$6401a8c0@isrisk.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <200106111318.GAA28050@all.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Importance: Normal Ok, Fred you got your comment in before I finished typing - but I wanted my half cent. If you think this is relevant then post - otherwise trash. Where is the classification of escalation of conflict regarding computer based info systems? I don't consider a punch in the nose to be in the same conflict classification as being targeted and fired on by a M1 Abrams. Web defacement is annoying, Site DDoS raises the level, but to what? I see this as terrorism more than war (not criminal activity unless an infraction of law was involved). I have always associated war with a diplomatic bend. I see so much effort to classify everything in security by technique, method and impact why are we using the most reactive term regarding incidents? I will give Winn his due on Infowar but the classification is too broad and it's usage has the potential to lead to the 'button push - nuclear holocaust' syndrome. > I agree that we need to continue to consider our definitions, but I do > think that in this case I have made a credible case for what cyber > warfare may be and that the PLO Israeli conflict supports this notion. > Whether the intensity is again picking up is the question I would like > to see answered and documented here. Perception has a lot to do with this. I have no cultural commitments in that theatre and as such identify the frequency of activity as increasing but do not consider the intensity of conflict as rising. An Israeli associate of mine however reacts VERY differently. Any increase in frequency is attended by a perception of cultural and personal attack, he considers that the conflict intensity is rising significantly. I like the term cyber-conflict more than cyber-warfare but I concede that your term is better that *war.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-06-30 21:44:16 PDT