Return-Path: <sentto-279987-1360-993133535-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com> Delivered-To: fc@all.net Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 21 Jun 2001 07:26:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 17001 invoked by uid 510); 21 Jun 2001 13:27:23 -0000 Received: from ci.egroups.com (64.211.240.235) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 21 Jun 2001 13:27:23 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-1360-993133535-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.4.55] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 21 Jun 2001 14:25:36 -0000 X-Sender: fc@all.net X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 21 Jun 2001 14:25:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 44652 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2001 14:22:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Jun 2001 14:22:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO all.net) (65.0.156.78) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Jun 2001 14:22:39 -0000 Received: (from fc@localhost) by all.net (8.9.3/8.7.3) id HAA07268 for iwar@onelist.com; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 07:22:39 -0700 Message-Id: <200106211422.HAA07268@all.net> To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List) Organization: I'm not allowed to say X-Mailer: don't even ask X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net> Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 07:22:38 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Subject: [iwar] news Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,1870,52460,00.html Weapon for US' next war: Computer viruses 'Troops' armed with keystrokes and clicks will be the new warriors inthe bloodless cyberwars of the future ARLINGTON (Virginia) - They do not drive tanks, fly jets or even wear boots, but the computer technicians hunkered down in virtual foxholes in a pale yellow building here might well be the frontline soldiers in the United States' next war. They work for the Defence Information Systems Agency, which figures that future conflicts will not be won by shooting down an enemy's planes, but by shutting down its computers. Today, they defend the US military's 2.5 million computers against hackers. But they are being trained to guard against computer attacks by other countries and to launch computer- virus invasions that will bring chaos to a foe's communications networks, financial systems and power grids. Military analysts said the US is one of more than 20 countries preparing for this new kind of conflict, known within the Defence Department as 'IW' for information warfare. Last autumn, the Pentagon disclosed that the US Space Command was building offensive computer weapons to use against adversaries. Previously, the Pentagon focused on defensive measures to protect US military computers, satellites and communication links. Russia, North Korea, Iraq, Libya, Cuba, Britain, France, Israel and China are also developing IW capabilities, said military analysts. The Congressional Research Service said that China has assembled a battalion of computer experts to develop offensive viruses and defences that some in the Pentagon call 'the Great Firewall of China'. 'The next time you see a major international conflict between two technologically advanced opponents, you're going to see computer- network attacks,' said Mr Dan Kuehl, who teaches IW at the National Defence University in Washington. At a time that political leaders seek to minimise casualties and the US public has come to expect bloodless, precision strikes, computer viruses are an enticing and fairly cheap weapon. Analysts said IW could shorten conventional conflicts or even head them off. The Pentagon has already used computer weapons. In the Gulf War, US aircraft emitted electronic signals that disrupted Iraqi air-defence computers and interfered with their ability to target allied warplanes. But first the Pentagon and policymakers have some concerns to overcome. One is learning how to defend against viruses launched by attackers who can hide their identities. Another concern is whether IW fits within the legal and ethical boundaries of warfare because of the potential damage to civilians. Computer weapons are not precise enough to limit damage to military targets. Unlike precision-guided bombs, a virus unleashed to shut down power in a military command post could spread to a hospital. But these concerns have not slowed down a rush by militaries to integrate this new weapon into their war plans in the hopes it will reduce casualties.--USA Today ------------------ http://all.net/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-06-30 21:44:18 PDT