Here's a quote I came upon after researching DDoS attacks against root name servers.
"If the United States found itself under a major cyberattack aimed at undermining the nation’s critical information infrastructure, the Department of Defense is prepared, based on the authority of the president, to launch a cyber counterattack or an actual bombing of an attack source."
Just reading this quote scares me!! How much do we need to evolve in order to understand that not every attack can be fixed with bombs? Our governments infrastructure is hit by DDoS attacks all the time and the attackers are almost always using botnets to do it.
Good luck bombing all those civilian attack sources. Fail.
"If the United States found itself under a major cyberattack aimed at undermining the nation’s critical information infrastructure, the Department of Defense is prepared, based on the authority of the president, to launch a cyber counterattack or an actual bombing of an attack source."
Just reading this quote scares me!! How much do we need to evolve in order to understand that not every attack can be fixed with bombs? Our governments infrastructure is hit by DDoS attacks all the time and the attackers are almost always using botnets to do it.
Good luck bombing all those civilian attack sources. Fail.
The idea of physical retaliation for a cyberattack, especially when considering the distributed nature of many attacks, feels incredibly outdated and frankly, quite dangerous. It reminds me a bit of how satisfying it is in games like Block Blast to clear rows and keep the board from filling up - a delicate balance that feels so different from the blunt force approach mentioned here. It's a great way to unwind, focusing on strategy rather than escalation. Do you think there's a risk that such a mindset could lead to misidentifying targets and escalating conflicts unnecessarily?
ReplyDelete