27 Jan
2021
27 Jan
'21
6:28 p.m.
So one of my new fav questions to ask policy teams is what they would do if
they were told to switch their offensive team entirely to worms. Nothing
else. Just worms. What needs to change to make that happen - from op tempo
to supply chain to personnel to policy and technological investment.
And how would their defensive team need to change strategically if they
were facing such an offensive team.
It's a fun thing to see people wrap their minds around. :)
Also, if you missed it, yesterday's CYBER HOT TAKES are here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzcmfIgvj7A&t=2s&ab_channel=DaveAit…
-dave
27 Jan
27 Jan
10:39 p.m.
Did any of them mention international humanitarian law, specifically
discrimination, respecting territory of neutral ("green") actors and
their infrastructure, and avoiding harm to neutral third parties and
non-combatants? The problem with most worms is the inability to
accurately discriminate targets and resulting harm. This is an area
where technical experts need to be balanced with operators and policy
makers to ensure that non-technical operators and policy makers fully
understand what it is that they are talking about. And where use of
*all* of the levers of sovereign power, in partnership with other
nations, to establish and enforce norms, is crucial. Should we really
consider unconstrained damage and instantaneous global chaos as "fun?"
;)
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 8:45 PM Dave Aitel via Dailydave
<dailydave(a)lists.aitelfoundation.org> wrote:
So one of my new fav questions to ask policy teams is what they would do if they were
told to switch their offensive team entirely to worms. Nothing else. Just worms. What
needs to change to make that happen - from op tempo to supply chain to personnel to policy
and technological investment.
And how would their defensive team need to change strategically if they were facing such
an offensive team.
It's a fun thing to see people wrap their minds around. :)
Also, if you missed it, yesterday's CYBER HOT TAKES are here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzcmfIgvj7A&t=2s&ab_channel=DaveAit…
-dave
_______________________________________________
Dailydave mailing list -- dailydave(a)lists.aitelfoundation.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dailydave-leave(a)lists.aitelfoundation.org
--
Dave Dittrich
@davedittrich
dave.dittrich(a)gmail.com
https://davedittrich.github.io/
28 Jan
28 Jan
9:01 a.m.
I mean, the goal of the question is to start putting some meat on the idea
of what "harm" is and how that is reflected both from a policy and
technical perspective. But also: It's useful to put some real definitions
around what is required to make people comfortable with fully-automated
techniques.
I don't think the idea that we are going to come up with and enforce norms
is as useful as figuring out what the norms really are sometimes, perhaps.
-dave
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:39 AM Dave Dittrich <dave.dittrich(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Did any of them mention international humanitarian
law, specifically
discrimination, respecting territory of neutral ("green") actors and
their infrastructure, and avoiding harm to neutral third parties and
non-combatants? The problem with most worms is the inability to
accurately discriminate targets and resulting harm. This is an area
where technical experts need to be balanced with operators and policy
makers to ensure that non-technical operators and policy makers fully
understand what it is that they are talking about. And where use of
*all* of the levers of sovereign power, in partnership with other
nations, to establish and enforce norms, is crucial. Should we really
consider unconstrained damage and instantaneous global chaos as "fun?"
;)
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 8:45 PM Dave Aitel via Dailydave
<dailydave(a)lists.aitelfoundation.org> wrote:
So one of my new fav questions to ask policy teams is what they would do
if they
were told to switch their offensive team entirely to worms. Nothing
else. Just worms. What needs to change to make that happen - from op tempo
to supply chain to personnel to policy and technological investment.
And how would their defensive team need to change strategically if they
were
facing such an offensive team.
It's a fun thing to see people wrap their minds around. :)
Also, if you missed it, yesterday's CYBER HOT TAKES are here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzcmfIgvj7A&t=2s&ab_channel=DaveAit…
-dave
_______________________________________________
Dailydave mailing list -- dailydave(a)lists.aitelfoundation.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
dailydave-leave(a)lists.aitelfoundation.org
--
Dave Dittrich
@davedittrich
dave.dittrich(a)gmail.com
https://davedittrich.github.io/
9:55 a.m.
Folks like Joe Slowik
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7XqxRXwFZ4&ab_channel=CYBERWARCON>, Grugq
<https://www.blackhat.com/docs/webcast/12142017-the-triple-a-threat.pdf>and you
<https://cybersecpolitics.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-stern-stewart-summit-germany-and.html>(Dave)
have tried to articulate the CONOPS for worms since long. In their current
forms, worms look like IO packages in full-spectrum missions. Ignoring
technical problems like extreme target dependence
<https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/978081573547_ch1.pdf> for
worms, "harm" would always be defined at the policy level, and then
technical. There is a reason why Defend Forward assumes that establishing
"contact" in forward areas is a precursor to producing signals or effects
(and that reason is not technical). That's also why SolarWinds was missed.
You could have neatly placed (wormable) SolarWinds on the axis of Gerasimov
Doctrine
<https://www.militairespectator.nl/sites/default/files/afbeeldingen/Militairy%20Review%20Figuur%20Bartles.jpg>
where "crisis reaction" morphs into "localisation" and
"neutralisation" of
conflict. A whole genre of Russian or Chinese doctrinal literature on
noncontact operations is highly conducive for worms; but then, you can't
see things in isolation. You start talking about things like
systems-on-systems warfare. It becomes way more than just target
discrimination and noncombatants. You enter an informational conflict (la
US vs. Nicaragua). You start imbibing the Russian definition
<https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/publications/pr-19-1004-russian-military-thought-concepts-elements.pdf>
of asymmetricity and Creative Military Thought -- worms would fall under
the same category as "inspection satellites." Everything becomes Reflexive
Control. That's where the norms customary law would come from, such
behavioral precedents.
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 12:13 AM Dave Aitel via Dailydave <
dailydave(a)lists.aitelfoundation.org> wrote:
I mean, the goal of the question is to start putting
some meat on the idea
of what "harm" is and how that is reflected both from a policy and
technical perspective. But also: It's useful to put some real definitions
around what is required to make people comfortable with fully-automated
techniques.
I don't think the idea that we are going to come up with and enforce norms
is as useful as figuring out what the norms really are sometimes, perhaps.
-dave
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:39 AM Dave Dittrich <dave.dittrich(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Did any of them mention international
humanitarian law, specifically
discrimination, respecting territory of neutral ("green") actors and
their infrastructure, and avoiding harm to neutral third parties and
non-combatants? The problem with most worms is the inability to
accurately discriminate targets and resulting harm. This is an area
where technical experts need to be balanced with operators and policy
makers to ensure that non-technical operators and policy makers fully
understand what it is that they are talking about. And where use of
*all* of the levers of sovereign power, in partnership with other
nations, to establish and enforce norms, is crucial. Should we really
consider unconstrained damage and instantaneous global chaos as "fun?"
;)
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 8:45 PM Dave Aitel via Dailydave
<dailydave(a)lists.aitelfoundation.org> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Dailydave mailing list -- dailydave(a)lists.aitelfoundation.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dailydave-leave(a)lists.aitelfoundation.org
So one of my new fav questions to ask policy teams is what they would
do if they
were told to switch their offensive team entirely to worms.
Nothing else. Just worms. What needs to change to make that happen - from
op tempo to supply chain to personnel to policy and technological
investment.
And how would their defensive team need to change strategically if they
were
facing such an offensive team.
It's a fun thing to see people wrap their minds around. :)
Also, if you missed it, yesterday's CYBER HOT TAKES are here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzcmfIgvj7A&t=2s&ab_channel=DaveAit…
-dave
_______________________________________________
Dailydave mailing list -- dailydave(a)lists.aitelfoundation.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
dailydave-leave(a)lists.aitelfoundation.org
--
Dave Dittrich
@davedittrich
dave.dittrich(a)gmail.com
https://davedittrich.github.io/
1189
days inactive
1189
days old
dailydave@lists.aitelfoundation.org
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Dave Aitel -
Dave Dittrich -
Pukhraj Singh