Research on Cyber Warfare

[Thorn]

Re: Research on Cyber Warfare

I think many people fail to the distinction between working WITH law enforcement and working IN law enforcement.

Streaker's been watching Blade Runner again.
Bryant: "You know the score, pal. You're not cop, you're little people!"

Thorn & streaker69, her online bio says that she “is currently employed full-time by the ______ County District Attorneys Office. She has spent over 11 years working with law enforcement in preparing cases using digital evidence for trial.” I’m sorry if I said “in”, rather than “with”. Her bio is a bit vague as to what she actually does. All I know is that she is also teaching the Cybercrime and Computer Forensics classes that I have to take. She is apparently a new addition at my school and was given my Information Assurance class at the last minute, as a different instructor was listed when I first registered.

It sounds like she's probably a technical specialist for the DA's office, which may or may not be a sworn position. Either way, to most people that would probably count as being "in" law enforcement, although to anyone who started in uniform, her street cred would probably be close to zero.

[AgentDarkApple]

Re: Research on Cyber Warfare

HighWiz, the more focused topic is info warfare and how it is both beneficial and dangerous to use computers and electronics for sensitive information particularly in warfare; and what considerations must be made regarding information security and information assurance, particularly in the context of war and national security. I was going to use examples of what could happen or what did happen (cyber crimes used as an act of war, cyber terror, Russia & Georgia, etc.) then get into applicable war theories, application of information security and information assurance principles, the CIA triangle, and why none of this is foolproof. I'm trying to steer away from the sci-fi and media-sensationalized ideas that I had when I first began the research.

Thorn & streaker69, her online bio says that she “is currently employed full-time by the ______ County District Attorneys Office. She has spent over 11 years working with law enforcement in preparing cases using digital evidence for trial.” I’m sorry if I said “in”, rather than “with”. Her bio is a bit vague as to what she actually does. All I know is that she is also teaching the Cybercrime and Computer Forensics classes that I have to take. She is apparently a new addition at my school and was given my Information Assurance class at the last minute, as a different instructor was listed when I first registered.

[streaker69]

Re: Research on Cyber Warfare

"Working in Law Enforcement" (which is what he initially said) can mean a lot of things. My guess would be that the scope of her involvement was a "consultant" to the upper echelons of an organization.

Agreed. I was thinking along similar lines.

I think many people fail to the distinction between working WITH law enforcement and working IN law enforcement.

[Thorn]

Re: Research on Cyber Warfare

I agree, let's stick to the topic and not clutter the thread up.

I've often wondered why the term 'cyber security' got so popular. I find myself in the same situation with the DHS, being conflicted about the catch-all term. A lot of people use it as a short hand, catch all phrase. It is shorter than saying Information assurance / network security / information security / application security / whatever.

Much like "hacker" got appropriated by the mainstream press to esentiall become short hand for "malicious criminal" in the late '90s, Cyber has already stuck. It is here to stay, for better or worse.

Cyber Security, Cyber war, Cyber Coordinator, Cyber Command. The cat is out of the bag, jumped the shark, and down the rabbit hole.

You man the Cybercat is out of the Cyberbag, jumped the Cybershark, and down the Cyberrabbit-hole... Sorry, Thorn, had to.

Honestly, everyone can keep fighting about not using the term, but DT is right. The word is here to stay. So, we can either keep arguing about the term till we're blue in the face and expend all our energy doing that or begrudgingly accept it, and put forth the energy in educating people on protect themselves.

Please, don't get me wrong. I agree that education on the problem is the real point, and that our emphasis as a group should be there. It's just went I see "cyber*" it's an indicator to me that the person is a dilettante. Like I said, it's a red flag.

"Working in Law Enforcement" (which is what he initially said) can mean a lot of things. My guess would be that the scope of her involvement was a "consultant" to the upper echelons of an organization.

Agreed. I was thinking along similar lines.

[HighWiz]

Re: Research on Cyber Warfare

I'm a chick as well. I simply have no tolerance for the majority of other chicks and their finicky ways.

(Emphasis Mine)

See, unlike before, in this statement you used a qualifier.

I've reached a more focused topic now (I included a rough outline in another post). When I wrote the post you were referencing, I was in the first few days of research - at that point I was not sure what exactly to include.

So what's the "more focused topic"?

[AgentDarkApple]

Re: Research on Cyber Warfare

Wow, in case you haven't figured it out by now, that's a total douchebag thing to say.

...

Define your fucking topic. Don't be overly broad and try to cover everything and the kitchen sink.

I'm a chick as well. I simply have no tolerance for the majority of other chicks and their finicky ways.

I've reached a more focused topic now (I included a rough outline in another post). When I wrote the post you were referencing, I was in the first few days of research - at that point I was not sure what exactly to include.

[HighWiz]

Re: Research on Cyber Warfare

Deriding the word "cyber"

Honestly, everyone can keep fighting about not using the term, but DT is right. The word is here to stay. So, we can either keep arguing about the term till we're blue in the face and expend all our energy doing that or begrudgingly accept it, and put forth the energy in educating people on protect themselves.

Personally I'll choose the later.

I can assure you I am NOT a tool or panderer. I could care less what anybody THINKS, and I am far from being a people pleaser. The only reason I care so much about whether or not the teacher likes the title is because chicks often take things at face value. Whether or not she likes the title will set her mood while grading my paper. If she’s having a PMS week and is a tough grader or doesn’t agree with my perspective, she might still think “Ah, but the title was catchy, so she still gets an A.” I have had finicky professors like that in the past, both male and female. I need to do well in her class particularly, because she teaches at least two other courses that I must take. In other words, this woman could make my life a living hell if she were so inclined. And the reason I care about input here in the forums is that I know some of you guys aren’t just telling me what you THINK but what you KNOW - and it’s a heck of a lot more than I’m going to learn just by taking a class. I’m the first to admit that I’m the researcher, not the expert. I’m up for learning whatever you guys can teach me.

(Emphasis Mine)

Wow, in case you haven't figured it out by now, that's a total douchebag thing to say.

I am mildly offended.

Then he should have a long way to go, before you become truly upset! He/she/it may be (probably is) a total and utter tool, but don't initiate a public flogging over a title or the usage of the term "cyber". Especially when there are so many other reasons to rip him/her/it apart.

The title is simply being used to "draw in the reader".

As far as this particular professor goes though, based on the fact she was in law enforcement, I'd surprised that she'd be that close minded in the choice of the term. Anyone who actually spent in time in law enforcement should have a finally tuned BS detector, and she should know the term is farcical. Either that or her LEO credentials are completely

bogus.

"Working in Law Enforcement" (which is what he initially said) can mean a lot of things. My guess would be that the scope of her involvement was a "consultant" to the upper echelons of an organization.

Your posts are a good example of how females can be overly critical at the slightest thing. A fine illustration of why I dread writing a paper for a female professor.

(Emphasis Mine)

That's two!

Georgia was going to be an example. I'm not sure if I can narrow the title down to

"Information Warfare and the Threat of Internet based Terrorism" because I might throw in something about UAVs/drones or using nanotech - then again, I might end up with enough that I don't need to mention those.

Define your fucking topic. Don't be overly broad and try to cover everything and the kitchen sink.

Go read the GhostNet report.

And don't be a douche...

[AgentDarkApple]

Re: Research on Cyber Warfare

I agree, let's stick to the topic and not clutter the thread up.

I've often wondered why the term 'cyber security' got so popular...

Cyber has already stuck. It is here to stay, for better or worse.

Cyber Security, Cyber war, Cyber Coordinator, Cyber Command. The cat is out of the bag, jumped the shark, and down the rabbit hole.

I am trying to find out exactly who is credited with first using "cyber warfare" - I'm guessing it definitely wasn't an expert...or at least not an expert in the computer and network security field. I'm thinking maybe some military guy came up with it...or a journalist. Hopefully as I sift through all those sources, I'll find out



sintax_error & renderman - I hope my prof is an objective grader, as I try to be objective when writing my papers. I guess past experiences with loony teachers has left me a bit scarred.

[renderman]

Re: Research on Cyber Warfare

Unless the instructor is a total douche, the ability to make a solid argument backed up with facts and not fear mongering bullshit should be accepted even if the ideas contained inside are against the current thinking.

You can have a thesis stating that there is no risk from warfare and that the only result of such attacks would be fields of happy bunnies frolicking in the sunshine being spontaneously created. So long as your thesis is backed up with concrete facts regarding bunny affinity for network backbone saturation and the electromagnetic fields created as it relates to the the quantum state of bunnies and their ability to be spontaneously created or duplicated upon interaction with those electromagnetic fields.

Make sure to include relevant weather data and forecasts for the expected area of the attack that can accurately predict the chance of it being a sunny day (taking into account the time of day of the attack since you can't have bunnies frolicking in the sunshine at night)

Yes, in fact I did such a report. Yes, I passed. Yes, I got asked to never do that again.

You should see some of the reports I write for clients and the subtle arguments about why their network is run by 4 year olds.

The idea is that you need to present the facts as you see them and not try to conform to their expectation. If done well and the instructor is not some conformist prick, they will evaluate you based on the arguments and facts presented, no matter how absurd seeming.

Render

[sintax_error]

Re: Research on Cyber Warfare

Cyber Security, Cyber war, Cyber Coordinator, Cyber Command. The cat is out of the bag, jumped the shark, and down the rabbit hole.

You man the Cybercat is out of the Cyberbag, jumped the Cybershark, and down the Cyberrabbit-hole... Sorry, Thorn, had to.

But in all seriousness. DarkAgentApple, the title should be the least of your concerns with your paper. As long as the research is sound and the content is up to par, you really shouldn't be worried about the sex of your teacher or the opinions of anyone on these or any forums. Focus more on what you want to get across. That's pretty much as on topic as I want to stay at the moment.

[Dark Tangent]

Re: Research on Cyber Warfare

Now that your ego has been satisfied, can we stay on topic?

I agree, let's stick to the topic and not clutter the thread up.

I've often wondered why the term 'cyber security' got so popular. I find myself in the same situation with the DHS, being conflicted about the catch-all term. A lot of people use it as a short hand, catch all phrase. It is shorter than saying Information assurance / network security / information security / application security / whatever.

Much like "hacker" got appropriated by the mainstream press to esentiall become short hand for "malicious criminal" in the late '90s, Cyber has already stuck. It is here to stay, for better or worse.

Cyber Security, Cyber war, Cyber Coordinator, Cyber Command. The cat is out of the bag, jumped the shark, and down the rabbit hole.

[AgentDarkApple]

Re: Research on Cyber Warfare

Now that your ego has been satisfied, can we stay on topic?

[valkyrie]

Re: Research on Cyber Warfare

Academic situations are my one exception to not caring. I care that the TITLE is catchy as far as setting a good tone for the grade. As for the rest of the paper, I am deviating from what is in the text books and academic journals and going after it from the more accurate but lesser-known angle that people on this forum have shed light on. The whole point in asking the question on here is to find accurate, relevant stuff, as I'm interested in this topic beyond just this paper. I'm willing to share the research too, not just hoard it.

Your posts are a good example of how females can be overly critical at the slightest thing. A fine illustration of why I dread writing a paper for a female professor.

/me rolls over laughing. What a pathetic excuse. Thank you!

regards,

valkyrie
_______________________________________
sapere aude

[AgentDarkApple]

Re: Research on Cyber Warfare

Ummmm. ok. You state why you care? Why do your really care? Ohhhhh! It's the grade you care about, not perhaps having something actually relevant to state. Got it.

Academic situations are my one exception to not caring. I care that the TITLE is catchy as far as setting a good tone for the grade. As for the rest of the paper, I am deviating from what is in the text books and academic journals and going after it from the more accurate but lesser-known angle that people on this forum have shed light on. The whole point in asking the question on here is to find accurate, relevant stuff, as I'm interested in this topic beyond just this paper. I'm willing to share the research too, not just hoard it.

Your posts are a good example of how females can be overly critical at the slightest thing. A fine illustration of why I dread writing a paper for a female professor.

[xor]

Re: Research on Cyber Warfare

Notation made in the Cyber-Diary of the internet of the current status of the word cyber in the cyber-dictionary.

I will let the chief "cybrarian" of the "Cyberbrary of Congress" know to make the changes.

bloody hell

quoted words out of 19th edition of the Newton's Telecom Dictionary.

xor

PS I can hear Thorn retching

me laughs/ he says that because he is a 'tard. ;-) He likes to annoy people. especially me.

Tard...? That's cybercad to you