Talk:Cyberwarfare

Questions

I would like to know about the communication and cyber warfare regarding following points 1. Roll and need for communication in battle field. 2. Decision making and avability of current information 3. Devices and equipments used in communication. 4. Future cyber warfare. 5. Strategy adopted by INDIA,USA,ENGLAND,GERMANY in cyber warfare.124.7.81.96 05:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)aditya

I can understand your questions, but I believe your misunderstanding the subject. The questions that you are asking would be more of Cybernetic warfare. Cyber warfare is computers/equipment attacking computers/equipment. Although communications does play a part in this form of warfare it is the communications of computer to computer. This subject does play an integral part of normal warfare because if you can attack the computers in a command centre that is deploying armaments and successfully shut them down or mislead/misdirect then it hinders the operations of that command centre... maybe to the point of being shut down completely. --Pmedema 16:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Estonia convicts local man over alleged "Russian cyber-war"

Estonia arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced a local 20yr-old man, Dmitri Galushkevich, for launching the attacks from the comfort of his home in Tallin. The court fined him less than US$2,000 in Estonia's local currency.

This article reads as if Russia actually did attack Estonia: a wild initial speculation that was dismissed after Estonia revealed details of the attack. Overall, the article reads like a magazine story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsnbrgr (talk • contribs) 03:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Galushkevich's actions were but a small part in the whole attack. He was not convicted for the attacks but for an attack. The claim of Russia being responsible is not wild at all considering the declarations of Russian officials and the actions of Kremlin youth organisation at the time. Oth (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

More important to me: I thank you for NPOVing the statement I brought into question. Less important to me: if you can source relevant information in the attack re: Russian officials and the role of Kremlin youth organizations, then why didn't you include it in your own edits? Please note that I'm not calling into question the claim you made on this talk page — I'm just saying that (as you must well know!) you don't always need to be an expert to append an obviously relevant fact to an article. If Kremlin officials actually stated or implied Russia wants to use its computing might to hurl Estonia's IP space back to the transistor age, then this is exactly the article where it should be stated & sourced. Again, thank you for NPOVing the statement I brought into question. Rob Rosenberger (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As far I know, the issue has attracted lots of diverse coverage and I am simply not knowledgable enough to assess the value of different opinions. But given the extremely hostile atmosphere at the time, Russia remains a very probable source even if we never know wether the hackers responsible where mobilised by authorities or did they act on their own accord. Oth (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation of known attacks

The United States has come under attack from countries such as China and Russia. See Titan Rain and Moonlight Maze.[8]

This statement seems like it could use some rewording. The citation it points to have no active link to read up on the article, so I can't be sure whether the article states definitely that the US was attacked by so-and-so, or whether it was alleged that the US was attacked by so-and-so. However, the Wikipedia articles the statement points to simply state that the identities of the attackers cannot be confirmed. China and Russia are suspected but are not definitely known to have done so. --132.206.54.86 (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikify Tag

I removed the {{wikify}} tag. I feel the article no longer needs to be wikified, however could probably still use some cleanup. If you disagree feel free to re-add the tag or drop me a message. Bvlax2005 (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Citation broken

Citation number 18's link to Yahoo! news does not exist. --Melab±1 ☎ 16:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Operation Aurora

Nothing about Operation Aurora[1] and the attacks on Google and twenty other companies in December of 2009? --68.45.218.70 (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I just created the Operation Aurora page. Andareed (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the last two points of the Various case histories refer to the same cyberattack —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.185.64 (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"War" is an improper analogy

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/schmidt-cyberwar/

The use of hacking, DDoSing, and virus propagation by governments is espionage, not warfare. This is business as usual just with newer technology. Calling this "cyberwar" is misleading, makes the public unnecessarily fearful, and can lead mass surveillance and censorship of the internet. I suggest this article be renamed to "Cyber Espionage" or merged with "Hacking". -7th sojourn (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Cyberwarfare → Politically motivated hacking —"Cyberwar" is mostly a propaganda term. However, while the scope of activities referred to by "cyberwar" overlaps with espionage, sabotage, and hacking, I think there is a coherent scope of politically motivated activity within those. I would prefer to move this article to a more neutral term, rather than a politically loaded word like "cyberwarfare". ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 18:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment is this article supposed to cover cyberterrorism ? 70.29.212.131 (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

I'm concerned about the neutrality of the article.

• Sources: too many of the sources in this article are from the DOD and from antivirus companies. Neither of these are neutral parties. The DOD has an interest in treating this like a military problem, and antivirus companies want to sell their products, so both of these companies are going to be overstating the problem and using non-neutral wording, which is why they absolutely should not be quoted.
• Quotes: as much as possible we should only quote reliable third party security experts.
• Language: the terms cyberwarfare and attack are not only loaded terms being promoted as propaganda, they are nonspecific and unprofessional. These are terms used by sensationalist media sources, not serious experts in the field. These terms should redirect to a neutral and technical discussion.

This article is disorganized.

• Bulleted lists: Do not use them here. They are a poor presentation of material. Consider dividing the material into prose, new sections, or new articles.
• Reported attacks: Perhaps this section should focus on the history of this type of activity. Alternatively, each section could be moved to various articles about diplomatic relations between countries.
• Various case histories: This section is extremely disorganized and unhelpful. It should be dealt with as the previous section, except that more stuff should be deleted.

Lets focus this article on the political and military aspects of computer security, and put technical details about security, DDOS, electrical grid security, etc. in other articles. As part of that, we need to be clear that government statements and actions reflect government positions and not necessarily the reality of the situation. Because this type of activity is often kept secret or muddled, and because a lot of our sources are writing in concerned speculation, we need to be extra careful to use neutral, reputable sources, be clear on technical points, and explicitly state that these are concerns and speculation and carefully note who is raising these concerns. When there is a conflict of interest or controversy, we need to address that. With some work, we can make this article clear and informative in an area filled with propaganda, secrecy, and deceit. Happy editing. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 20:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)