Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Perimeter

5/10/2010
05:00 PM
Gadi Evron
Gadi Evron
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

The Myth Of Cyberattack Deterrence

Deterrence online is one of the biggest idiocies of the past couple of years. There are some interesting research possibilities in the subject matter, but not as it is portrayed today -- a cure-all strategy.

Deterrence online is one of the biggest idiocies of the past couple of years. There are some interesting research possibilities in the subject matter, but not as it is portrayed today -- a cure-all strategy.I covered this subject on Dark Reading before, discussing the supposed NSA computer attacks activity in Iraq, the NSA director's comments on the subject before the Senate, and the damage of engaging in DDoS.

Strategic experts are very comfortable with Cold War strategy following around 70 years of practicing it, so when asked to deal with the Internet, they ran to deterrence.

In order to have deterrence, you require first an ability to respond to an attack. On the Internet, you may never find out who is attacking you, and data may be intentionally misleading when you think you do have some bread crumbs.

It is just virtually impossible to tell who is behind an attack from technical data alone.

Thus, deterrence against whom?

You may say that by setting an occasional example, it doesn't matter who you attack. That is mostly false as well.

If we do know who is attacking us, then consider the players can now be (and indeed are) unaffiliated individuals or groups who may not care about the infrastructure of the country they are in nor have any infrastructure to speak of (which can in turn be targeted). Any attack will likely be against a third-party that has been hacked, i.e. compromised.

And if you're dealing with large-scale attacks, such as DDoS, responding in kind (with DDoS, botnets, etc.) will also hurt the Internet itself with collateral damage.

There are some particular instances where deterrence does work online, and it may also be used as a general addition to real-world deterrence (we have cyberweapons -- beware!), but these are just points that would muddy the water in the wider argument before us.

I think supporting such folly is generally folly itself. For further reading, I'd point you to this comprehensive and quite excellent document: "Cyber Deterrence and Cyber War," by Martin C. Libicki.

Follow Gadi Evron on Twitter: http://twitter.com/gadievron.

Gadi Evron is an independent security strategist based in Israel. Special to Dark Reading. Gadi is CEO and founder of Cymmetria, a cyber deception startup and chairman of the Israeli CERT. Previously, he was vice president of cybersecurity strategy for Kaspersky Lab and led PwC's Cyber Security Center of Excellence, located in Israel. He is widely recognized for ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Cybersecurity Team Holiday Guide: 2019 Gag Gift Edition
Ericka Chickowski, Contributing Writer,  12/2/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-19647
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
radare2 through 4.0.0 lacks validation of the content variable in the function r_asm_pseudo_incbin at libr/asm/asm.c, ultimately leading to an arbitrary write. This allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact via crafted input.
CVE-2019-19648
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
In the macho_parse_file functionality in macho/macho.c of YARA 3.11.0, command_size may be inconsistent with the real size. A specially crafted MachO file can cause an out-of-bounds memory access, resulting in Denial of Service (application crash) or potential code execution.
CVE-2019-19642
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-08
On SuperMicro X8STi-F motherboards with IPMI firmware 2.06 and BIOS 02.68, the Virtual Media feature allows OS Command Injection by authenticated attackers who can send HTTP requests to the IPMI IP address. This requires a POST to /rpc/setvmdrive.asp with shell metacharacters in ShareHost or ShareNa...
CVE-2019-19637
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-08
An issue was discovered in libsixel 1.8.2. There is an integer overflow in the function sixel_decode_raw_impl at fromsixel.c.
CVE-2019-19638
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-08
An issue was discovered in libsixel 1.8.2. There is a heap-based buffer overflow in the function load_pnm at frompnm.c, due to an integer overflow.