�ݺ�ߣ

Editor's Notes

• #18: Who are the major players in Cyberwarfare now?
• #20: GRU is very much like the American DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) - collecting HUMINT, SIGINT, IMINT, and actively operating in technical espionage, as well as OSINT. The SVR is working closely with the GRU FSB is working closely with SVR (focused on domestic espionage) CRMSF - I shit you not! It’s an official russian government entity
• #26: Completely financially motivated Read: no political affiliation, unless $$$ Highly connected Transactions can be traced across organizations Hierarchical in nature Need to know basis, highly professional business units, many small profit centers
• #27: Highly connected and hierarchical
• #31: Highly sophisticated botnets Usually rented by the hour/day for spamming or DDOS Harvesting specific information (credit cards, financial data, personal information, emails, documents, applications, credentials, etc...)
• #36: Engulfed in fog... information & dis-information all over the place. Events: Cast Led and 2nd Lebanon war kinetic and cyber links hard to find Palestinian TV station hacked for propaganda Maybe? - Syrian nuclear facility bombing in 2007 (no proof - no radar accountability of ANY aircraft in the area...)
• #38: McColo, ESTDomains, Atrivo and RBN are all connected one way or another to the government (FSB)
• #47: At the Ashiyane forums, there’s an ongoing contest called “WarGames”: Sites are being targeted, participants are called to attack them - SQL injections, data theft, defacement, anything goes...
• #52: Landscape highly unclear! Where does that put “developing” nations Africa? OLPC + zero enforcement of licensing = largest infected PC population in the world! Arms race is on. Government/military commissioned attacks more likely, but mainly surgical strikes No Cybergeddon for you so far (sorry CNN...) Massive connectivity is still the WMD of CyberWar (and is a commodity) No problem getting it from questionable “arms dealers” (bot herders) - just like we do now with conventional weapons....
• #53: The Good Formal training on cybersecurity by nationsThe Bad Commercial development of malicious computer software (weapons manufacturers)The Ugly Good meets Bad - money changes hands, less tracks to cover (politically), criminal organizations already manufacturing arms...The Future Lack of legislation and cooperation on multi-national level is creating de-facto “safe haven” for cybercrime. Treaties and anti-crime activities may prove to be beneficial.