Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military Cloud Government Technology

NATO Set To Ratify Joint Defense For Cyberattacks 34

Posted by Soulskill
from the state-sponsored-script-kiddies dept.
An anonymous reader writes: At the upcoming NATO meeting, according to the NY Times, the 28 member states are expected to ratify "a far-reaching change in the organization's mission of collective defense: For the first time, a cyberattack on any of the 28 NATO nations could be declared an attack on all of them, much like a ground invasion or an airborne bombing." A former NATO ambassador describes NATO's technological capability as "pretty basic" and suggests any counter-cyberattacks would likely be lodged by member states (meaning the U.S. and maybe Britain). He opines, "It's a measure of how far we've come on this issue that there's now a consensus that a cyberattack could be as devastating as any other kind of attack, maybe even more so." Helpfully, the agreement avoids defining what sort of "cyberattack" would warrant an armed response. The Times describes the agreement as "deliberately unclear."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NATO Set To Ratify Joint Defense For Cyberattacks

Comments Filter:
  • Sounds like a cyberattack, directive to all NATO countries: blacklist this BGP route.

    Welcome to the great firewall of America.

    -dk

  • false flag (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PopeRatzo (965947) on Tuesday September 02, 2014 @01:09PM (#47809221) Homepage Journal

    Don't tell me this doesn't have more to do with filesharing than "cyberattacks".

    Most of the cyberattacks are state sponsored now anyway. Anything involving NATO and the internet is all about the new TISA "free trade" agreements. If Western governments want to stop cyberattacks, then maybe they should stop attacking their citizens in cyberspace. It's pretty hypocritical to rattle sabers regarding "cyberattacks" when your own intelligence services are eavesdropping on phones and distributing malware.

    • Re:false flag (Score:5, Informative)

      by i kan reed (749298) on Tuesday September 02, 2014 @01:16PM (#47809283) Homepage Journal

      Okay, I'll tell you that.

      Because this treaty covers reprisals against nations.

  • by xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) on Tuesday September 02, 2014 @01:10PM (#47809223)

    Meanwhile in the Ukraine...or is it Russia now? (Anyone at NATO looking at that in between Swordfish showings?)

  • by Anonymous Coward

    With the end of the Cold War, there really wasn't a useful mission for NATO. Many believed that NATO should have been disbanded.

    Joint Defense. It's good to see NATO defending joints. I believe the recent elections in Washington state and Colorado influenced this decision.

  • How about not putting Microsoft Windows anywhere on your computer infrastructure ..
  • by Tokolosh (1256448) on Tuesday September 02, 2014 @02:26PM (#47809919)

    I am uncomfortable with military involvement with civilian affairs. The end result is usually a military coup of some kind. People and organizations should be responsible for securing their own systems. Call the police and use the justice system in the event rights are infringed by crackers.

    • by Kjella (173770)

      If you're being shot at by a nutcase, you call the cops. If you're being shot at by an invading army, you call the military. If you're being hacked by script kiddies, you call the cops. If you're being hacked by a foreign government, you call the military. If Iran had the military muscle I would say an attack like Stuxnet is "casus belli" for declaring war. This is NATO expanding its defence treaty to include cyber attacks, launching such attacks against one member nation is like attacking all of them. And

      • by Tokolosh (1256448)

        I see the need for protection in this arena, I just don't see why it has to be part of the military. Words like "attacking" and "war" are not appropriate. You make some valid observations, but have not provided a reason for the action to come from the military.

        You agree that when script-kiddies arrive, you call the cops. But military involvement will result in generals and Dr Strangelove taking charge when Johnny next door leaches my wifi. We will just bypass the whole militarization of the police.

      • by rtb61 (674572)

        Any sane person does not equate a computer security interruption with a violent murderous attack. Some script kiddie attacking your system does not necessitate and armed response.

        Do you want to know what this bullshit is really all about. It is about taking computer security, investigation and response from the public eye of police investigation and the courts and burying behind the bullshit of national security, military courts and of course endless imprisonment with no trial or conviction. The extensio

    • It ensures a calm national press event. Lots of nice trusted people from the press interviewing trusted experts, some in trusted national uniforms offering details about the ip, time zones and code style all pointing to the bad nation and only the bad nation.
      Everybody is on message and on the same page, the press, sockpuppets and web 2.0 then carry the message out to the wider local community.
      At some later date real work is done on the code, ip's, origins, destination and the reality sets in that its ju
  • Don't be fooled. And even if NATO were about 'defense' -- we know from recent Israeli actions (all condoned by the so called democratic West and NATO countries) how 'defense' has no problems with real and tangible bodies of children, as long as they're 'theirs'.
    If you're finally sick to your stomach of manipulation abd repression and murder, perpetrated by your own country, refuse to pay taxes for so called 'defense'. The dossiers and the charters and binding agreements are there to aid you -- just refus

  • So what constitutes an attack or an aggressor?

    Given the demonstrated built-in vulnerabilities in so much of the internet infrastructure, how is this helpful - other than as an excuse for something akin to drive-by shootings?

    The built-in vulnerabilities I'm thinking of are:

    • The X509 Certificate Authority model - where any CA can issue a certificate for anything
    • BGP route mangling - to either create DOS attacks, or for packet inspection
    • The Internet of Things - need I say more about abandoned products, low-bid
    • Re 'So what constitutes an attack or an aggressor?"
      Its just about spending, integration with US products and services. A new market place to ensure NATO buys up big on cyber products. Jets and rockets in the cold war past, digital services and long term contracts now.
      With the internet any outside party can make sure it is seen during and after an event as to have moved via any network it wants.
      Lots of nice ip numbers and perfect working hours in time zones, the use of a language and style, hints to the
  • This puts NATO and China directly at odds. I'm surprised that everyone seems to be missing how important that is in favor of pseudo-political drivel.

    Hopefully, it will encourage China to curtail their current activities. I know I'm sick of all the Chinese IP's bouncing packets off my company's firewalls.

If money can't buy happiness, I guess you'll just have to rent it.

Working...