Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Government Security The Military Your Rights Online

Germany Readying Offensive Cyberwarfare Unit, Parliament Told 55

concertina226 writes to note that it's not just the U.S. that's increasingly open about using malware as an offensive tool of state security: From the TechWorld story: "According to German reports, the Bonn-based Computer Network Operations (CNO) unit had existed since 2006 but was only now being readied for deployment under the control of the country's military. 'The initial capacity to operate in hostile networks has been achieved,' a German press agency reported the brief document as saying. The unit had already conducted closed lab simulations of cyber-attacks." "Unlike physical attacks," concertina226 writes, "cyber-weapons can't be isolated from their surroundings with the same degree of certainty. If, as a growing body of evidence suggests, the U.S. Government sanctioned the use of cyber-malware such as Stuxnet, are the authorities also held responsible should such campaigns hit unintended victims?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Germany Readying Offensive Cyberwarfare Unit, Parliament Told

Comments Filter:
  • by ka9dgx ( 72702 ) on Thursday June 07, 2012 @12:11PM (#40245657) Homepage Journal

    Instead of running processes with all the rights of the given user account, use Capability Based Security. This means that for a given process, at run-time (not before hand like app-armor), you tell the OS which files and access type a process will need. This doesn't fix everything, but it does let you isolate security decisions and eliminate the side effects of running any code (trusted, untrusted, or downright evil) to the capabilities you chose to give it. This means that even if you confuse a process, you can't get more capabilities than it was given. Privilege escalation goes away, which is a major attack vector, along with stack injection, buffer overflows, etc. (Of course it does require a secure kernel, which you have to trust).

    It's my firm believe that capability based security will eventually be what we all use... but due to the need to make people aware of the concept (which is several layers of abstraction away from what we usually deal with) and the cost of revamping everything... we're still 15 years out.

Loose bits sink chips.