On a similar
> note, how does the Internet (and its offspring(s)) fit into the FT
I'm glad you asked, as that's one of the things the Alarishi do so
well--of
necessity, since they have a serious manpower shortage. The unofficial motto
of the Alarishi Imperial Forces is "Finish your fighting before they
get started." In the soon-to-be-written story "To Ride a Painted
Dragon" (which you will eventually find on my web page, right next to the
going-to-be-added-any-day-now details of the Alarishi Empire system,
fleet and philosophy), an enemy capital ship preparing for an incursion into
Alarishi territory finds itself dealing with an Alarishi specialist team, and
thus the following:
1. The CO is ordered into the hospital for extensive tests. 2. The Chief
Engineer receives a letter stating that his eleven weeks of paid leave must be
taken, not paid, within the next three months, or else forfeited. 3. The
Executive Officer is audited by the Department of Revenue. 4. The purchasing
department's credit cards are mostly overdrawn or canceled. Most vendors won't
ship materials. 5. Critical material that does ship from the vendors is marked
as "scrap steel, odd sizes, 1 lot"; or sent to the wrong unit; or simply lost
in transit. 6. Weapons manuals received with the new ammo load have a few
serious errors (such as leaving out "engage safety lock P before arming test
circuits"). 7. Payroll for the entire ship is transferred to the Department of
Revenue one week; next week it goes to the Executive Officer's personal
account. 8. The Chief Gunnery Officer discovers that he has apparently filed
for bankruptcy and been denied. Lawyers start calling him on a regular and
frequent basis.
...and so forth. The Alarishi Fleet usually has ships to spare for mercenary
work.
Information Warfare. A whole new ball game.
The US is big into this now and most other countries are following now. Don't
be beguiled into the narrow view of Cyber Punk style hackers though!! There is
a whole field of exploitable vulnerabilities in a nations warfighting
capabilities!
Psyops as well as intelligence collection and counter-intelligence
actions are real virgin territory here. In the scheme of things the playing
around
with leave, pay and such are penny-ante. Think big and kill the
countries economy!!
Whoo Hoo!!!!!!
[quoted original message omitted]
There's scope here for great mischief at all levels... Sure you can mess with
the other guy's economy (didn't Tom Clancy do that in his last big epic in the
"Jack Ryan becomes President and Saves the World" series?? It was the Japanese
nuking the US economy by wiping out Wall St.trading records...). On a level
more applicable to our gaming stuff, picture special operations troops trained
to attack and take over an enemy
communications/data nexus. They break in, crack into the data systems
and dump in viruses, etc etc etc. I figure that in the future dedicated
military data communication systems will have to be (as much as possible)
seperated from civilian networks. OK, now they use the Internet just like
everybody else, which is actually quite difficult to bring down given how
dispursed it is, but think about the landline artillery control systems the
Iraqi's had in the Gulf War. They knew they'd be jammed, so they used physical
landlines for communications and had a network set up all over the place.
Sure, they still used radios and got jammed, and when the allies started
bombing and took out commo centres, they resorted to motorcycle dispatch
riders (hard to jam a guy on a bike carrying a piece of
paper...
just hope he doesn't fall into a ditch) - but still... The pesky SCUD
missiles that we couldn't find were controlled this way. Too bad (for them,
not for us) that the front line divisions had no secure communications with
their HQ's...
I could see a "commando" type unit raiding one of these commo points to break
into their network. It would make an interesting scenario in a SGII campaign
game, at the very least. If you succeed in getting your "specialists" into a
comms bunker, the enemy force suffers in the next
couple of games from poor command-and-control - all kinds of game
effects you could use...
> At 01:39 PM 10/25/98 +1000, you wrote:
On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 14:44:28 -0500, Adrian Johnson
<ajohnson@idirect.com> wrote:
> There's scope here for great mischief at all levels... Sure you can
It
> was the Japanese nuking the US economy by wiping out Wall St. trading
Yes, he did. Unfortunately Clancy doesn't know as much about computer systems
or international stock trading as he really should for a book like this. He
completely gaffed the computer end of it. In short, it wouldn't have worked.
Then there's the absolutely ridiculous ending that had me in stitches. I hear
Rainbox Six is better (I'm having fun with the computer game). Maybe he's
finally been forced to take on an editor...
> On a level more applicable to our gaming stuff, picture
I disagree, for the same reason that military ground transportation isn't
separate from civilian ground transportation. What is obvious is that you can
cripple a nation without even TOUCHING it's military data communications
systems. Collapse the US economy, and it won't matter how good the military
is. If the hackers are terrorists in a nation that does not condone the
activity, there isn't much you can do militarily anyway.
No, I think in the future a general hardening of the infrastructure will be
needed. Unfortunately, governments have to realize for this to happen
companies and individuals need strong crypto. I fear it will take a failure on
a massive scale for this to become obvious...
> I could see a "commando" type unit raiding one of these commo points to
Hmmm. I see this as too easy to cut off. If I knew my comms bunker was about
to fall, I'd just cut that node off the network. Stop taking anything from it.
I suspect that this would be a small, special forces operation (or an
intelligence op) ala Cyberpunk-like activities. I don't see this being
an overt militarty operation on the scale used in SG2.
I personally think that Infowar will be so different from conventional warfare
as to be impossible to game with current miniatures rules.
Ok. So who do we go to war with over the state of the Aussie dollar?!
> On a level more applicable to our gaming stuff, picture
OK, maybe I should have been more specific. Operational command of military
forces is presently conducted using seperate chains of
communication - the military (well, the US and maybe a couple of others)
have communication satellites, microwave comms systems, etc etc - like
the super low frequency systems the US Navy uses to communicate with submerged
missile subs. Data transfer systems, particularly for operational command
and control - would have to work the same way - 'cause otherwise they'd
be too easy to hack. The kinds of systems I was referring to are things like
the data nets an artillery regiment would use to transfer info between
dispursed gun/missile systems, etc. Even better would be the logistics
tracking/organizing data networks - imagine inserting false info into a
brigade supply system computer. Military ground transportation isn't separate
from the civvie system because it can't be (we all use the same
railroads, canals, etc.) - unless you wanted to spend countless billions
of $$$ to construct a parallel physical infrastructure. You can put up
separate communication satellites or have a Signals Squadron lay down 50 miles
of land lines around a disbursed artillery park. A brigade data
network shouldn't be designed to use the civilian telecoms network -
what if the brigade is deployed to an area without that infrastructure. This
isn't to say that the military will put up their own phone lines and won't
use the Internet - but for dedicated operational command and control in
a tactical environment, they MUST have hardened systems that are easier to
defend from external penetration. So of course their enemies will want to
crack into them.
You are absolutely correct about the ability to cripple a nation without
getting at it's military comms. systems - but that isn't what I meant.
I was talking about a more limited tactical situation
(brigade/division/corps
level) rather than the whole nation-to-nation strategeic thing...
Destroying a nation's economy is like declaring a nuke war - you gotta
be really sure you are going to win, 'cause it's total war from then on. Going
after a local area data network would be part of the tactical
operations of a high-tech military - and would not be seen as the kind
of "escalation" of the conflict that taking out a stock market would... The
new strategic stalemate would be MAED rather than MAD - Mutually Assured
Economic Destruction...
> No, I think in the future a general hardening of the infrastructure
Yessir!
> I could see a "commando" type unit raiding one of these commo points
I guess that depends on the assumptions you make about how the tech works in
your universe. How about a situation where the tech becomes so good,
the measures/countermeasures so complex and capable, that the military
forces resort to using lower-tech equipment simply to keep it from being
spoofed - keep a low-tech backup (like telecommunications by landline)
to provide some kind of assistance while the datawarriors fight it out.
It's like the idea of battle magics in fantasy settings - the wizards
have unbelievably powerful spells to cast, if they could cast them unapposed
-
but they spend their time fighting off the other side's wizards and preventing
them from doing the same thing... the net result is a balance whereby the
wizards negate each other, and the grunts still have to slog it out in the
middle of the field. The grunts have to give orders, so they
wave flags and blow bugles - if you kill the flag bearer or the bugler,
they can't give orders 'til they get somebody else on scene who can blow a
bugle. Same situation with hackers - our infowarriors will be fighting
theirs, but the grunts still have to plot artillery fire missions and call for
resupply.
Also - in this future universe of ours we shouldn't, I think, assume a
universal penetration of super-high-tech - what about colony worlds
which
have a low-tech local militia fighting another low-tech militia. The
FSE invades a NAC allied colony, but the FSE and NAC forces deployed are only
Battalion size. Lots of local allies on both sides, and limited
high-tech.
The locals scout on horseback. They have ordinary radio communication nets.
Their military forces are run "the good old way" ah la 20th century... etc.
I guess the great thing about a fictional setting is that we can define into
it anything we want. It may not make sense to say that in a completely
"modern" battle between the FSE and NAC there will be
opportunities for the kind of "data-commando" mission I suggested
before,
but whose to say that there won't be endless lower-tech confrontations
where that kind of thing might be appropriate.
Or not.
Allan spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> I disagree, for the same reason that military ground transportation
The US government has several branches that have undertaken studies to this
effect (CERT and others) and there exist plans to do just that. Global
infoterrorism and corporate espionage now make this a real concern.
And yes, I agree with Allan, disable the civilian side of a country, and the
military won't last long.
> >I could see a "commando" type unit raiding one of these commo points
Of course, you can run such ops in SG2. The problem is once you know you've
been compromised, then you take steps to limit the damage. It's only if you
don't know you've had the virus inserted that you have a real exposure risk.
Read War in 2020 (from an author whose afterward is APPAULING in
sentiment - you'd think everyone in Europe was a write off, every
Muslim was a nutbar, and America was the only bastion of
civiilization in existence ever... - Don't get me wrong, a great
country, but this guy was over the edge). It features a commando raid to get
access to a theatre mainframe to insert a virus before central command can
realize to destroy worldwide computer assets and an SDI network. Again, this
only works because one gains access ot the system in such a way that the other
nodes are not warned and cannot take counter actions.
> I personally think that Infowar will be so different from conventional
Or any rules ('cept maybe a copy of SJG Hacker) that we have available today.
/************************************************
Adrian spake thusly upon matters weighty:
OK, now they use the Internet just like
> everybody else, which is actually quite difficult to bring down given
That was the point in building it (ARPANET and DOD). A disbursed network which
could not be completely killed by any nuclear strike. Keep in mind that their
are so many paths from A to B in the Net and so many possible hosts, it is
hard to compromise the whole deal. But any given host is a much smaller and
more hackable project.
And if you think the Internet is at risk, your global telecom net (land lines)
have some degree of risk, and your wireless networks (data and cellular) are
totally vulnerable.
but think about the landline artillery control systems the
> Iraqi's had in the Gulf War. They knew they'd be jammed, so they used
The 7.62mm FMJ Jammer is the preferred method of solving this comms jamming
crisis....
Fiber optic is good stuff for land line comms - can't be screwed up
by EM, can't be picked up by EM inteferometry, hard to detect when buried,
high data rate, tough cable. Now if only it was super flexible.... (and some
is... just costly). But I can see mass use of this in the future.
/************************************************
> On Sun, 25 Oct 1998, Adrian Johnson wrote:
i have heard from reliable sources that the us military (army, at any rate) is
rolling out a messaging system based on the X.400 standard; unlike the
internet standards, which were written by people trying to make a working
email system, this was written by a committee trying to write a standard. it's
overly complex and hard to maintain, and, best of all, for
security reasons it is being built in-house. deadline for delivery: 31st
december, 1999. now, i'll give you two guesses if this baby is millenium
compliant or not...
Tom
gah! teach me to reply without reading the whole post.
> On Sun, 25 Oct 1998, Adrian Johnson wrote:
more millenium bug panic - the national grid, the guys who pipe the
electricity from power station to consumer in the uk - have a big
digital data system with optical fibres linking the substations and the hq.
it's computer controlled. therefore, they're reactivating the old telephone
landlines on the quiet so that when the whole thing falls over on the morning
of the 3rd millenium, they'll still have comms.
motto: the enemy isn't other nations, it's the passage of time. fight the
future!
> Also - in this future universe of ours we shouldn't, I think, assume a
this is, of course, utterly true (unless you opt for the Standard Template
Construct approach...), but i think less so of electronics than other things.
digital has become such a vital part of life no colony would go
without it; i wouldn't want to manage a million-acre farm on a raw
planet on my own without a fair amount of info tech. also, processors and
optical fibre are nice and light and compact, and so quite easy to ship out to
your colony.
Tom
On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 19:15:18 -0500, Adrian Johnson
<ajohnson@idirect.com> wrote:
> Destroying a nation's economy is like declaring a nuke war - you gotta
You have a point, although killing people and destroying an economy are two
different morale levels. You can maintain a morale high ground if all you do
is destroy and economy (this is done regularly with sanctions). I think
economy destruction can be scaled easier. You can hurt a nation in nice multi
billion dollar chunks until they give in. You can also maintain probable
deniability. "I'm sorry that illegal hackers in our country are causing you
such problems. Believe me, once we find them they are SOOOO in trouble!!!
*ahem*"...
> Going after a local area data network would be part of the tactical
The
> new strategic stalemate would be MAED rather than MAD - Mutually
Except that this is where NOT being high tech gives you an advantage. It's
hard to do a lot more damage to some of the worst Third World economies. This
is where Clancy missed the boat. Japan isn't going to risk collapsing the US
economy, it has too much to lose itself. However, how about Rowanda? Nigeria?
Zaire? Albania? Or how about a cross-nation religious group? For that
matter, how about a radical element in an allied country? Radical elements in
Israel,
or neo-Nazis in Germany come to mind.
> I guess that depends on the assumptions you make about how the tech
to
> provide some kind of assistance while the datawarriors fight it out.
That could work...
I think you could game a denial of service attack, too. In this case, the idea
isn't to break into the computer but to drop it off the network. The defender
in this case would work to maintain the node on the network. I still think it
would be more of a FMA Skirmish game than an SG2 game, though.
> Also - in this future universe of ours we shouldn't, I think, assume a
Or you can ignore hidden units and jamming entirely because all participants
are SO advanced... This gives you an actual reason for no hidden units on a
battlefield! Modern battlefields may start to look like those "I know
everything possible" wargames...!
> Destroying a nation's economy is like declaring a nuke war - you gotta
The problem with trying to maintain a select damage approach to hurting
someone else's economy is that with a "modern" industrial economy, there is
so much interconnectedness that it is difficult/impossible to forsee
what
one small action's overall effects will be - (the butterfly flaps it's
wings in China, and you get a tornado in Kansas...). Look what happened
recently in the US and Canada when ONE General Motors plant went on strike. A
couple of thousand striking workers, but the plant made a part used in just
about all GM vehicles. It ended up practically bringing all of GM to
a halt - that's several hundred thousand workers. There were thousands
of layoffs here in Canada, etc etc. That strike had a noticible effect on the
productiveness of the US economy for the year - ONE small strike.
Trying to take a limited poke at the other guy's economy would be REALLY
difficult
- at least to control exactly. Sanctions are usually very specific, and
imposed on economies that are not as complex as say, Germany or Japan or the
US. If the 22nd Century powers started this kind of "warfare", it
might have MUCH bigger effects than anyone would realize - that's why I
was looking at it as a "general war" type scenario. A "limited" economic
attack would be like "limited" nuclear conflict - only using tactical
nukes on the battlefield... They aren't THAT destructive, but the
psychological effects or their use would be enormous. Can you imagine what the
US would
have done if the Iraqis had driven one of those missing Soviet tac-nukes
(they've lost hundreds - we have a friend who plays SG2 with us at
conventions who is part of the US Special Forces; he's a NBC specialist, and
is one of the people who goes after things like anthrax bombs mailed to
the President and missing Russian nukes - interesting stories!) into
Riyad and set it off... Bagdad would be a smoking glassy hole in the desert.
Attacking an economy like that is an extremely personal way of making
war -
if you collapse a bank by mistake, all the thousands of customers will become
ardent supporters of bombing you into the stoneage if somebody finds
out how it was done. The economy affects individual people personally -
not like blowing up a ship or base or tank. Sure, individuals will be affected
(the crews if wounded or dead, obviously, and their families, friends, etc)
but for most "average" people it is still one of those things that happens
somewhere else, to somebody else...
Just a thought.
On Wed, 28 Oct 1998 09:48:12 -0500, Adrian Johnson
<ajohnson@idirect.com> wrote:
> The problem with trying to maintain a select damage approach to hurting
However, that is the exception that proves the rule. If you look at the GM
strike, you will see that sales of Japanese cars rose in the period when GM
was on strike. Likewise Chrysler and Ford. Yes, the economies of the countries
were adversely affected, but it is possible for a see-saw effect to give
an advantage to another country.
Things do change when you attack a single economic sector or country. Attack a
sector and all companies in that sector are adversely affected. Look at what
happened to ALL mining stock in the wake of Bre-X. Likewise, collapse
the US economy and a lot of countries are going to hurt, including Germany and
Japan, because of the amount of investment made by those countries in US
currency.
If you know what you're doing, though, you can make a killing if you have
inside knowledge as to what is going to happen.
> Trying
Depends on HOW limited. In the wake of the Oklahoma bombing, the US dollar
dipped. Investors like nice, stable countries. Usually they see the US as
that, but if they think the US was about to plunge into a race war, or a war
against anti-government militias, the US dollar would suffer.
So, what if you sell US dollar futures (I'm not sure you CAN do this, I don't
know THAT much about the stock and money markets), hoping to buy them at a
later date. Then, you detonate a bomb some place nice and nasty. Oh, and make
the bomb a low-yield nuke. The US dollar collapses, you buy dollars to
make up for those you sold on spec, and you make a killing. By the way, you're
a terrorist organization. You've just hurt the US economy and made a good
chunk of change yourself.
Info war isn't going to be large scale. It's going to be micro scale. It will
be plausibly deniable info warriors taking out a corporation in order for a
domestic rival to take advantage. It could be VERY easy to do. Shell petroleum
is, I believe, a Dutch company. What happens if Exxon has another major spill
on its hands (this time, due to an implanted computer glitch fouling up the
tanker's radar). Suddenly the Dutch Shell corporation gets benefits from
Exxon's damage (of course, this kind of thing could affect the entire
petroleum sector, so you'd have to tread lightly). That's just a gross
example. I think info war will be FAR more pervasive than conventional war,
and far less damaging or noticable. It could even go on between companies
owned by allies without a negative effect being seen at the political level.
> Can you imagine what the US would
Very good point. On the other hand, if Iraqi hackers had destroyed the Bank of
America's assets due to some nasty hacking attacks, it would be hard to
justify nuking Baghdad as a response...
> Attacking an economy like that is an extremely personal way of making
I disagree. There's a definite level of escalation. You won't be able to make
the case on the international scene that nuking someone was justified because
one of your banks was collapsed. This is the same as killing those US marines
in Lebanon didn't justify nuking anyone. It's a question of scale. Hurting
someone economically still isn't the same as taking a life, and you'd be hard
pressed to use the world's most feared weapons on a country that didn't kill a
single soul in your country.
Besides, you're also assuming that you can PROVE who did it... What if Islamic
Jihad started to put together a group of hackers, then moved them all over the
world, how would a nation retaliate with force? Info war gives individuals
unparalleled capabilities against the state. A hacker can't do anything about
an Abrams tank on the street outside his house, but he could certainly do
nasty damage to a nation's economy. What do you do when that person is living
in your country? Or even a citizen of your country? Military might as a
response goes out the window.
> Just a thought.
And some very good ones, too.
I'm not sure if any of this can be used in a SG2 or DS2 game, but it's
certainly food for thought. I would roll it into a campaign system for SG2,
DS2, or FT, though. Imagine building a superdreadnought, only to have all work
stopped on it because of a hacking attempt that collapses the NAC's economy...
Hmmm, I kind of like that idea...
> At 12:48 AM 10/31/98 GMT, Allan Goodall wrote:
I don't know if this has been mentioned earlier in this thread, but in "The
Children's Hour" (one of the short stories in the Man-Kzin Wars series)
they have a couple of hackers from Sol infiltrate Kzin-occupied
Wunderland (satellite of Alpha Centauri) to assassinate a Kzin admiral who was
showing a little too much potential.
And the _way_ in which he was assassinated was intended to be a terror
weapon, pure and simple.
An interesting side note is that the computers on Wunderland were really easy
to hack because when they were manufactured (on Earth, of course) they
had several "back-doors" built in just in case the colony ever got to be
to a problem.
Allan spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Things do change when you attack a single economic sector or country.
Attack a
> sector and all companies in that sector are adversely affected. Look
Risky. NOBODY understands the markets very well (otherwise computerized
trading would be much more successful). Screwing one sector can affect all
sorts of things you didn't expect. You can make money, but you could cause a
collapse, or even get screwed in other sectors unexpectedly. This is russian
Roullette in the computer
age...
> Depends on HOW limited. In the wake of the Oklahoma bombing, the US
Sure, and I'll bet all sorts of unforseen events occur.
Just look at the analysts backpedalling from previous comments on asia and the
impact problems in asia (the other side of the globe) which really have little
DIRECT impact on us, have had on our stocks of our major companies, blue chip
and lots of smaller businesses. This was not something one would expect since
their problem is mostly confined to their own sphere. But everything is
interlinked, and in the GZG world moreso. I can see someone trying this and I
can see it working. I can see someone trying this and causing a global problem
that makes them a lot of enemies. Governements don't usually sanction such
potentially risky manoevring (the smart ones). But small groups and radicals
could well try this viewing it as acceptable risks.
> So, what if you sell US dollar futures (I'm not sure you CAN do this,
And the first one of these that can actually be tracked an proven will result
in a response that will wipe out that terrorist organization from the face of
the earth and from racial memory. Mind you, it is hard to catch people.
> Info war isn't going to be large scale. It's going to be micro scale.
It will
> be plausibly deniable info warriors taking out a corporation in order
That happens now.
It could be VERY easy to do. Shell petroleum
> is, I believe, a Dutch company. What happens if Exxon has another
I think you underrate the risk factors. And the steps people are now taking in
infosec and in pursuit measures against such attempts (technical, legal, and
unconventional). I think Infowar will be another kind of SF warfare and will
be as risky for the operators because (as you said) it is easy to damage
things, so it can be assumed that efforts to counter this will be deployed
that make it VERY risky. Either that or people are asking for the accidental
collapse of economic systems, which I don't think that anyone in 2185 is
demonstrating...
> >Can you imagine what the US would
Would it? If it was proven Saddam was responsible for destroying the economic
base of a country? I think the grass roots rage would not result in a nuke,
but bagdad would be flat in either case (1000 conventional bombs are just
about as good as a small nuke....)
> >Attacking an economy like that is an extremely personal way of making
I disagree here. I suspect gross economic dislocation would well merit 1)
causus belli and 2) UNSC Information Security Directorate (UNISD)
Intervention.
This is the same as killing those US marines
> in Lebanon didn't justify nuking anyone.
But reprisals were mounted. And that wasn't destroying a countries economy
which admittedly is the Infowar extremum, but that would probably have
resulted in a serious response. Especially from more touchy countries than the
US. USA don't like bodies, but they don't react like FSE or the ESU would....
It's a question of scale. Hurting
> someone economically still isn't the same as taking a life, and you'd
True. But you also have unconventional warfare means (assassinations and
such), precison ordinance (low collateral damage, high material cost damage),
your own infowar guys, embargos, sanctions, etc.
And if mass economic disruption was caused, it would kill lots of people
indirectly and that would merit a general response. Nuking... only if someone
real ideological and pissed off had the red button... but otherwise a huge
conventional response, possibly air strikes followed by an invasion.
> Besides, you're also assuming that you can PROVE who did it... What if
You are also selling short our ability to pursue these individuals, which is
growing legislatively, organizationally, and technically by the day. I see the
other side of the spectrum at work, and I think the hackers of the next decade
had better be gosh darned good or they are in for a world of hurt.
Think about this: What if every Telco switch was well defended and loaded with
audit logs? Backtracking hackers becomes much easier.
What if active defenders (anti-hackers) were employed by the Telcos
in large numbers, aided by state of the art supercomputers, AI systems, neural
nets, etc. custom designed for intrusion countermeasures? We are vulnerable
today to this in a similar way to which tanks of today suck vs. top attack
missiles. In the future, you'll find, that we may well have redressed this
imbalance and maybe tipped it the other way to make a hackers life very
difficult. Its just that for a long time, the bad guys were aware of this
tech, and no one knew about the risks. We are very gradually awakening. If
USA, Japan, etc. devote the resources in corporate and public manners, backed
up with legislative powers, the hackers will start to hurt real bad. I'm
sorry, but I don't think even a well equipped hacker
with a Sparc 1000 and a lot of hacker-info can stand up to a team of
10 anti-hackers with several supercomputers and millions of hours of
custom designed anti-hacker software. The numbers just don't match
up. And I think we are swinging toward the defensive side of this balance
now.... slowly.... soooo verryyyy sloooowly.... But by 2185,
this won't be an issue (of course, the till-then history should
include several cases of huge infowar successes/disasters to get to
that point).
> >Just a thought.
Hope I'm contributing..... more than just noise...
> I'm not sure if any of this can be used in a SG2 or DS2 game, but it's
This relates dirctly to the universe in campaign games. View it as a strategic
level SG2 EW marker. It could have a lot to do with blocking reinforcements,
messing up orders, messing up production schedules, gaining intelligence,
inserting false intelligence, etc. If you are playing a campaign game, this
has to be considered.
/************************************************
In message <909864946.2126303.0@rimmer.acs.bolton.ac.uk>
> Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca> wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I don't think even a well equipped hacker
Replace the single Sparc equipped hacker (or cracker) with a dozen armed with
a score of supercomputers and millions of hours of custom desgined cracking
software, and the defenders start having problems again.
> up. And I think we are swinging toward the defensive side of this
Even if someone does develop an un-crackable OS security system,
sooner or later someone else will upgrade it to the newest, better version,
together with all its new security bugs...:)
Samuel spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> In message <909864946.2126303.0@rimmer.acs.bolton.ac.uk>
> > 10 anti-hackers with several supercomputers and millions of hours of
> > custom designed anti-hacker software.
Sure. The scenario was a terrorist (which I assume to not mean
foreign agent). If Japan and NAC square off, then it is tech/quality
vs tech/quality and to the winner goes the mostly working
computer/comms systems...
> Even if someone does develop an un-crackable OS security system,
Sure. But my point was there is a balance, but it isn't static, the fulcrum
moves. In 2185, I think you might see the fulcrum as closer to the security
side than it is now rather than vice versa (and no smart coments about the
actual effects on applied force of having the fulcrum closer to you... it was
a visual example....)
/************************************************
> If you know what you're doing, though, you can make a killing if you
It will
> be plausibly deniable info warriors taking out a corporation in order
This reminds me of the ending of one of my favorite books, hardwired by Walter
john Williams. Its a cyberpunk novel and the climax involves a couple of
criminal gangs
and corporate allies waging info-war/regular war against
each other.
if this is your cup of tea, pick it up, its a great book
later
> On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Christopher Pratt, a godlike figure, wrote:
yes! i've already referred to this book in the context of power armour and
instructed everyone to read it, so if they haven't then they are very very
naughty :-). specifically, i referred to the use of brain-expanding
microchips; not a terribly new concept but handled very well here.
> if this is your cup of tea, pick it up, its a great book
i'll drink to that!
> christopher pratt
> Thomas Anderson <thomas.anderson@university-college.oxford.ac.uk> wrote: