Simulation: what if digital WMDs attack America?
August 11, 2012
(Credit: iStockphoto)
What would happen if terrorists or an enemy nation got their hands on digital weapons of mass disruption — like Stuxnet, Flame, or the newly reported Gauss — and used them to attack America?
How would it impact our economy, our banking system, our transportation system? How would IT organizations respond? Could we, in fact, defend ourselves?
“Those were questions I recently set out to answer,” reports David Gewirtz for ZDNet Government. Over the course of three months, working with The Economist, he recruited an all-star team consisting of Roger Cressey, (former Director for Trans-national Threats on the National Security Council and Chief of Staff to the President’s Critical Infrastructure Protection Board), Richard Clarke (former Special Advisor to the President on cybersecurity), Robert Rodriguez (former U.S. Secret Service Presidential protection supervisor and Homeland Security advisor), crisis PR expert Brenda Christensen, and leading virus-threat expert Phil Owens.
They conducted a comprehensive simulation of such an attack, presented on June 6 at the Idea Economy: Information 2012 Summit in San Francisco.
The simulation began with three isolated events, three breakdowns in our transportation system. It then went deeper, looking at what would happen if an enemy could disrupt our overall transportation systems (specifically targeting older hardware and software), and how that could undermine trust and citizen confidence. The simulation then layered on additional threats. Next came a distributed denial of service attack against transportation Web sites and banks. Then came a coordinated cyberespionage attack, exploring what would happen if a worm could tunnel into our banking clearinghouse systems.
“There’s nothing that would stop a major attack today… If there is a significant attack, we lack any ability to deal with it, not because we don’t have the technology, but because we lack the political willpower, and because decisions have not been made to deal with it.” — Richard Clarke, former Special Advisor to the President on cybersecurity
Comments (5)
by Bri
It’s costly to implement. If there was economic value, it would have been integrated from the start. Any small scale attacks would crest need and we would develope an immunity. Large scale attacks are possible, but hard to implement. It would take full scale militaristic intentions to draw the needed resources together. Then having smashed our infrastructure, they would be forced to invade, otherwise we would figure out who did it , lick our wounds, and launch a full scale counter attack, that would imply all our military resources. Disrupting America would also undermine thier economy and the worlds. This would give strong incentive to all the other countries to unite in opposition. Not a likely scenario to happen. Way to easy for the attackers to bite off more than they can chew.. Small scale attacks will occur. Very hard to broaden that into a successful conquest.
by Mr.x
I guess you are day-dreaming.If you don’t stop invading other countries and giving yourselves the right to do certain things to others while prohibiting similiar moves against you, the whole world will unite in opposition to you. Furthermore I don’t think you would be dumb enough (no offense intended, it would be a strategic blunder of treamendous scale) to use your real wmds on another country in such a scenario (as is implied by using all your military resources, which btw would be likely to happen if others launch a full scale invasion, which is the reason they won’t do that—> the payoff is to meager), because the waste of resources and the backslash would be enormous.
Anyway, the “unbeatable/allmighty USA” theme seems to run deep in your society.In your society.The home of the brave seems also to be a fearful place nowadays, with all this fearmongering.Maybe this explains your threats of using everything you got or simply threatening to overeacting (“every cyberattack will be regarded as an act of war against the USA and will be answered that way”.Stealing seems not to be attacking, or else you would be forced to declare on China).
Since I am neither psychologist nor sociologist I’ll have to leave it at that, although I find it to be a highly interesting combination.Maybe one of the readers can enlighten me on this. With best wishes, Mr.X.
by Bri
MrX your right that we are an eight hundred pound gorilla sitting on a park bench. No matter how badly you might feel about it, nobody is gonna stroll up and tell us to leave. All the cyber stuff will only amount to pokes in the eye, a couple of kicks to the shines. The world has become too interconnected, to wage single national attacks against a developed country. What’s really erking you is some of the last vestiges of imperialism, which emanated from any country large enough to contemplate world dominance. Truly that is old school. What you are yearning for, is actually coming into being. The more connected we become, the more we lose our taste for warfare. It’s just too costly, with little assurance of success.
by Mr.x
I guess you misunderstood me, my remarks were not based on what I’d wish to be the case, I really think your “scenarios” are rather unlikely (maybe you are familiar with game theory and the concept of payoff?).If I’d accidentally told you my wishful thinking, my yearning, the true desire of my heart, as some call it, you’d know that I’d wish for the world to unite under my rule.But fortunately nobody knows that.
But concerning your answer:First: I am not that naive, and I don’t care that much about imperialism.
Second:If I think about something the first time and find it to be obvious, or start getting emotianal I ask myself why and how I think to know something.For example: Why do you think nobody tells you to leave?How can you know they don’t dare, did you check for it, did you ask non-compratiots what they think?Could it be that your “news” won’t tell you? Yesterday, I read that chinese state-owned media told Mrs.Clinton to “just shut up” (their words) concerning south-east-asian waters.Did you read what happened the last days in Egypt?The takover of the muslim brotherhood and stationing of military units on the border with israel, after rooting out pro western elements in it’s etat can hardly be interpreted as going conform with American interests.So: How do you know nobody is telling you to leave? Maybe you should not consume purely American media, if you want to know some things were your so called powers-that-be have vested interests in controlling your oppinion. E.g google Brazilian protest against a visit of Obama, attacks on Clintons entourage by Phillipine and later Egyptian people for more examples.How about Russia, China and Iran?They hardly disguise their opposition to western policies.
And this talk about being too interconnected has been heard before, right before WW1.
But I think you are right concerning cyber attacks, right now they won’t achieve sth useful. I mean there is nothing to gain for those who initiate such attacks without follow-up.I think such attacks would be a means to an end,not an end in itself, e.g for weakening someone as accopaniment to other actions.And for this, the effects of cyber attacks would be too weak right now.
With best regards;
Mr.x
Ps: If I write enough lengthy posts, I can publish a book and call it art.That way I can get away with the lack of coherence.
by joeatiyah
Bri, you are basically correct that any rational approach would not result in any really damaging attacks. But people are not always rational. Bin Laden didn’t have much chance of overthrowing the US, but maybe he thought he did. Lets hope none of his followers are smart enough to put together a really bad cyber attack. Basically tho I agree with you, as with much of your posts. Do you have time for anything else? Maybe you just write real fast.