From: Mike McNally <m5@vail.tivoli.com>
To: David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com>
Message Hash: 0b90f0f8578326893ae88423e24d0e6346819a9064c07ea921429ded69f183d6
Message ID: <31EEEFFD.386B@vail.tivoli.com>
Reply To: <v03007607ae142d52fbb1@[192.187.162.15]>
UTC Datetime: 1996-07-19 06:35:55 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:35:55 +0800
From: Mike McNally <m5@vail.tivoli.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:35:55 +0800
To: David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com>
Subject: Re: New Infowarfare Panel
In-Reply-To: <v03007607ae142d52fbb1@[192.187.162.15]>
Message-ID: <31EEEFFD.386B@vail.tivoli.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
David Sternlight wrote:
> >My personal recollection... high speed fighter-bomber aircraft ...
> I'm talking about some of the information that started slowly leaking out
> later, not the prime-time TV pyrotechnics.
Well, a lot of stuff "leaked out", but I'm not sure how much was actually
acknowledged to be true. There was the thing about the "virus" in the
printer drivers, or something like that, but I seriously don't see how
any sort of software "attack" would have much significance once the
Iraqi national microwave network was blasted into oblivion.
The point is that I don't personally believe that there's much of a
credible threat of one of these "Infowar Attacks" that this new
commission plans to anticipate (by some means of divination; I am
really eager to see what that turns out to be). Commercial systems
are disparate enough and so inherently flaky that I doubt some terrorist
agency could do much worse than your run-of-the-mill catastrophic
system failure. The power grid is an exception, perhaps, but to
attack that with any sort of real effect would probably require a
physical attack, and in any case even the grid seems capable of
random failures that bring about random chaos without the need for
creepy foreigners.
I also dispute the "lighthouse" story. That setup only is meaningful
when there's a service necessary to the well-being of the community in a
situation where no mechanism for ready cash flow to a provider exists.
I question the premise that commercial suppliers of security systems &
consulting can't solve corporate security problems effectively. Indeed,
a good argument could be made that we're better defended by a wide
variety of different security systems, rather than a single General
Issue Uncle Sam Security System.
______c_____________________________________________________________________
Mike M Nally * Tiv^H^H^H IBM * Austin TX * For the time being,
m5@tivoli.com * m101@io.com *
<URL:http://www.io.com/~m101> * three heads and eight arms.
Return to July 1996
Return to “tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)”