Kaspersky Discovers Stealth Virus "Red October"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Parsian

Distinguished
Apr 28, 2007
774
0
18,980
0
So the Flame was so sophisticated must of required government agency funding, and if this is as sophisticated, why couldnt be a government agency product?

either way, this stuff fascinating despite their destructive nature and intends.
 

mavroxur

Distinguished
Feb 8, 2009
1,490
0
19,460
58
[citation][nom]The Greater Good[/nom]Give me a ping, Vasili. One ping only, please.[/citation]


Everyone knows that they read this in Sean Connery's voice.
 

stingstang

Distinguished
May 11, 2009
1,160
0
19,310
19
And my Chief of Staff just came in saying how important drones are to the future of warfare. Should have asked about this, though. Why is so much focus going in to drones when we still have such a huge vulnerability in the cyberspace sector?
 

groundrat

Distinguished
Dec 11, 2012
947
0
19,160
98
Drones are ops. Ops is boots on the ground, and that is very important. We ARE doing the cyber thing, but unless you have the clearance and the need to know, you won't. Suffice it to say, if your only hearing about what the Chinese teams are doing, the US DOD is doing its job well.
 

DRosencraft

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2011
743
0
19,010
6
[citation][nom]stingstang[/nom]And my Chief of Staff just came in saying how important drones are to the future of warfare. Should have asked about this, though. Why is so much focus going in to drones when we still have such a huge vulnerability in the cyberspace sector?[/citation]

Unfortunately any time a mention is even made about trying to drill down on crackers, it gets washed in with discussion on hackers, and you get a flare up from sectors of the free-internet crowd not unlike the flare up from sectors of the NRA crowd every time the words "gun control" are mentioned.
 

TeraMedia

Distinguished
Jan 26, 2006
904
1
18,990
3
Anyone notice that a lot of the infection focus was on diplomatic / embassy equipment or "unknown victims"? In the US, it was all dipl/embassy. In Brazil, Chile, and Australia, it was all "unknown victims". Whereas in Russia it hit military, research, and nuclear in addition to diplomatic.

Either this is a KGB program looking for moles, or else this would seem to point to an origin in the Western world somewhere.
 

jisamaniac

Distinguished
Oct 27, 2009
94
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]mavroxur[/nom]Everyone knows that they read this in Sean Connery's voice.[/citation]

I thought this was from the Princess Bride, so I read in the Giant's voice...
 

f-14

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2010
2,344
0
19,960
50
[citation][nom]drosencraft[/nom]Unfortunately any time a mention is even made about trying to drill down on crackers, it gets washed in with discussion on hackers, and you get a flare up from sectors of the free-internet crowd not unlike the flare up from sectors of the NRA crowd every time the words "gun control" are mentioned.[/citation]

What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?
 

DRosencraft

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2011
743
0
19,010
6
[citation][nom]f-14[/nom]What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?[/citation]

And there goes my point. All I did was mention the prospect of laws against crackers or more powers to pursue such people, who unless I'm mistaken are considered criminals, and I get down-voted and the stale, uninformed, Constitution argument. Here's a news flash - not every law that proposes commonsense steps to combat a problem is an assault on an individual's rights. The world isn't black/white. It's complex. With rights come responsibilities. But so long as we can't even discuss the matter without ridiculous diving into ideological corners, nothing changes.
 

Nimmist

Distinguished
Sep 12, 2008
30
0
18,530
0
All I did was mention the prospect of laws against crackers or more powers to pursue such people, who unless I'm mistaken are considered criminals,
If they are already criminals than they are already breaking the law and no new laws need to be made. How about enforcing existing laws?
 

DRosencraft

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2011
743
0
19,010
6
[citation][nom]Nimmist[/nom]If they are already criminals than they are already breaking the law and no new laws need to be made. How about enforcing existing laws?[/citation]

The way laws are written is that they address a problem first and execution second. In other words, you can have something be illegal, but not include in the law any guidelines on how it's supposed to executed, or what limits on prosecution exist. The idea of this process is so that the executive goes back, drafts rules, and those rules are later passed into law. The issue with cyber security is that what very little law is on the books lacks the executive definition as passed by subsequent law. People hear about Congress passing a law and think that's it. They fail to understand the way laws are implemented, and that most laws are initially vague until later refinement is applied. Few laws are like Healthcare Reform, or tax law. The Executive asks for laws in a given direction, Congress passes a law in that direction, it's signed into law, executive level authorities draft rules and establish requisite powers, and Congress goes back and passes applicable new laws to satisfy the power to fully enact the law. As I said in my previous posts, the initial laws pass setting up what is a crime, but no enforcement power is given to applicable institutions because each time talk about it starts people get in a huff about even talking about it.
 

Nimmist

Distinguished
Sep 12, 2008
30
0
18,530
0
Actually, a country’s laws stop at its border. From the article, Chinese and Russians were involved with this particular virus so unless you’re from China or Russia, any law you come up with would be meaningless. You would have to have your government go after their government and their government would have to decide whether or not to do anything about it.
 

Nimmist

Distinguished
Sep 12, 2008
30
0
18,530
0
The way laws are written is that they address a problem first and execution second...
“We need to pass the bill so we can know what’s in it” has not worked out well. Neither has passing vague laws, nor laws that are impossible to enforce, nor simply throwing one law after another out there until everyone is a criminal just for existing. Our law makers, at all levels, are failing us and need to spend more time reviewing bills before passing them as law. Just reading the bills before voting on them would be a good start.

 

blubbey

Distinguished
Jun 2, 2010
274
0
18,790
1
[citation][nom]Usersname[/nom]I see Britain has been relegated to Third World status. Nothing there worth hacking in to or observing.[/citation]

A master stroke. Oh look at that country, it has nothing. BOOM SUPERHEROES BABY! Also China.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS