When first starting my business, advisers warned me about including “fluff” into our various documents. Fluff is exactly what I think about when seeing all these reports appear courtesy of Rosenstein’s comments.
Subjectively speaking, it could be beneficial for the DOJ to be transparent on cyber related attacks, but his comes with the realization this is no more but simple hacker attribution. Are we going to forget the fact that the United States is a leader in nation-state hacking ourselves? What about the allegations that the DOJ is already holding back cyber-related information from congress?
Hacker attribution is one of the most challenging issues within cyber security and has been for many years. It’s nothing more than a far-fetched idea of attributing a form of cyber attack to the creator, his payload, and his target.
With DEFCON workshops now days, teaching kids to hack into exact replicas of Secretary of State election systems, does this transparent model make sense to announce to the public?
While not to fancy myself as the only critic, will America even accept this as news, or is it just that, “fluff”? Note: Dan Coat’s comments are not the first, or the last, we will ever hear of “the cyber of something”. Former Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta alluded to a “Cyber-Pearl Harbor” in 2012.
In wake of this Cyber Digital Task Force, the “warning lights are blinking” and we still do not even know what type of attack we face?—?let alone focus on hacker attribution. How many more times are we going to read about this “crippling cyberattack on our critical infrastructure” without actually understanding what that will be?
The world of cyberwarefare goes beyond malware infected on the surface of election machines. What if we took into account the domestic abuse of our Internet of Things? We could see victims of destruction ranging from power plants to centralized banking.
In the end, is this really just one tree in a growing forest?