Re: What is a cyberweapon?

[Brian Snow <briansnow () comcast net>]

Dan, 



Not an over-simplification, but a useful clarification (indeed, the focus should be on the agent with intent within a 
"system-with-intent") . 



Example, which is the better characterisation: 



       "Officer shoots felon in bank robbery attempt" or 

       "Felon in bank robbery attempt shot by gun held by officer." 



Brian Snow 



----- Original Message -----


From: "Daniel J Gieseman [ITRNS]" <dgiesema () iastate edu> 
To: dailydave () lists immunityinc com 
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 4:40:27 PM 
Subject: [Dailydave]  What is a cyberweapon? 




My take on what Dave is saying is that things like reliable exploits, malicious scripts, etc are not cyber weapons per 
se, not any more than a bullet is a weapon.   It is only when the bullet becomes part of a "system-with-intent", does 
it become "weaponized".    

  

I think I see the difference, and when you look at things from that level of abstraction, threats and how you mitigate 
appear differently.   Example: countering the institutional actor (e.g. the "system-with-intent" in this case) will 
yield better degradation and denial response than merely detecting and armoring yourself from any "bullets" being 
fired.    

  

However, this begs the question, what do you do when your institutional adversary is not a Swedish Server Farm, but a 
state actor not easily degraded? 

  

Perhaps an over-simplification, but I couldn't resist chiming in. 

  

D. 

  

  
_______________________________________________ 
Dailydave mailing list 
Dailydave () lists immunityinc com 
http://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave 

_______________________________________________
Dailydave mailing list
Dailydave () lists immunityinc com
http://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave