On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Jason wrote:
> You present a valid position but fall short of seeing the whole picture.
>
> As an attacker, nation state or otherwise, my goal being to cripple
> communications, 0day is the way to go. Resource exhaustion takes
> resources, something the 0day can deprive the enemy of.
>
> Knocking out infrastructure with attacks is a far more effective
> strategy. You can control it's timing, launch it with minimal resources,
> from anywhere, coordinate it, and be gone before it can be thwarted. The
> botnet would only serve as cover while the real attack happens.
>
> I am more inclined to believe that botnets in use today really only
> serve as cover, thuggish retribution, and extortion tools, not as
> effective tools of warfare. No real warfare threat would risk exposing
> themselves through the use of or construction of a botnet.
>
There is a difference between Sun Tsu-like stealth and civil war-like
"throw bodies at it".
I quite agree 0days would be important tools, but not necessarily the only
tool. Then, it would only be a fascilitating technology. A known
vulnerability is also useful in many cases.
About botnets, they are at the very heart of the matter--not necessarily
for being used in this fashion, but rather because the Internet is perfect
for plausible deniability, and then, of course, there is the matter of a
/fifth column/, inside your network.
Gadi.
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
