• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Upcoming Pentagon report: You hack us, we'll bomb you

sunrise

aka ginger warlock
V.I.P.
In this day and age Cyber-Crimes are obviously a big problem when it comes to people who are a: savy with a computer & b: have a grudge.

When I first started using the internet there were two camps of people; black sheep and white sheep. Black sheep would normally hack into somewhere because they could, mess about with a site (replacing links from legitimate portions of a site to porn links) and see what else they could see. White sheep would hack but tell the owners of the sit what went wrong and how they could improve. The problem these days is there seems to be a blurry line between the two.

The thing is that I am not sure how they will track these people down. I would assume the first thing they would do is try to do a traceroute to an IP address which could tell someone where they reside. This all sounds simple enough but I imagine that if these people are capable to hacking into somewhere they will know how to mask their IP Address even if the ISP can be found.

Whilst I appreciate where they are coming from they have to be clearer about what constitute what’s otherwise they a likely to have more happen just to see what happens.
 

BrinkOfExistence

Registered Member
I can understand how america feels, when someone hacks my computer i want to knock the motherfudger out who hacked me, but using a military strike could end up killing civillians who had nothing to do or even know about the cyber attack. Also how will they know who co-ordinated the cyber attack and even more what country they represent? the chances are that a group of hackers will hack the pentagon from a country that they do not represent. i.e china hacks the pentagon while based in russia.
Gary Mckinnon better start running otherwise he's gonna have cruise missle thundering down on him.
 

Wade8813

Registered Member
This seems like common sense to me. Any attack of any type against US interests can be construed as a declaration of war.

In this day and age Cyber-Crimes are obviously a big problem when it comes to people who are a: savy with a computer & b: have a grudge.

When I first started using the internet there were two camps of people; black sheep and white sheep. Black sheep would normally hack into somewhere because they could, mess about with a site (replacing links from legitimate portions of a site to porn links) and see what else they could see. White sheep would hack but tell the owners of the site what went wrong and how they could improve. The problem these days is there seems to be a blurry line between the two.
How would you blur that line? If you do malicious things, you're a black sheep. Plain and simple.
 

Dekzper

Registered Member
To make a system secure, they prolly hire hackers to attempt to hack into their systems. If the hackers succeed, then they know where the system is weak.
But those same hackers could be hacking into other systems and who would know?

I think this might be like the wiki-leaks thing but with hackers who are actually paid to hack into systems they're familiar with.

For the OP, yes I think it should be considered an act of war. But it wouldn't matter if war was declared by hacking or by a real attack since the reply would be the same - One country would attack another country the same way in either case. It just wouldn't be as easy to know which country if it was a hacking crime. But that's just the political thing.
There's prolly hackers that hack into sites for revenge or (who knows) just for fun. That would def complicate things.

It's almost funny. Instead of making the world safer, tech is actually making it less safe by supporting enemies people can't even see.
 

sunrise

aka ginger warlock
V.I.P.
How would you blur that line? If you do malicious things, you're a black sheep. Plain and simple.
I think the blur comes from people who do the wrong thing but for the right reason. Without wanting to put in countries into a situation where people see it as being a personal attack:

Person A who is corrupt is running a site that is helping to formulate and run attacks that will potentially disrupt and kill thousands of people, they claim that is for the good of the country.

Person B finds out what is really going on by hacking into the site and making their findings known.

Now Person B may seem a bad guy until what is revealed is that Person A is indeed a bad person and only by hacking has this been revealed. This is not the best example in the world but its the best I can come up with right now and I hope this kind of explains it :)
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
I agree with Wade that this seems obvious. Which makes me wonder what prompted the announcement. It's like me just randomly telling someone that if they punch me, I might punch them back. It's just not something you say unless you expect to be punched.
 

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
I agree with Wade in that this could be construed as an act of war so I don't have a problem with it. I also wondered the same thing EI did, what prompted this announcement? Are they expecting to be hacked? Is there some intelligence that there is a plan to hack the Pentagon?
 

BrinkOfExistence

Registered Member
I agree with Wade in that this could be construed as an act of war so I don't have a problem with it. I also wondered the same thing EI did, what prompted this announcement? Are they expecting to be hacked? Is there some intelligence that there is a plan to hack the Pentagon?
They're probably already being hacked and thought "sod this, getting sick of fighting off these hackers through a computer, next person to hack us is gonna get carpet bombed, well your neighbour will get bombed first but we'll get you the second time;)"
 

Wade8813

Registered Member
I think the blur comes from people who do the wrong thing but for the right reason. Without wanting to put in countries into a situation where people see it as being a personal attack:

Person A who is corrupt is running a site that is helping to formulate and run attacks that will potentially disrupt and kill thousands of people, they claim that is for the good of the country.

Person B finds out what is really going on by hacking into the site and making their findings known.

Now Person B may seem a bad guy until what is revealed is that Person A is indeed a bad person and only by hacking has this been revealed. This is not the best example in the world but its the best I can come up with right now and I hope this kind of explains it :)
That's a good explanation, but it doesn't really work in this case IMO.

If you're hacking someone like that, you already have to have something pretty substantial to make you think they're dirty. And I doubt you'll find anywhere close to enough evidence to warrant hacking the Pentagon.

Not to mention, they're talking about declaring war. You don't declare war against an individual - you declare war against sovereign states.

I agree with Wade in that this could be construed as an act of war so I don't have a problem with it. I also wondered the same thing EI did, what prompted this announcement? Are they expecting to be hacked? Is there some intelligence that there is a plan to hack the Pentagon?
I'm pretty sure foreign governments try to hack US interests all the time. It's all part of gathering intel - which is something pretty much all countries do to each other. But when it becomes an act of war if you get caught, suddenly maybe it's not such a good idea.
 
Top