Ramblings of an old Doc
Attribution
Published on June 23, 2017 By DrJBHL In Personal Computing

 

This post has zero to do with politics. I want none on it. While it is relevant to recent events, there's a lot more to it, namely how the Internet has to change for everyone's security (and why it probably won't).

The simple fact it that it is extremely difficult to catch cyber criminals and not much effort is made to actually do so. Why? Because it is almost impossible to accurately attribute attacks. This is because of the way the net was designed by DARPA way back when there was no cyber crime, and when it wasn't anticipated at all.

"The pioneers sough to establish a robust, non-centralized internet that could not be physically destroyed by attacking a few key communications centers, and that could ensure secure communications. The pioneers sought to establish a robust, non-centralized internet that could not be physically destroyed by attacking a few key communications centers, and that could ensure secure communications. But every day, nowadays, there are millions of attacks,” he said. “Nobody goes after the criminals. So why not develop the technologies to do so? Change the internet protocol,” he urged. “You need to re-engineer the internet to enable identification of the source of everything." -Gen. Y. ben Israel

"How does the internet work? You want to send me an email. You have a supplier. Netvision, say. Netvision has Wi-Fi. You’re in contact with a local server, one of thousands. It takes your note and breaks it into packets, each of which has its own ID. That server sends all the packets to all the servers it is in touch with. And all those servers send all those packets to all the servers they’re in touch with. It’s a global infrastructure. Now, one of those servers is my local server. It puts all the packets together and delivers your note to me.

Why was the internet set up like that? One: You’d have to destroy half the world to prevent your note being delivered to me. Two, no single packet has all the information. So everything is secure. That’s how the internet was set up by DARPA." - ibid

Because there are so many methods of attack and so many variants, individual defense is a virtual impossibility. Developing endless tools for defense is equally pointless. What has to happen (if we wish to put an end to the attacks) is redesign of the internet to make attributaability and answerability the sine qua nons.

That would mean that there would be no more privacy regarding the source of posts and communications, etc. It would not mean that personal data would be involved. In fact, personal and financial data would become infinitely more secure.

Unfortunately, insecurities in OSs, software and browsers have to be addressed, as well. Intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies are in conflict here with personal and state attributability and accountability. Intelligence agencies are very much interested in maintaining vulnerabilities...and that's probably why the net won't change, despite the positives of attributability for law enforcement and for intelligence as well.

 

Sources:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/to-stop-russia-and-other-hackers-we-need-to-overhaul-the-internet-says-top-israeli-security-expert/

https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-280967312/state-level-cybersecurity

https://ccdcoe.org/publications/2010proceedings/Shackelford%20-%20State%20Responsibility%20for%20Cyber%20Attacks%20Competing%20Standards%20for%20a%20Growing%20Problem.pdf


 



 

 


Comments (Page 4)
on Jun 28, 2017

That anonymity can be abused was never in dispute.

The SCOTUS made that comment specifically for purposes of calling out that abuse of anonymity is not valid grounds for eliminating the anonymity of the law-abiding. It is a small part of a decision finding that the outlawing of anonymous speech was unconstitutional. Ergo, anonymous speech is not only a freedom, but a legal right in the US. I mean, it's even right there in the text you quoted... "the right to remain anonymous". The SCOTUS does not use verbiage like that in error.

on Jun 28, 2017

Who's talking about free speech? I'm talking about the abuse of criminal conduct. Crime is not entitled to free speech. It is not free speech to cause others' property damage.

on Jun 28, 2017

So how do you propose to eliminate the anonymity of the criminals?

 

on Jun 28, 2017

DrJBHL

Who's talking about free speech? I'm talking about the abuse of criminal conduct. Crime is not entitled to free speech. It is not free speech to cause others' property damage.

You cannot take anonymity from them without taking it from everyone. And the internet is a communication medium, so yes, freedom of speech applies. See the EFF paper I linked for their opinion on the applicability of the SCOTUS ruling quoted.

on Jun 29, 2017

Do you object to screening of bags and pat downs while getting on a plane, also? Don't you willingly go through that invasion of privacy to prevent criminals from harming you and others? Look at what just happened to the Ukraine, look at the damage done by hacks... I see nothing terrible about attribution and accountability considering we really have zero privacy anyway.

on Jun 29, 2017

So how do you propose to eliminate the anonymity of the criminals?

on Jun 29, 2017

DrJBHL

Don't you willingly go through that invasion of privacy to prevent criminals from harming you and others?

No.

Meta
Views
» 17369
Comments
» 53
Sponsored Links