I just know who should be held for further processing @ the gate.
Which is good enough, in this case.
"What is the object of defense? Preservation. It is easier to hold
ground than take it. . . defense is the stronger form of waging war"
Carl Von Clausewitz
I just know who should be held for further processing @ the gate.
This is getting off-topic, so let's continue the discussion for a couple more emails to see if we can bring it back on-topic to network operations, and then stop if not?
Which is good enough, in this case.
"What is the object of defense? Preservation. It is easier to hold
ground than take it. . . defense is the stronger form of waging war"Carl Von Clausewitz
Which, while valid in many cases, some of them on the Internet, is in most online cases--false. This is a statement by someone much lesser than Clausewitz--me.
It is however, an educated opinion, and chronologically up to date.
Attack is a much easier form of fighting, online (let's leave war out of it). For the sake of logic I will base this on two discussion points:
In security, all you need to attack is one hole, one vulnerability. As a defender you need to defend against everything, anywhere. This is why risk analysis exists, which brings us to another point from Karl--
Changing the words to fit our needs, Clausewitz also believed wars are won by numbers, if you have more you win (Think the American Civil War). Strategy starts when you have less numbers, by where you choose to apply your forces--where it counts. Tying it with the point above is the basics of risk analysis in military terms.
In security and information warfare, whlle numbers are "nice to have" and make operations larger and more sophisticated--they are not necessary, our rivals may be just a kid the same as they can be a nation-state. The cost of entry is low, anonymity is potentially (under the right conditions) assured.
In my article for the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs on the war in Estonia, I mentioned how Martin van Creveld said decades ago how we will be facing "organizations" rather than just countries. He was laughed at and later obviously vidincated (think terrorism as one example).
Today it's much worse than that, and I state the game can be played by individuals, ad-hoc groups and populations (not necessarily under any flag or leadership, think Estonia).
Gadi.
I forgot to change the subject line, apologies.