After last weeks spam run on Iraq, the US military and NIPC are
concerned Iraq might be behind a rise in electronic attacks
against government and military networks.
The assessment said recent computer disruptions have included Web
defacements, "denial of service" attacks that can disrupt or paralyze
a network, and hacking "probes" and "scans" aimed at testing the
vulnerability of a network.
But the article also says less than 2% of the "attacks" resulted
in a successful intrusion.
After last weeks spam run on Iraq, the US military and NIPC are
concerned Iraq might be behind a rise in electronic attacks
against government and military networks.
and we are supposed to have sympathy for those who struck the first
blow? rofl!
randy
But the article also says less than 2% of the "attacks" resulted
in a successful intrusion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/17/technology/17HACK.html
2% would be an embarrassingly large success rate for intrusion on a
"secured" military network.
But, I'm sure they'll float any articles they can to get congress to
allocate more funds to the cyberpanic squad--go go big brother. Not too
mention, the news whores are always a willing accomplice in fabricating
hype.
Oh wait, is today cynical Friday?
--jnull
> But the article also says less than 2% of the "attacks" resulted
> in a successful intrusion.2% would be an embarrassingly large success rate for intrusion on a
"secured" military network.
Not to mention the definition of "attack" the article seems to use. After
all, a DoS or a probe doesn't actually result in an intrusion, even when
they're successful.
- Kandra
Well they don't tell you which 2 percent either.
For all we know
"only 2 percent were successful" and yielded launch codes...
or
"only 2 percent were successful" and yielded next weeks lunch schedule.
Big difference on which 2 percent:).