The Register® — Biting the hand that feeds IT

Feeds

USAF Colonel goes on the offensive with botnet destroyer plan

Enemies reduced to 'hunks of metal and plastic'

What you need to know about cloud backup

After watching the US military infrastructure get kicked around like a playground weakling, an Air Force colonel wants to strike back by building a massive botnet that would mount massive denial-of-service counterattacks on adversaries that attack US networks first.

In a recently published article, Col. Charles W. Williamson III argued an Air Force-controlled botnet could be a cost-effective means to protect military networks under near-constant attack. He envisions collecting machines that would otherwise be discarded, removing their power-hungry hard drives and then making them available to wage attacks against foreign-based computers targeting the military.

"The world has abandoned a fortress mentality in the real world, and we need to move beyond it in cyberspace," Williamson wrote. "America needs a network that can project power by building an af.mil robot network (botnet) that can direct such massive amounts of traffic to target computers that they can no longer communicate and become no more useful to our adversaries than hunks of metal and plastic."

Given the constant assault being waged on networks belonging to the US government and military, it's a tempting thought. But Williamson glosses over the dire consequences of a military-controlled botnet, not the least of which is that it would almost certainly result in the cyber equivalent of friendly fire on US citizens and allies.

How to explain to hundreds of thousands of people, many of them residents of the US, UK, Israel and other like countries, that their new HP laptop has been rendered a smoldering piece of plastic because it was commandeered by a rogue state? And what about the collateral damage on all the ISPs and backbone providers that sit between the US military and all those zombie machines?

With DDoS attacks already comprising an estimated 3 percent of internet traffic, military-sponsored zombie attacks could easily cause that number to spike to levels that would make the net a less reliable place for all of us.

Not to worry. Williamson anticipated arguments like ours. The botnet will have built-in filters that would prevent US military and government machines from being targeted. He also argued that attacks on individuals whose computers are unwittingly hijacked by enemies would be justified since "there are real questions about whether the owner of that computer is truly innocent."

Feel better?

Williamson also rejected the idea that the US would be starting a new arms race, arguing "We are in one, and we are losing."

No doubt the US is on the losing end of the DDoS war, but we haven't seen anything yet if Williamson gets his way. His proposal is one of the more hair-brained ideas to come along in a while. If the net and the millions of people who depend on it don't collapse under the weight of a US-run botnet, they certainly will fall once the rest of the world's armies follow the example. ®

Agentless Backup is Not a Myth

Latest Comments

stoopids?

this is a stupid idea. anyway isnt the whole point of botnet ddos attacks that say 100 machines in 100 differnt locations accross the globe say attack one machine/server/whatever. but his counter army will do what hit the first machine for 5 mins then swap onto the next and go through the list? it doesnt make much sense unless you can find out who is controlling the botnet and where from. in which case youd be better off to hack the server and send instructions to remove the bot then shoot the 16 year old hacker with a taser and send him to some horrible prision?

0
0

..right

"Sure, it's a grey area, and some people have "ethical concerns" over whether it should be done or not, but frankly, if it can be done, it should. Fix them and move on."

I assume this was some sort of dry humour or otherwise ludicrous joke.

You advocate giving remote-access to systems owned by consumers to the government? in essence this is probably something they can already do, however opening the door for them is insane, you have even less privacy than you do already, not to mention this completely violates your rights to privacy of at least some nature - and who in the DOD would have access to this remote-"tool"? and the sign-off on it? hmm..

0
0

funny

better than slaying a million iraqis..

0
0

More from The Register

 breaking news
Number of cops abusing Police National Computer access on the rise
Only a telegram from the Queen can get you off it
 breaking news
NSA whistleblower to tech firms, Obama: 'Grow a pair!'
Ed Snowden: Email tracking grabs 'IPs, raw data, content, headers, attachments, everything'
Google flings another £1m at online child sex abuse vid CRACKDOWN
See, see, we're trying, ad giant tells Daily Mail UK.gov
 breaking news
NSA PRISM-gate: Relax, GCHQ spooks 'keep us safe', says Cameron
Whatever they are up to, it's all above board, we're told
SCO vs. IBM battle resumes over ownership of Unix
Zombie lawsuit back and wants to suck the brains out of Linux
PRISM snitch claims NSA hacked Chinese targets since 2009
Snowden suddenly looks safer in Hong Kong after revelations
 breaking news
US chief spook: Look, we only want to spy on 6.66 BEELLLION of you
Americans assured they are not in the NSA's sights
NSA: We COULD track you by your phone ... if we WANTED to
Honestly, too much work, can't be bothered