Oh no, you're thinking, yet another cookie pop-up. Well, sorry, it's the law. We measure how many people read us, and ensure you see relevant ads, by storing cookies on your device. If you're cool with that, hit “Accept all Cookies”. For more info and to customise your settings, hit “Customise Settings”.

Review and manage your consent

Here's an overview of our use of cookies, similar technologies and how to manage them. You can also change your choices at any time, by hitting the “Your Consent Options” link on the site's footer.

Manage Cookie Preferences
  • These cookies are strictly necessary so that you can navigate the site as normal and use all features. Without these cookies we cannot provide you with the service that you expect.

  • These cookies are used to make advertising messages more relevant to you. They perform functions like preventing the same ad from continuously reappearing, ensuring that ads are properly displayed for advertisers, and in some cases selecting advertisements that are based on your interests.

  • These cookies collect information in aggregate form to help us understand how our websites are being used. They allow us to count visits and traffic sources so that we can measure and improve the performance of our sites. If people say no to these cookies, we do not know how many people have visited and we cannot monitor performance.

See also our Cookie policy and Privacy policy.

Forget the word 'cyberwar' says Marcus Ranum

If nobody can win, it's not a war

Security veteran and CSO at Tenable Marcus Ranum has made a plea* for the world to stop using the expression “cyberwar”, for the very good reason that there's nearly no way in which it resembles war in the physical world.

“How can you call something a domain of warfare when the most important properties of warfare cannot properly be applied to it?” Ranum asked delegates to the AusCERT 2013 last Friday.

A land war, he said, includes the ability to win, defences that might actually work, and manoeuvrability – none of which are tenable concepts in trying to defend computers from attack. He also voiced a deep suspicion that the word “cyberwar” exists solely so that the military can lay claim to it, and all the responsibilities and budgets that go with it.

“Anyone talking about cyberwar is trying to enlarge their influence,” he said.

There are, he added, a lot of people in the US military concerned that “someone's going to ask 'why do you have all this expensive cyber security stuff, when you keep getting owned by 14-year-old kids?'”

Whereas victories in a topological war might involve a surrender by one side, he said, “What does 'winning' even mean in cyberspace? What does the concept of victory mean?

“As far as I can tell, the only way you can really declare victory in a cyber-battle is if you are Intel, Microsoft and Cisco combined, and you can say to the other side, “you lose” and they agree.

“It's not going to happen. You cannot conclusively drive your opponent away. In topological warfare, if you attack me with a thousand tanks and I destroy them, then you need another thousand tanks.”

The failure of any defence in cyberspace is just as inevitable as the ultimate failure of every castle ever built, because if an attacker cannot take a position by storm, there's always bribery or subterfuge.

“The dymanics of warfare simply do not apply in cyberspace. You cannot cost your attacker so much that they can never come back,” Ranum said.

“I do not think of cyberspace as a military thing,” he said, and the use of “cyberwar” represents militaries, companies and governments “Desperately trying to find analogies in old thinking that apply to a new field”. ®

*Bootnote: the usual press cliché is to describe it as an “impassioned plea”. It was the first keynote on the last day of the conference, after the gala dinner, and heads were so sore nobody was being impassioned. ®

Sponsored: Forrester Build a Digital Experience Portfolio

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEEKLY TECH NEWSLETTER


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020