Details of Cyber Storm War Games Released 96
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Apparently, the participants in the U.S. 'Cyber Storm' war games are familiar with the Kobayashi Maru, because some of them tried to cheat by hacking the games themselves. They also prepare for some very interesting scenarios. Among other things, the organizers are worried about having too many people on the 'No Fly' list show up at an airport, finding 'mystery liquids' in the subway, and having bloggers reveal the classified location of railcars with hazardous materials. The Department of Homeland Security has already analyzed the results of the games, and plans to hold 'Cyber Storm 2' in March."
Helpful. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
reminds me of (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Hacking the game is cheating? (Score:5, Interesting)
Reminds me of when I was in college and us CS people used to get together and play a computerized version of capture the flag. The premise of the game was simple enough -- players were divided into 4 teams of 2-3 people each, and each team got a machine that came pre-loaded with an older unpatched version of Linux that had well known and published security vulnerabilities (something like Red Hat 7.3). Each machine had 4 services running on it -- typically SSH, Bind, Apache, and telnet (yeah...*sigh*). Each of those services came configured to return a certain string (the so-called flag) when queried by a master scoring server that ran a fairly simple Python script. The script ran once every minute and then displayed up to date team scores on a video projector. The rules of the game stated that we could not patch the machine or use IPtables to lock down the machine. Anything else was fair game. The machines and the scoring server were all networked together on small private network, and each team was given one additional network drop to do with as they pleased.
Anyway, one night we got together to play CTF and there were only enough people for 3 teams of two. Since that doesn't make for such an interesting game, one of our professors who was just supposed to be observing decided to join in and be on his own team. As soon as the game started, everyone went to work furiously trying to defend their boxen and then the real fun -- the attacking -- began.
We were all quite surprised when the first round of results came in and our professor hadn't had anyone hijack his machine. He also evidently hadn't attacked anyone else. The night went on and each of the student teams went back and forth, attacking and defending, but our professor stayed the same -- he neither had anyone successfully compromise his box, nor successfully compromised anyone elses.
The last few minutes of the game saw my team dead last, our professor in third place, and two other teams above us. 5 seconds from the end, our professor's score suddenly increased to an ungodly high (and according to the rules unattainable) score, with the rest of our scores getting set to zero. As the clock ticked down and the game came to an end, we were befuddled as to what happened.
Suddenly it dawned on us -- our professor had spent the entire time hacking the scoring server (which was supposed to have been an up to date, secure Linux install) and replacing the Python scoring script with one of his own, all to his advantage. At some point during the game, he had actually replaced the running script with his own, without any of us ever noticing. We were all in awe and amazement at his creativity -- the idea to do such a thing had not even occurred to any of us. We learned several valuable lessons that night, one of which was that the mind of a creative attacker may not be confined solely within the nice little security box that you place it in. That, and never mess with your professors!
Re:Hacking the game is cheating? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hacking the game is cheating? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hacking the game is cheating? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, in the real-world in Iraq, the insurgents are hiding behind civilians and mosques. An exercise that makes you reconsider the rules of the game is very important in the real world, where you have to expect the unexpected.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is a little odd, since I only expressed a view of an exercise.
An exercise that makes you reconsider the rules of the game is very important in the real world, where you have to expect the unexpected.
Which is all well and good, but there is plenty of other types of exercises that are equally as useful. Besides, in your example it sounds like they were using perfectly legitimate tactics that were deemed outside the scope of some fairly specific exercise, w
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No offence, but any criticism of the war-game after that would be just redundant, surely you give the enemy the huge advantage and make your own forces work around it? If that's a true story then there's some strange thinking in play. Able to give us a source?
Re: (Score:1)
What you should practice against (and what you're trying to say) is to make your opponents as varied as possible in practice, or preferably (extension of the above principle) as near to your actual opponents as possible. cf. Sun Tzu: "Know thyself, and know t
Re: (Score:2)
The enemy can, and quite likely will, do something unexpected.
Consider this ground combat scenario.
If I see an enemy platoon flanking us on the right, and an enemy platoon holding their position in front of us, normal strategy would be to assume that the platoon flanking to the right is going to come in on the right, or possibly the rear but risk crossfire.
So, I'd rearrange MY troops to guard the fr
War cannot be 'cheated'. (Score:2)
You cannot 'cheat' at war. Anything goes, that is the point. So, the only 'cheating' that could occur in a wargame, would be doing something unsafe. Say like using live am
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You cannot 'cheat' at war. Anything goes, that is the point. So, the only 'cheating' that could occur in a wargame, would be doing something unsafe. Say like using live ammunition rather than blanks.
The point of wargames is to prepare for possible situations, and train people how to react to them. If you fail to anticipate a situation, you have a weakness that can be exploited.
I agree in general, but not with this particular cheat.
Michael Chertoff, in Wired:
"They point out where your expectations of your capabilities may be overstated," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told the AP. "They may reveal to you things you haven't thought about. It's a good way of testing that you're going to do the job the way you think you were. It's the difference between doing drills and doing a scrimmage."
I don't see the article saying that particular computer vulnerability was previously unknown. In fact, requesting that everybody not target the server suggests that the particular exploit is a known weakness, thus use of it is redundant to the organizers & lazy on the part of the cheaters, not insightful & informative & funny, & all-around, it's definitely not worthy of the prize. Of course, somebody among t
Re:where is this class (Score:1)
: )
Sounds like my kind of fun
Re: (Score:1)
With Side do you want? (Score:2)
1. U.S.A
2. U.S.S.R
Third option (Score:5, Interesting)
People stuck in a blizzard is nothing new in China, what I found interesting was the government has made a rare official appology to the people for being unprepared for the magnitude of this particular storm. Politicians are turning up at train stations and adressing the massive crowds with bullhorns, appologising profusely while explaining that the trains can't run until the power lines are back up and the tracks are cleared.
Some people were complaining, but the majority were spontaneously applauding and cheering the guy with the bullhorn.
BTW: I realise that the news from China is tainted with propoganda and a poloitician with a blowhorn won't get the trains back any faster. However, since they have a million troops working on the clean up, have hailed 6 electrical workers who died trying to restore power as national heros, plus the afforementioned apology for something they could not realistically prevent, I think the applause is not entirely hollow.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Does anyone (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Does anyone (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1158340980371.shtm [dhs.gov]
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/prep_cyberstormreport_sep06.pdf [dhs.gov]
From the report, it looks like everything was simulated.
Re: (Score:1)
Very funny (Score:2)
From the report, it looks like everything was simulated. "
Oooooooook, which of you jerks put goatse boy there?
Re:Does anyone (Score:4, Informative)
Beyond that, I cannot explain anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I think its a bit of a stretch to call this a cyber storm wargame.
Good Gravy (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good Gravy (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Recognizing fictional references is an example of "cultural literacy". When the reference is a popular TV show, it's more like "basic cultural literacy".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's factually incorrect. It's a detail from a 40 year old TV setting that was last referenced in a new episode seven or eight years ago. And yes, all of the Star Trek offshoots have still been "popular TV shows", in spite of the fact that both fans and anti-nerds rip on them.
The vast majority of the world wouldn't get *a
Re: (Score:2)
Which was then re-referenced throughout the franchise. And then referenced by fans of the show commonly enough that I'd expect some people to pick up on it without ever having seen any Star Trek. Sure, it's a moderately obscure reference - but it's not something that you'd have to be an obsessive Star Trek fan to recognize.
That's just boorish snobbery (which i
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of getting laid, when I first saw this on the front page, my eyes fixed on the linked phrase "hacking the games themselves" and I thought "Kobayashi Maru" before I even read it in the summary. Take that cultural illiteracy!
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't everybody know? Heck, that movie is...um, only 25 years old.
Hmm. I think I should feel old rather than nerdy since I first saw it in a theater. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
In Real Life... (Score:2, Insightful)
Someone has to know where the trains are (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems to me that the two cases would have equal consequences and equal risk levels, and that no other individual could possibly modify those values significantly, reducing the security through obscurity to someone's job security through obscurity. Tell me, why should I care about this person's job more than I care about any potential risk to my wellbeing?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Mystery liquids (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Frightning... (Score:5, Insightful)
Reading that article really opens eyes as to the real inside of our government. The founding fathesr have got to be spinning at 30-40 thousand RPM in their graves by now.
Well that's the energy crisis taken care of ;) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
From the Center for Public Integrity http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=home&context=overview&id=945 [publicintegrity.org]
Re:Frightning... (Score:5, Insightful)
In the real world, almost anything could be a threat. Your child could knock a salad fork off the table, and it could land tines-up wedged into a crack in the floor, and you could then slip from your chair trying to pick it up, and put your eye out. By means of an implausible scenario, the fork has become a threat. But you don't address such a threat by outlawing salad forks, or all dining implements, or feeding your children only spoon food. Instead you analyze the risk of having salad forks on your dining room table, and realize it's silly to worry about such ridiculous scenarios.
For a variant, consider placing steak knives on the table. Now, if your child were to knock one off it becomes somewhat more serious. Perhaps you mitigate the risk by sensibly not placing sharp knives within reach of your child; but you don't outlaw knives from the kitchen nor do you stop eating steak. You simply keep them out of your child's reach.
Now move to a slightly more sinister threat or risk, that of a free press or possibly an extremist group publishing the location of every chlorine tanker in America. Could that be a threat to our security? Of course, it might even herald the initial coordination of a nationwide attack. But just like the above stories, you don't outlaw bloggers or their right to publish (nor can you.) Instead you look at potentially dangerous objects or information, you analyze the potential risks, and you find a way to mitigate them. Step 0 might sensibly be "don't publicly publish lists of hazardous tankers" except to those persons with a need to know. Step 1 might be to keep any such lists as small as possible -- the Seattle fire department doesn't need to have the schedule for the Atlanta chlorine train. Step 2 might be to publish a generic set of instructions, "How to safeguard chemical tankers". Step 3 might be a communications plan to the rail lines informing them of a security breach. And so on.
Almost anything can be a threat. What defines an appropriate reaction is recognition of the risks, planning and mitigation strategies. Over the top reactions like saying "OMG they're trying to silence the press and Jefferson is rolling in his grave" are completely missing the point. Nowhere in TFA are they even suggesting they suppress the blogs; they're just recognizing a potential threat, and figuring out what plans (if any) they need to make.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Treating the media as a risk isn't the same as taking away the freedoms of the media. The media and by extension the general public doesn
Plans are in development... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Cyber Storm? (Score:2)
1. How much does it cost per month to play?
2. Does it support DirectX 10, and
3. Where do I sign up for the Cyber Storm Goonswarm?
This crap always amazes me (Score:2)
Re:This crap always amazes me (Score:5, Insightful)
So, to summarize your post:
WTF?
You obviously missed the whole point, which was really to work on the cooperation and communication. They weren't testing specific countermeasures, but stressing the people and the organizations involved to see what happens. Even if it weren't, being more prepared or knowledgeable about some threats is better than being knowledgeable than no threats.
accident? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why does did sound like the plot to war games 2? (Score:3, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarGames_2:_The_Dead_Code [wikipedia.org]
the movie has a system that sounds alot like the one talked about hear.
I know where the railcars are (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
On the rails??
*does not drive on the NJ Turnpike*
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
No, silly, you drive on the NJ Turnpike. You lose.
goals (Score:2)
Sometimes, these exercises are "free for all". There's a scoring system and you win if you get the highest score, good luck.
Sometimes, though, there are more refined goals. If the goal of the exercise is to evaluate different reactions to a given threat, for example, then taking away that threat by whatever creativity you bring isn't a "smart move", it's breaking the game because removing the threat wasn't the goal, and by doing so you make it impossible for
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what the goals of that wargame were, nor whether the goals were realistic or fit into a certain strategy. What I do know is that the strategy that the general used is the EXACT strategy that was used by Al-Qaeda, and which nearly kicked the US forces out of Iraq. The saving grace was some very unorthodox thinking of the commanders on the ground, who managed to change the minds of a number of Iraqi
Re: (Score:2)
I call BS. If you don't know enough about the situation to know what the goals of the wargame were, how do you have sufficiently detailed knowledge of the general's strategy to claim that it is identical to that used by Al-Qaeda (given, of course, that one accepts the premise that it was AQ and not Iraqi Sunni tribal leaders who were responsible for the resistance)?
Re: (Score:2)
As for needing to know the details of the strategy.... tell me, what does this sound like: hit and run tactics, ambushes, use of irregular forces, urban combat and bombings. Sounds pretty much like what's happening now, right? If the gp is right, that's what the general used... and I vaguely remember stories of that wargame in a similar fashion.
Sometimes, the details don'
Re: (Score:1)
Urban combat is very tough for US forces - no doubt - but saying the US was almost kicked out is a farce. So far the US is willing to accept the casualties associated with operating in urban environments. If that willingness goes away, the US may w
Re: (Score:2)
In your initial assessment, you made th
Re: (Score:2)
Massed combat oustide urban centers would be necessary to drive US soldiers completely out of Iraq. The US has bases out in the desert with equipment and supplies for precisely this reason.
How To Play?? (Score:2)
It's nice and all to hire private 'security' companies, and have all the agencies beating up on it, but it's already been proven that the most dangerous folks out there are just regular folks (regardless of age). Regular people are the ones finding the exploits to break perfectly good security. It's not a 'security' company with a library of those works who are the most dangerous threats, it's the kid who just figured out an exploit
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The key element of these war games is to test response capabilities. Testing existing exploits would be pointless. An exploit could come out tomorrow that allows someone to control every Cisco router on
cyber game - results - improvements? (Score:1)