jeff@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (JEFF NANIS ) (06/05/90)
From: jeff@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (JEFF NANIS ) Today's (Wed., 23 Sept. '90) Washington Post Business section had an interesting article about the U.S. Army Center for Signals Warfare looking to industry for the development of viruses to attack enemy computer systems. The article mentioned that both delivery methods as well as kill mechanisms were desired. Towards the end, it was pointed out that this initiative would, at the very least, help spur comp-sci types in industry to think of countermeasures for protecting our systems from attack. I have a few problems with this. Knowing what I do about software and combat system and C3 design, I can't picture a _data_ link as being vulnerable to the introduction of software or code or virus. When the Navy wants to upgrade the software on a ship, they don't transmit the gazillion lines of code over data links or sat comms. Instead, they either wait until its in port, or send out a team of experts with mag tapes. I assume any enemy C3 set-up would be at least as secure. Also, if you have enough power to get _into_ their link's main beam or side lobe, why not just transmit noise? The answer to this last is that jamming only lasts as long as you're transmitting while a virus would keep on affecting the target system (as well as having the potential for self-propagation to other systems). I would be interested in any informed or intelligent speculation on this subject, if we can stay out of too much comp-sci detail. -- -- Jeff Nanis "You can't send me out there, jeff@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu I'm an analyst, not a field agent!" Not an official opinion which might get me put in jail.