From technology to politics to video games; these are the random thoughts of a geek with too much time on his hands
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine..
Published on May 10, 2005 By Zoomba In Pure Technology
Since the close of World War II, we have lived under varying degrees of fear regarding the possibility of a Nuclear or Biological war, where weapons could wipe out huge chunks of the world's population very quickly. In recent years the fear has shifted from a massive attack from a foreign superpower (i.e. the Soviet Union) to one lunatic dictator just sending off one or two towards places like London, Washington D.C., NYC etc. The nuclear menace has given way largely to the biological one, with recent epidemics of fear regarding anthrax powder in envelopes and packages being mailed around the world by terrorists (though I can't remember a single incident where it was actually anthrax and not just a generic white powder to scare people). We fear an attack that will kill millions quickly and almost silently.



Take a gander at the above animated gif. What you're looking at is the spread of a virus over a 24 hour period world-wide. By the end of the day, there are over 300k identified victims (and as a result vectors) for the virus. Remember, this is just one day... it's a virus that started in China and spread globally at an alarming rate. This happened on July 19th, 2001.



This is a before-and-after image of a different epidemic. This one is over a MUCH shorter time frame, only 30minutes. This took place on January 25th, 2003. Within 30min there were almost 75,000 identified infections.

You probably never heard about either of these incidents, they probably passed completely under your radar and were largely ignored by the media. That would be because these aren't human viruses, it's not a superflu, or a new strain of ebola... they're both computer viruses. Both particularly nasty ones that for a brief period of time partially crippled our worldwide communications grid.

The first animation is of the Code Red virus, which affected Microsoft IIS Servers that hadn't been properly patched up. The second was Slammer, a virus that hit unpatched Microsoft SQL Servers. Both spread extremely quickly and managed to take down very important pieces of the Internet. In the case of Slammer, the spread was so fast that several of the root DNS servers (the master servers that keep a record of all domains and IP ranges) were flooded offline for a portion of the day, rendering large chunks of the Internet unreachable.

Thankfully, neither did much serious damage to infected machines, they just used them to spread to other vulnerable machines. Despite their relatively "safe" payload, they still managed to wreak havoc with the core components of our society.

If you think about it, The Internet is the backbone to everything we do. Companies depend on it. The government depends on it. It is how we manage shipping, ordering, how we coordinate with one another, how we communicate and do day to day business. Every moment of your life is now pretty much connected to this vast global communications network. What happens when that network fails? Thankfully, Slammer hit on a weekend, minimizing potential damage, and Code Red didn't spread fast enough to pose a really serious problem to the core servers. But in both cases we saw the aftermath of what a virus could do. Companies lost millions, communication between individuals, companies, and governments were disrupted.

It's now said that a clean machine, when placed online, will become infected within an average of 3min. That's not even long enough to download and apply patches.

It's already starting, the weapons for the next great conflict are being built... but they're coming from teens in Europe, Asia, the Midwest USA, everywhere. It's only a matter of time before someone tries to harness them and use them in an intentional attack. So far they've mostly just been "proof of concept" works, pieces of code to just show it could be done. How long before the payload is actually dangerous? You don't need to attack with bombs and germs anymore, you can do more damage to your enemies by cutting them off from their lines of communication, render them silent and cripple their economy.

Soon we'll live in a world where a kid with a keyboard is more dangerous than a whacko in Asia with a nuke. A nuke can hit one target and one target only... a computer virus can hit the whole world.

Comments
on May 10, 2005
As time goes on in the future the dependency upon the Internet for commerse and commercial applications will grow. The regular malls will never be repaced by the online world, but a greater connectivity will be required, where even your local fast food place will require and have internet just to keep in contact with suppliers for inventory. A virus can easily bring down major sections of the internnet and the problem is worsing when anti-virus manufacturers literally throw contests and pay people to design viruses so their customer base will increase.
on May 11, 2005

Being in the Industry, I am very familiar with both, and am happy to say we avoided both.  But the one we did get (workstation based, not server) was the Life Styles one.  Again fortunately not a destructive one. But at 7:30 I got an email from a friend about it.  At 7:45, the State Human Resources got infected and basically infected every agency in the state.  It shut us down for the most part of a day.

Now with IM viruese, Worms and of course the Outlook ones, it is a constant battle against them.  Because of my high profile, I get perhaps 3-5 a day, and those are the ones that slip through teh ISP filter!

I dont know if it will be WWIII, or just a new type of cold war.  As in never ending and constantly ongoing.

on May 11, 2005
I think this is the way countires will wage war on each other in the future... quietly in the background eliminate the enemy communications grid and then move in with the real troops. We may not need to bomb them back to the stone age anymore, just go in and take away all the technology that keeps them going... just as effective.

Unfortunately, I think we (the USA) is the most vulnerable in this area. Sure, we have most of the top minds in the field, but as a consequence of our freedoms, anyone can have a computer and there are no rules governing safe computing. Every grandma and grandpa could be a source of an attack without even knowing it. It's only a matter of time until some of those rogue nations figure this out and shift money away from their Nuke programs and into some top-notch hacker and electronic warfare programs.
on May 11, 2005

I think this is the way countires will wage war on each other in the future... quietly in the background eliminate the enemy communications grid and then move in with the real troops. We may not need to bomb them back to the stone age anymore, just go in and take away all the technology that keeps them going... just as effective.

IN a way, I hope you are right.  Why?  Is it because of the minimizing of the loss of life?  That is a side bar, but not the reason I was thinking of.

For your scenario to become true, then the third world (places like Sudan, and Zimbabwe come rapidly to mind), will have to be upgraded to the point where they are relying on modern technology like the first world does.  Which means they will be close to joining the first world, and hence mankind will have made long strides in eliminating famine and poverty.

on May 13, 2005
a couple weeks back, bill maher did a remote interview with senator schumer (d ny). in response to a question about the vulnerability of nuclear power plants to tech terror, schumer said he'd been told by an official at one such plant not to concern himself...their computer system was too outmoded to connect to the net
on May 13, 2005

their computer system was too outmoded to connect to the net

The Battlestar Galactica defense!