Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Not Much There IMHO | 279 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Not Much There IMHO

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 01:17 AM EDT

First, I have no idea how realistic Panetta's warning is. I wish I did.

That said, I don't see much of substance in that article other than their
stating that the only known "offensive cyber attacks that have been linked
back to a known government" have been launched by the U.S and Israel. (Is
that true? What about China? I ask because I am not certain.)

They start out by discussing taking down the whole Internet. That is either a
straw man (who said anything about taking down the whole Internet?) or intended
as a prototype for how to do other "analysis". But applying it to
other types of infrastructure they don't come up with any insights besides
"know your attacker". They meander on to conclude that since the U.S.
has launched its own cyber attacks others can feel justified in doing the same
... kinda supporting Panetta's stance.

Sorry, but I really don't see any "there" there. (I would welcome any
actual credible anaylysis of threat but I don't see it in this article.)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

There is one good argument - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 07:43 AM EDT
- There is one good argument - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 02:06 AM EDT
  - There is one good argument about vulnerabilities - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 06:38 PM EDT

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )