Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Microsoft makes the case for cyber privateering

Brian Krebs' reported today the best possible justification for legalizing bonded cyber privateers when he revealed that the best and brightest from Microsoft couldn't even identify the author of the Rustock spam botnet. Of course, by one chain of logic you might argue that if the "great and powerful Oz" couldn't even nail down one bad guy, then maybe the whole premise for cyber privateering is moot. If you can't identify the cyber criminal, then you can't raid his organization or loot his bank accounts. I don't buy this thinking.

I contend that because Microsoft is playing by the rules, obeying current U.S. law, they can't really mount an aggressive countermeasure defense as I outline in The Perfect Virus principle #22. Without a get-out-of-jail-free card, they can't infect attacking systems down the chain until they can pop the proverbial Alien monster out the chest of one very surprised sleazebag.

Which is why I believe that Microsoft's experience(s) fully justify giving the U.S. Congress a boot to the head so they'll let us…take care of business.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Implementation suggestions for THE MORGAN DOCTRINE are most welcome. What are the "Got'chas!"? What questions would some future Cyber Privateering Czar have to answer about this in a Senate confirmation hearing?

Post a Comment