The Morgan Doctrine: Who's really behind the attack? Part II

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Who's really behind the attack? Part II

Attribution is a problem? I've posted on this before (click here for my June 7th post). One solution?

Imagine sucking in random data from disparate sources and, without applying any of your own domain expertise or understanding any data models, having a system present data relationships with cause/effect probabilities. One example would suffice.

You're a jihadist (that's my polite word for terrorist). You have been working in one of a dozen totally isolated cells to pull off a "big event." No cell phone or email communications. You're never alone, thus preventing any unauthorized contacts or dead drops. Your munitions supplier has been outfitting you in a triple-blind/three-way/trusted-cell network. The mission "Go" signal came from a watermarked image posted by a major U.S. news network. The time and date coordination came from another watermarked image posted by, of all sources, a White House news briefing (this because of the irony). Foolproof? Maybe. But not damn-fool proof. Because when each squad shows up to "pull the pin," they are met by (check all the apply) U.S. Navy SEALs/Interpol/Mossad/FBI agents who'd been in place for 24 hours. Did you have a rat? A snitch? Nope. The data killed you. The mathematics killed you. Next stop: a bullet to the head and realization that those 72 virgins might not be your species.

The same technology could be applied to the "attribution" dilemma. The reason Larry Ellison homed in on databases is his often-stated axiom that:

"He who controls the data rules the world."

Larry's a prophet. And mathematics once again prevails.

For my own interests, I'll bet I can use a cloud data feed to not only predict future cyber attacks, but to backtrack those attacks to those who launched them. Does this technology exist?

Ask the Mossad.

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?

Background: Welcome black hats, white hats and cyber swashbucklers

The Revolutionary War was fought, financed, and pretty well WON by bonded privateers, legalized pirates who were given Letters of Marque and Reprisal by the Continental Congress and authorized to attack, capture and monetize British ships. The purpose of this site is to explore the possibility of a modern-day doctrine much like the Monroe Doctrine, by means of which the U.S. government could legally and, more importantly, effectively stop international hackers. Current cybercrime law is not only ineffective, but downright stupid. My Linux servers are attacked hundreds of times a day (mostly from China and former USSR domains), yet if I retaliate against those servers with some creative technology at my disposal (I know some VERY smart guys), then I am in violation of federal law and subject to some onerous penalties. We need more than a new law. We need a new international doctrine. I call it The Morgan Doctrine, named after Morgan Rapier, a fictional character I've created (hey, this is my way of establishing ownership of the concept, should it ever see the light of day).

Why a new international doctrine? Simply, nothing else will work. Introduced on December 2, 1823, the Monroe Doctrine told the world to keep their hands off the Americas. Combine this with current legal thinking on "hot pursuit" of fugitives. In 1917 the US Army went into Mexico after Pancho Villa. More recently, in 1960 Israeli Mossad agents abducted Adolf Eichmann from Argentina. Granted, much of the world regards the Eichmann adventure as a violation of international law. I don't share that opinion and therefore use it as the third leg of my Monroe-Pancho-Aldof platform for The Morgan Doctrine.

If someone comes into your home and attacks or attempts to rob you, you may shoot them dead. You may do so as long as they expire on your property. But what about cyber criminals? They attack you in your home from their homes. Retaliate in kind, and you go to jail. The Morgan Doctrine states simply that if you attack my computers (or my banking assets held in US-based computers), then under a certain set of well-defined conditions, a licensed and bonded "cyber privateer" may attack you in your home country and split the proceeds with the U.S. government. For the sake of argument, let's call it a 50-50 split (heh heh).

Right now, American law enforcement is completely unequipped to deal with the sheer number international cyber hackers. Sure, I could report each of the thousand daily attacks to the FBI, as could the millions of other attackees in the USA. But the volume of such reports would make any meaningful resolution laughable. Not to mention that the FBI has no jurisdiction outside the USA. Yet to make such "enforcement" profitable to recognized (ie, "bonded" "deputized") privateers, as Heath Ledger's Joker said in his last role, "Now you're talking!" You raid our bank accounts, we raid yours. You make money from off-shore child pornography, we're going to loot your bank accounts and, with some REALLY creative black hat operations, you will be taken off the grid worldwide to the extent that you'll not even complete a cell phone conversation for the remainder of your miserable depraved life. Okay, that last part probably won't fly, but you get my drift.

The purpose of this site is to explore the mechanics, legalities and practicality of The Morgan Doctrine.

And I will be the sole arbiter of whether or not your comments get posted. As Mel Brooks wrote, "It's good to be king."