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?