The cyber-weapons paradox: 'They're not that dangerous'

When it comes to bombs, the more powerful they are, the bigger their impact. With a cyber-weapon, the opposite is true: the more powerful it is, the more limited the damage it causes. The deeper a bug can get into any given system, the less likely it is to trouble anything else. And that's why cyber-weapons aren't real weapons …

[fatchap]

Re: PR Fail

The exact analogy that occured to me.

[hayseed]

Things don't have to go boom at once

You can be sneaky about it, as in backdoors and intelligence. Intelligence OR finally using

a backdoor could be devastating. Remember Enigma.

[Quinch]

So... they sneak through the defenses, travel undetected and there is no trace of them until they have already done their damage or destroyed their target? It's all so clear - cyber-weapons are just a red herring to distract us from the fact that they're hiring ninjas!

[I think so I am?]

Cyper weapons vs Forsty the snow man

2inches of SNOW is the biggest single threat to the UK!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Cyper weapons vs Forsty the snow man

The evildoers will hack power stations and make them generate much dust, which will in turn change the weather, inducing snowfall. All of that previously simulated in a weather supercomputer.

No don your tinfoil and write "I will believe in cyber threats from now on" 100 times !

[Dodgy Geezer]

Ditching the spooks?

"...In short, Rid suggests ditching the spooks: "If we put GCHQ in charge of cyber security, by their clearly secretive nature, they won't be able to put public pressure on businesses...."

Up to 1994 we had a Government commercial security team. In 1994, the spooks ditched them, and took over their budget. At the time, people in the know said that this was a mistake....