The Swiss flag is square. It is one of two square flags that I am aware of (the other being that of Vatican City).
You had all the keys on the keyboard, how could ye get the flag of the Red Cross wrong?
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) wants to devise a digital equivalent of its emblems (the red cross and red crescent), to signify that certain digital resources are protected and must not be targeted during cyberwarfare. "For more than 150 years, protective emblems like the red cross have been used to convey …
.... and must not be targeted during cyberwarfare.
Might I suggest something traditionally iconic, and used here on El Reg oft ironically and for added theatre and/or warning of possible irregular danger ...... as per the icon accompanying this post. :-)
However ....to suggest any emblematisation would be super effective in deterrence of cyber shenanigans is surely a nonsense which will be heeded only by cultish followers in a field of dreamers and not leaders and realists of and in virtual domain spaces ..... which be real spooky surreal extraterrestrial places in which the exercise and experimentation and exploitation of Absolute Command and Remote Control with the Total Information Awareness Tools and/or Weapons of an Advanced Intelligence Race are minimum default requirement for Live Driver Participation in Future Project and Program Directions and Presentations.
For whoever it was who downvoted a man from mars.
What they are saying in their own slightly screwy way is that people who are hacking to cause damage, really don't care who the target is, as their morals are already lacking to be doing it in the first place!
But for nation-state attacks (which this seems to be aimed at), wouldn't the same principles apply to physical assets 'protected' by a red cross/crescent - yet that seems to work well enough for it to still be considered viable even though the modern manifestation of warfare is very different to what it was 150 years ago?
"For whoever it was who downvoted a man from mars."
Downvoted because it's mostly senseless bot crap. I'm sure it's feelings won't be hurt, although it does reply in defence of itself when faced with criticism which is mildly entertaining. As with all aManFromMars posts, read it all twice and then try and say it made complete sense.
Of the three suggested options, the third (Authenticated Digital Emblem) seems the least complex to implement and also to have the least chance of side effects resulting from amendment of protocols everyone else uses.
Whether combatants will respect such indicators is another matter. Quite apart from any possible intentional disregard, it's quite likely that developers of attack tools may simply fail to code for recognition of them through carelessness. War commonly breaks all rules despite the "rules of war".
Wars do indeed have rules.
ICRC: Even wars have rules
The first two options ("A DNS-based emblem" and ... "embedding semantics – for example a specific sequence of numbers – in IP addresses") are technically ludicrous (especially the second one), trivial to spoof, and trivial to bypass. The third one might be practicable and trustworthy, but as others have said, is no more likely to be protected against attack than, say, a hospital in Ukraine. At least, though, it might make things a little easier for war crimes investigators.
A better idea all round is to make these sites intrinsically secure...
I doubt cyberscums would respect this rule, as hospitals are too often voluntarily targeted during a war
On the principle, it"s a good thing that such a statement is written and signed by as many countries as possible. However in reality it may be like talking to a wall.
== Bring us Dabbsy back! ==
Red cross emblems work because the known aggressors understand that any attack on a humanitarian vehicle/building will land them in trouble if they end up on the losing side, not from any basic moral decency.
It's unlikely that digital equivalents would deter the anonymous scum who know that there's a negligible chance of being identified, let alone prosecuted.
Re: "Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, Moscow sees attacks on digital infrastructure as an acceptable tactic – even civilian infrastructure like satellite broadband services if they're seen to aid an enemy"
Also they're attacking purely civilian infrastructure like energy and water supply systems, as they did hospitals, schools and places marked as refuges (can anyone forget about the Mariupol theatre's bombing?) so why would they care about avoiding targetting civilian or humanitarian digital assets?
Maybe I'm too naïve or just a cynic.
"We <badcyberguys> have taken down your cybery infrastructure but didn't touch your digital emblemy stuff.
Now do this/send us <some demand or other> so it stays that way."
Really, unless EVERYBODY plays by the same rules it just seems to be like a blunt pencil - pointless.
Still a sad state of affairs all round.
War and hate really sucks.
A tired old Digger