(Greek: κρυπτεία / krupteía, from κρυπτός / kruptós, “hidden, secret things”)

Archive for the ‘Game Theory’ Category

The DARKNET: Operation Legitimacy?

leave a comment »


gaiuaim ioi dui pln!


The “Darknets” You’ve all heard of them. Some of you out there may have traversed their labyrinthine back alleys. However, have you ever thought that someday the darknet would be just as legitimate as the “clearnet” is today? With the recent bust of DPR and the Silk Road there has once again been great interest in the “Deep Web” and this interest was sparked once again for me too. It seems that the darknet is the new black once again and people are flocking to it just like onlookers at a traffic accident. Others though seem to be aiming to use the darknet technology (TOR and hidden services) to support free speech and to pass information as a legitimate whistle blower.

Still Mos Eisley but….

I loaded up TOR & Tails and took a trip once again into the digital Mos Eisley. It is still dark and full of crazy things and if you go there you too will see black market items, services like Assassinations for Bitcoins, and run of the mill blogs. You can (allegedly) buy just about any kind of drug in quantity just as easily as buying/mining bitcoins and paying for your drugs with them. All anonymously (once again allegedly as you can see from the DPR fiasco) via the Onion hidden services and backed by other services from anonymous email on TOR to bitcoin exchanges. However one can now see other sites out there that aren’t so black market oriented as well.

One such site is pictured above. The New Yorker decided post Ed Snowden’s revelations, that it was a good idea to put their new “secure dropbox” on the hidden services. This is a legit site that has been talked about on the clearnet as well as in the media a couple months ago. This is one of the first more legit sites I have seen out there that is offering a secure means to talk to reporters using the security that others on the darknets are using to carry out illegal activities. I have yet to really look at the site’s security but overall I see this one site being the key to showing others out there how the darknet can be used for something other than crime. Of course then again, if you ask the Obama Administration even this site could be considered illegal or an accessory to illegal leaking I guess. It’s really a matter of perspective.


So what about other sites? What would you out there use the darknet for that is not “illicit” but requires some security and anonymity? I can foresee other sites popping up perhaps in the arena of free speech or even political movements that might like this model to pass their ideals on. I honestly think this is a turning point for the darknet. Of course this is all predicated on the darknet being “secure” after the revelations from the Snowden Archive of late. It seems the NSA is really trying pretty hard to de-anonymize anyone they want to and would love to have it just not anonymous at all. Well, let me re-phrase that.. Have them THINK it’s anonymous while it is not so much to the NSA.

Other sites out there include an online Koran as well as all kinds of other non criminal sites that are.. Well.. Kinda goofy or fringe. I think that perhaps now things might shift as the technology becomes easier to manage making it easier with global connectivity for us all to hang up a shingle in the darknet.

Time will tell though I guess…


Book Review: An Introduction to Cyber-Warfare: A Multidisciplinary Approach

with one comment




CYBER CYBER CYBER! or “CRY HAVOC AND LET SLIP THE DIGITAL DOGS OD CYBER WAR!”” is often what you hear from me in a mocking tone as I scan the internet and the news for the usual cyber-douchery. Well this time kids I am actually going to review a book that for once was not full of douchery! Instead it was filled with mostly good information and aimed at people who are not necessarily versed at all in the cyberz. I personally was surprised to find myself thinking that I would approve this for a syllabus (as it has been placed into one by someone I know and asked me to read this and comment)

The book really is a primer on IW (Information Warfare) and Cyber-Warfare (for lack of a better nomenclature for it) which many of you reading my blog might be way below your desired literacy level on the subjects. However, for the novice I would happily recommend that they read the book and then spend more time using ALL of the footnotes to go and read even more on the subject to get a grasp of the complexities here. In fact, I would go as far as to say to all of you out there that IF you are teaching this subject at all then you SHOULD use this book as a starting point.

I would also like to say that I would LOVE to start a kickstarter and get this book into the hands of each and every moron in Congress and the House. I would sit there and MAKE them read it in front of me *surely watching their lips move as they do so* There are too many people in positions of power making stupid decisions about this stuff when they haven’t a single clue. I guess the same could be said about the military folks as well. We have plenty of generals who have no idea either.. That’s just one man’s opinion though.

As we move further and further down the cyber-war road I think that books like this should be mandatory reading for all military personnel as well as college level courses in not only IW/INFOSEC but also political and affairs of state majors as well. We will only continue down this road it seems and it would be best for us all if the next wave of digital natives had a real grasp of the technologies as well as the political, logical, and tactical aspects of “Cyber”

I have broken down the book into rough chapters and subject areas as it is within the book (mostly) It really does cover more of the overall issues of cyber-warfare and methods used (not overly technical) The modus operandi so to speak of the actual events that have taken place are laid out in the book and give you a picture of the evolving of IW to what we see today as “cyber-warfare” I will comment on those sections on what I thought was good and what I thought was derpy of course, I mean would you all have it any other way?


The authors cover early IW with the Russian saga’s over Georgia and Estonia. There is a lot in there that perhaps even you out there might not know about the specifics of the incidents where Russia is “alleged” to have attacked both countries at different times with different goals and effects. Much of this also touches on the ideas of proxy organizations that may or may not be state run that were a part of the action as well as a good overview of what happened.

In the case of Georgia it went kinetic and this is the first real “cyber-warfare” incident in my mind as cyber-war goes. I say this because in my mind unless there is an actual kinetic portion to the fighting there is no “war” it is instead an “action” or “espionage” so in the case of tanks rolling in on Georgia we have a warfare scenario outright that was in tandem with IW/CW actions.


Ah Chairman Meow… What book on Cyber would be complete without our friends at the MSS 3rd Directorate huh? Well in the case of this primer it gets it right. It gets across not only that China has been hacking the living shit out of us but also WHY they are doing it! The book gives a base of information (lots of footnotes and links) to ancillary documentation that will explain the nature of Chinese thought on warfare and more to the point Cyber-Warfare. The Chinese have been working this angle (The Thousand Grains of Sand etc) for a long time now and there are more than a few treatises on it for you to read after finishing this book.

The big cases are in there as well as mention of the malware used, goals of the attacks and some of the key players. If you are out to start teaching about Chinese electronic/cyber/IW then this is a good place to start. Not too heavy but it gets the point across to those who are not so up to speed on the politics, the tech, or the stratagems involved.


Anonymous, as someone on my Twitter feed was just asking me as I was writing this piece, is also a part of this picture as well. The idea of asymmetric online warfare is really embodied by these groups. The book focuses more on Lulzsec and their 50 days of sailing but it doesn’t go too in depth with the derp. Suffice to say that all of them are indeed important to cyber-warfare as we know it and may in fact be the end model for all cyber-warfare. How so? Well, how better to have plausible denyability than to get a non state group to carry out your dirty war? Hell, for that matter how about just blame them and make it look like one of their ops huh?

Oddly enough just days ago Hammond wrote a piece saying this very thing. He intoned that the FBI via Sabu were manipulating the Anon’s into going after government targets. This is not beyond comprehension especially for places like China as well. So this is something to pay attention to. However, this book really did not take that issue on and I really wished that they had. Perhaps in the next updated edition guys?


OY VEY, the “GRID” this is one of the most derpy subjects usually in the media as well as the books/talks/material on cyber-warfare out there. In this case though I will allow what they wrote stand as a “so so” because they make no real claim to an actual apocalypse. Instead the book talks about the possible scenarios of how one could attack the grid. This book makes no claim that it would work but it is something to think about especially if you have an army of trained squirrels with routers strapped to their backs.

It is my belief that the system is too complex to have a systematic fail of apocalypse proportions and it always has been so. If the book talked about maybe creating a series of EMP devices placed at strategic high volume transformers then I would say they’d be on to something. However, that said, the use of a topological attack model was a good one from a logical perspective. They base most of this off of the Chinese grad students paper back years ago so your mileage may vary. So on this chapter I give it a 40% derp.


All in all I would have liked to have seen more in the political area concerning different countries thought patterns on IW/CW but hey, what can ya do eh? Additionally I think more could have been done on the ideas of offense vs. defense. Today I see a lot of derp around how the US has a GREAT OFFENSIVE CAPABILITY! Which for me and many of you out there I assume, leads me to the logical thought conclusion of “GREAT! We are totally offensive but our defense SUCKS!” So much for CYBER-MAD huh?

I would have also like to have seen more in the way of some game theory involved in the book as well concerning cyber-warfare. Some thought experiments would be helpful to lay out the problems within actually carrying out cyber-war as well as potential outcomes from doing so more along the lines of what I saw in the Global Cyber-Game.


Well, in the end I think it is a good start point for people to use this in their syllabus for teaching IW/CW today. It is a primer though and I would love to see not only this end up on the list but also the Global Cyber Game as well to round out the ideas here. To me it is more about “should we do this?” as opposed to “LETS FUCKING DO THIS!” as the effects of doing so are not necessarily known. Much of this territory is new and all too much of it is hyped up to the point of utter nonsense. This is the biggest problem we have though, this nonsense level with regard to the leaders of the land not knowing anything about it and then voting on things.

We need a more informed populace as well as government and I think this book would be a good start. So to the person who asked me to review this..

Put it in the syllabus!


Three Days of The Condor… With Malware…

leave a comment »

Rvy taes eha qgcq tlmbvq tqsix. Px iiuz ytwtqn cvzl dek. Yxi dtf fq wjzbbuk. Yahpv moi riagk lbrzy mop hm xte bdibuk. Mnm o tty aulu gchd fqsrrv rvy, mnm o uhvv iiuz filr, mnm gfflsze hcl dusi, mjmsx lzqn cflla, aulu uvm vyf oo hyx jed. Awr yx dmxl bazel, e nelcdbuk emrzv. Ubx te fwce simvn cgxu xte mcfk vj fhn qrk hrp ootvk as sies phb e xioh.

Turner: Do we have plans to invade the Middle East?
Higgins: Are you crazy?
Turner: Am I?
Higgins: Look, Turner…
Turner: Do we have plans?
Higgins: No. Absolutely not. We have games. That’s all. We play games. What if? How many men? What would it take? Is there a cheaper way to destabilize a regime? That’s what we’re paid to do.
Turner: So Atwood just took the games too seriously. He was really going to do it, wasn’t he?
Higgins: A renegade operation. Atwood knew 54/12 would never authorize it, not with the heat on the company.
Turner: What if there hadn’t been any heat? Suppose I hadn’t stumbled on their plan?
Higgins: Different ballgame. Fact is, there was nothing wrong with the plan. Oh, the plan was all right, the plan would’ve worked.
Turner: Boy, what is it with you people? You think not getting caught in a lie is the same thing as telling the truth?
Higgins: No. It’s simple economics. Today it’s oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium. And maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?
Turner: Ask them.
Higgins: Not now — then! Ask ’em when they’re running out. Ask ’em when there’s no heat in their homes and they’re cold. Ask ’em when their engines stop. Ask ’em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won’t want us to ask ’em. They’ll just want us to get it for ’em!
Turner: Boy, have you found a home. There were seven people killed, Higgins.
Higgins: The company didn’t order it.
Turner: Atwood did. Atwood did. And who the hell is Atwood? He’s you. He’s all you guys. Seven people killed, and you play fucking games!
Higgins: Right. And the other side does, too. That’s why we can’t let you stay outside.

The Geopolitics of Fossil Fuels

Since the discovery of fossil fuels (oil and the derivative of gas from it) we have had a real love affair with it. Though it was tough to get out of the ground and then refine into a usable product we decided that it was the best alternative to keeping our lights on and our cars running. Since then, the resources have become the aegis of foreign and domestic policies globally, and likely will continue this way until the last drop of fuel is burned by some car somewhere. It’s these policies that I believe are driving the recent attacks on oil and gas firms within the Middle East recently. There may be some tit for tat as well, and maybe a warning to certain players, but, overall, it seems to me that a game is being played. Of course, all the games have been being played in the region of the Middle East because of the need for fossil fuels, anyone who says otherwise I think, well, is delusional.

Whether or not you are a “tipping point” believer, in general, we have seen over the years many instances where the Med has affected and still affects today, the price of gas and thus, the cascade effect prices on just about everything because we are dependent on the gas to move things, to grow things, to.. Well you get the point right? No gas means no economy really today. So, this is an imperative and those countries seeking to gain access to said fuel resources would not be above trying to get a competitive edge over others, never mind the possibilities of gaming the owners of the resource from the start right? Add to this the pressures today of the instability in the region (and really, when has it ever been really steady?) and you have quite the motive to use espionage to get that advantage and deny others the access they too desire.

It’s with this in mind that I have been sitting back and watching the events with Saudi Aramco and RasGas with some interest. I have been reading the news reports as well as the malware assessments and cannot help but see a parallel with the movie “Three Days of the Condor” from 1975. The story line moves along the lines of an analyst finding an unsanctioned plot to overthrow a government in the Middle East over oil. This film stuck with me since seeing it as a kid in the 80’s and I have quoted it before in posts on other things. This time around though, I think we are seeing some more direct actions by persons unknown, to manipulate the playing field where oil or fuel resources are concerned..

Albeit with a modern twist for today.

Spygames  with Malware

Virus origin in Gulf computer attacks in question

New Virus Hits Oil Giant, LNG Producer

At least two types of malware are alleged to have penetrated Saudi Aramco and RASGAS in the last month or two. Not much is known about them, though Shamoon aka W32.Disttrack seems to have been pulled apart a bit by Symantec. Not much has been really made in the press over these attacks and those attacked have been quiet as well. Both RasGas and Saudi Aramco though, made statements that none of their production or distribution systems were affected by the malware, a claim that they have not really backed up with facts I might add. However, as far as we can see thus far, those statements are overall true because there are no reports of system breakdowns in getting the product to and from the companies collectively.

As it would seem from the analysis thus far of Shamoon, the malware seems to be the run of the mill data thievery type that is almost COTS in a way. The more interesting bits seem to be around the “wiping” feature that was written into it. Why the malware was made to wipe the MBR is a bit of a mystery to me and seems rather amateurish in a way that leads me to believe either someone is playing it very smart, or, they are just malicious.

I can’t be sure which…

While the method of wiping is not as exotic as the so called “wiper”  Shamoon corrupts the MBR of the system and game over. I have not seen in any of the data so far (via googling) a means of triggering the wipe sequence on Shamoon though. One wonders if it’s just timed out or is there some trigger if it is detected or tampered with? Also, it is interesting to note that the name “Shamoon or Simon” is from a folder listed in the malware as well as the fact that this was targeted to the “Arabian Gulf” as the wiper module alludes to as well. So, this seems to have been a targeted attack from these bits of data and the fact that it’s penetration out in the wild is low from what I have seen online. It is likely that this was initiated by a directed phishing attack at the companies afflicted and worked it’s way through their networks. Networks by the way, that may not in fact have been separate from the ICS/SCADA networks, which it seems may not have been directly “affected” because the payload did not include any attacks on said systems. The only fallout would likely come from a PC getting wiped which could easily be re-imaged or replaced with a working copy.

Still.. What was the goal here? What data was taken? In the case of both Saudi Aramco and RasGas, a look with Google (Google Fu) shows that both companies had quite a bit of data hanging out there to exploit and use in an attack. Today though, most of their data has been redacted, but, you still can get some cached copies of interesting tidbits. Given that they were loose before, one might imagine that they were a rich target environment for the malware to ex-filtrate all kinds of documents to the C&C server. It would take a lengthy investigation as to their market placement and any potential deals ongoing to give some more context I think, but doing so would be an interesting diversion to understand these attacks a bit better as to motive though.

The Possible Players in Shamoon/Wiper/UNSUB Malware Attacks

With all that said, then who would be the likely players here? Is this nation state? Is it corporate espionage and acts of attrition in an ongoing oil war? It’s hard to say really. One source indicated to me that perhaps it was a move by Russia to give the hint to Iran on some internecine plot over power plays in the region. I personally think that the whole “cutting sword of justice” claim that they took down Saudi Aramco is bunk but hey, maybe a cabal of hackers did this to… Well do what? Perhaps there is more yet to be dumped online in a pastebin to give us the proper scope here. Overall though, it’s been really low key and not much has come out like I said on what was taken, what was done, and the damages to the systems/companies involved.

So where does that leave us regarding who did this? Well, pretty much where we stared, with supposition and guess work. Was this nation state? This is an interesting question. If it was nation state, could it have been a fledgling group, like say, the IRGC and it’s cyber hacking group recently formed? Would Iran benefit from such attacks? All good questions and something we should all ponder. However, the most interesting point there might in fact be that since the Stuxnet genie was let out of the bottle, it was only a matter of time before actors like Iran would make their own variants and loose them upon others. In the case of Iran though, they too seem to have been hit with the same if not similar malware in recent days as well, but, this does not presuppose that they didn’t have a hand in it.

All in all, there just isn’t enough information to nail down a culprit or culprits.. But, it does show us a precedent that we should all worry about just as much as we should over certain instances of attacks against pockets of ICS/SCADA implementations. What I am talking about is blowback from attacks.


Blowback usually refers to consequences coming back on those who took the action in the first place. Here though, I am not only referring to those who carried out the malware attacks, but also on the rest of the world in certain scenarios like this. By attacking systems such as these, one could in fact cause market fluctuations depending on the markets and their jittery-ness. In the case of the oil business, we have seen great changes in prices due to not only the control over the oil and it’s price by the cartels (Saudi) but also how the countries are feeling about their markets and the state of affairs in the world. If you start tinkering with companies of this kind and by the product of destroying infrastructure (or the perception of such) you will be affecting the prices at least for those companies directly. What if though, you were to hit more of them at the same time and cause not only damage but the “perception” of insecurity within the system of oil/gas production and distribution?

This time nothing much seems to have happened, but one can only say this because there isn’t much information out there as to what really took place on those systems and networks. What if this played out another way, with much more press and obvious damages? This would be worse and might occur the next time whether or not it was intended by the programming of the malware. This all of course depends on the scope of the attacks and with that you have to wonder about nation state vs. non state actors here. The difference being, that a nation state may attack a wider variety of systems and companies as a precursor to war while the non state actors may just be looking for information or to hobble a competitor. Both however, could have unforeseen blowback from their actions.

What all of this says though, is that Pandora’s box has been opened. All the players are now taking the field, and many of them may not be ready to play a proper game… Shamoon did it’s thing, but it seems to be more a brute force tool than an elegant piece of code and a slick plan. The blowback though is yet to be determined.


Game Theory, Anonymous Causality, and 2012

with 11 comments

Anonymous Factions and Influences

Anonymous being what it is, has always been susceptible to influence and infiltration from the outside as well as the inside. The nature of the movement is such that it resembles the cell structure of terrorist action groups like Al Qaeda have adopted over the years.

  • Decentralized
  • Autonomous (to an extent)
  • Headless (perceived only in some cases)
  • They have “wings” (action wings, propaganda wings, technical wings etc)
  • Small cells with distinct leadership working in compartmented protocols
In the anonymous world, the communications take a stratified approach as well. IRC is the medium for much of the comms but there are hidden chat rooms on various servers where the core meet to plan and talk. I am sure there are other means that they utlize as well such as i2p email addresses and other anonymized means of communication.


Due to the nature of Anonymous though, it would seem that the various players do not form a cohesive whole for the most part. So the cell’s that are out there can affect to greater and lesser extents due to the members of the cell and their capabilities. An example of this would be the core group called AntiSec. AntiSec, comprised of the more technical hackers from what has been gathered, has been attacking various sites for the lulz as well as perhaps with an agenda to cause the government and corporations pain by releasing embarrassing and or compromising data (See HBGary for an example)


Over the last year we have seen an evolution within Anonymous and its various movements. The latest being the AntiSec movement that really came out swinging after the LulzBoat set sail once their 50 day run was over. It is this latest group that has people concerned and may in fact be the more cohesive core of Anonymous, one that has a set group of leaders at its core, leaders with an agenda….




Escalation and Over Reaction

The latest “hack” and release this last Friday (#FFF Fuck FBI Friday’s) is a case in point and I think as I started this post over Shmoocon weekend, it is only appropriate to use the FBI conference call as a focus today. Over the year AntiSec has been performing more and more actions against whoever they could attack. It seems that from the attack vectors to date (except this last one) have been attacks of opportunity with some direction (such as look for all police departments with holes on the internet) others seem to be perhaps fortuitous hacks given to the movement by those out there sympathetic to Anon or just looking to have their lulz while others perform the dirty work.

Either way, the stakes have been rising and the escalation has been seen over the last year into this one between the governments (in my case the US) and Anonymous and AntiSec. With the leaking of the FBI/MET con call this last Friday, we will see another evoution to the escalation because now, the Anon’s have directly shamed the FBI, the Met, and other orgs seeking to prosecute them.

Think of it as the angry bee’s nest Colbert spoke of about Aaron Barr.. Except this time AntiSec has deliberately slapped the bee’s nest with a bat as they walked away pointing and laughing. This will not end well for either really I think. As of today the FBI has stared yet another case file on the hack of the email accounts attached to the distribution list that the invitation for the call went out to. The assumption here is that someone forwarded the email to a private acct, one that had been compromised earlier and was the source of the email that allowed the Anon’s to dial into the call.

Meanwhile, Sabu has tweeted that AntiSec has been monitoring FBI comm’s for a while now and still had access as of Friday. I am unsure that this is truly the case but it cannot be discounted as just another braggadocio about their hacking prowess. You see, the Feds for the most part are not the most tech savvy as a group, especially within the rank and file SA’s or SSA’s. So, it is possible that there has been some pwnage and that the net effect is they have been compromised to the point where investigations may become harder to prosecute.

(Think about it this way.. Hacked FBI accts etc leave much for a good defense attorney to work with on the idea of reasonable doubt)

This is going to make the FBI over react and possibly over reach. This in turn will also put the government on a back footing as well and make them more apt to do things in a knee jerk fashion as well. You all thought ACTA and SOPA were bad.. Wait til these government guys feel the burn of future hacks on them as well as what just happened.

Of course I am not condoning either side here, but, I am trying to get across that we once again have the Batman conundrum.

“You made me… I made you…Let’s dance”

Meanwhile, the collateral damage piles up and the innocent are the ones most likely to feel the bite from both sides. Ironically, while both sides tell us all that what they do is for our own good.


A Master Plan or Unintended Consequences?

Since the beginning of the Anonymous movement’s gaining critical mass and bearing the AntiSec fruit, I have been wondering if there is indeed a master plan here. Anonymous claims that they are autonomous, amorphous, a swarm, but I think that is a generalization that only fits when you look at the whole. When you start to bore down into the cells out there, you can readily see that there are pockets of cohesive groups. One of these groups is of course AntiSec. This group I think has acquired a certain amount of play within the Anonymous circle and thus would be a leadership cell.

Recent posts of the “Coming Insurrection” on sites that have been hacked by AntiSec have lead me to believe that there is a fair amount of Anarchist belief and activity within this cell of Anonymous. In fact, there seems to be from information sources, that AntiSec is in fact running the show now or would like to. As the hacking wing, so to speak, of Anonymous, they wield a certain cachet and also, from same sources, may in fact intimidate the moral fags a bit. All of this means that the core of AntiSec and their acolytes are really making the agenda as well as performing the actions to drive their agenda.. More than the penumbra of Anonymous as a whole.

So, in looking at the use of the Coming Insurrection and the propaganda by the “Sabu’s” on Twitter, it has become more and more clear in my mind, that the agenda is not only Anarchy, but also quite a socialist (for lack of a better term) bent. By watching the Sabu account on Twitter, one can also see the socio-political bents of “Free Palestine” as well as a general call for the downtrodden to rise up against the government. Is this just Sabu being Sabu? Is there an agenda that the others within the AntiSec core also believe?

As well, the use of the “AntiSec” name comes directly from a movement of Hackers and Anarchists back in the 90’s who did not believe that the nascent “Security Industry” was a good thing and that ideas like responsible disclosure of vulnerabilities was a bad thing. It all just fed a cycle where the corporations out there could hide vulnerabilities, keep writing bad code, and generally skate on their responsibilities to keep things secure. Oddly enough, all of those things today are in effect and still we have issues where companies are not doing the right thing as well as have a security “Industry” that contains many charlatans.

The AntiSec of yesterday I am told by sources, do not like the current AntiSec core out there today. In fact, some are a bit peeved from what I have been told.So, if today’s AntiSec is not a descendant of this original group.. Who are they? As best as can be figured by me, they took the name as they liked it but for the most part, there seems to be an Anarchist and Nihilist bent within their ranks and their agenda..

This begs the question though, just how much of their action has been just to sow anarchy and how much has been part of a goal to fight the government for perceived crimes against those they govern? For me, it seems that perhaps the overall goal here may be in fact to push the issue until there is a civil war of sorts. How would this play out? Well, I think we are seeing the beginnings of this now.

  • More governance of the internet
  • Less privacy
  • Additions to laws concerning terrorists and terrorism that now center on the internet and “cyber-issues”
  • knee jerk reactions creating bills with over-reaching language allowing for abuses of power
Granted, some of this may have organically been created from today’s issues over hacking and the so called cyber-warfare ongoing between countries. However, i think that this has sped up quite a bit as Anonymous?AntiSec push the buttons more and more against the police and the government. The net effect is that AntiSec is baiting the government and the authorities into over reacting. With each dump of data and compromise of site, they push and push the fools running the country into being more fearful that they cannot control the situation.
The reality is that they can’t control it.. Hell, they barely understand it…
And this makes it all the worse.

Predictive Behavioral Analysis of Both Anonymous and Government (USA) Using Game Theory

I have been watching this Greek tragedy play itself out over the last year and frankly I just don’t see this going well for anyone. It really boils down to a couple of outcomes and neither one I think is good.

  1. AntiSec becomes even more brazen attacking more frequently as they gain more power/synergy with more followers and people willing to help them
  2. The government will continue to attempt to catch the players. Some will get caught and there will be trials.
  3. The trials will escalate the anger and the AntiSec crew will seek more and more directed targets to shame and disrupt the authorities cases
  4. Laws will be enacted restricting the internet and the privacy we all should be able to have

The thing here is that AntiSec will not just go away.. Nor will the governments of the world change their ways. If indeed AntiSec’s core believe in anarchy as a way of life, then they will go on sowing it. This will cause the government to over react and do some pretty stupid things as well. It’s really Batman and the Joker all over again.. And as I think about it more, it becomes a very apt allusion to what is going on.

Except that the government is not as smart as Batman or as moral/ethical….

Normally, the use of “Game Theory” attempts to determine the best outcomes for winners and losers within games, politics, economics etc. In this case though, the real loser I think is the third party here…

You and I.

This game cannot be won. It will continue back and forth and there will only be collateral damage. Think of it this way… This war being waged by AntiSec and our government/authorities can be seen as the next war between all parties in the Middle East. Fought over thousands of years because of perceived differences of opinion over religion and land. Like the Shia and the Sunni, or the Israeli’s and Iranian’s this tribal tit for tat will continue on and there will be no clear winner..


Perhaps WOPPR said it best…

“A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?”


Written by Krypt3ia

2012/02/05 at 21:50