|Main Archive Page > Month Archives > full-disclosure-uk archives|
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 6:43 AM, Viktor Larionov <email@example.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> As a comment to Gadi's story: it's not nice to accuse anyone if it's still
> not clear who's behind all this and what is really happening.
It would be great for the U.S to take down the .ge sites while Russia is attacking Georgia in a ground conflict, as it ramps up U.S's ambitions for an offensive cyber command.
They already cyber false flagged Estonia to get money support politically and public acceptance for the big U.S cyber command to get built in the first place.
Now that the big U.S cyber command has been given the go ahead because of the Estonia cyber false flag, they've got to keep reasons in the media that the U.S cyber command is still a good idea.
Russia gets all the blame for the .ge cyber attacks and U.S get to keep the politicians and the public sweet about the ongoing need for the big U.S cyber command and "legitimate" reasons for its existence.
I couldn't think of a better time for U.S to do a bit of cyber false flagging, than is when another country invading another, while keeping U.S cyber ambitions afloat politically and publically.
Remember, U.S need to keep the idea of ground conflict and cyber attacks as the same thing in the eyes of the public and the politicians or the idea of the U.S cyber command doesn't float.
In reality, proper government-led cyber attacks wouldn't target web sites, this is purely an attention seeking exercise to highlight the ongoing need for the U.S cyber command.
In reality, proper government-led cyber attacks are invisible to the public, as they are targeting specific government and military stuff that the public and politicians don't get a chance to know about. Its a classic media whoring exercise to take out web sites, as taking out websites has no real cyber operational value apart from a bit of media whoring.
I don't think it was Russia, but Russia have been framed by the U.S. who need to keep the ideology of a U.S offensive cyber command afloat and OK'd as the next president and its administration take over, so that "cyber" gets full funding and the attention of Obama or McCain.
Watch this video by Marcus Sachs at Black Hat 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSUPTZVlkyU, he talks about, how are we going to get the next president's attention in the transition period in the first 100 days of Obama or McCain getting into the White House and to take "cyber" seriously?
Now by this video it seems that Marcus Sachs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Sachs is trying to say we need a cyber false flag attack in the first 100 days that Obama or McCain get into the White House to make sure "cyber" is fully funded and that cyber offensive operations are fully OK'd for the next four to eight years.
"We want to get the attention of the next administration as they are coming in" --Marcus Sachs.
He talks about the first two months or 100 days of the next presidency is crucial in getting the attention of the president and its administration.
Is this a hidden message here by Marcus Sachs about a Die Hard 4.0 scenario false flag attack being planned?
He said also in the video, when Bush was coming in, the powers that be got their attention with 9/11 and that "cyber" got distracted, and now he is basically saying when Obama or McCain come in that the U.S government under world are planning a cyber 9/11.
It seems that Marcus Sachs is frustrated that 9/11 got all the attention last time, and now the powers of be are going to make sure "cyber" takes up the main agenda this time around.
How are they going to get the attention of the next presidency to get "cyber" fully funded and taken seriously is anyones guess, but I fear the worst and that we must keep our eyes and ears open for any false flagging and other suspicious looking cyber security incidents, so we are better prepared to call out "false flag" at the earliest opportunity.
All the best,