|Main Archive Page > Month Archives > full-disclosure-uk archives|
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 12:49 PM, n3td3v <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 6:43 AM, Viktor Larionov
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
u mean the cyber command that was just cancelled and told to stop?
> 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
> 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
> "We want to get the attention of the next administration as they are
> coming in" --Marcus Sachs.
marcus sachs is a media wh0reing bloehard. he seems he is in the right place at the right time. what has he done besides run his mouth?
> 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
> Is this a hidden message here by Marcus Sachs about a Die Hard 4.0
> scenario false flag attack being planned?
he wouldnt know if it bit him in the ass.
> 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.
he said something about the first 100 days and shit before bush got elected too. u could say the same thing every 4 yrs.
> 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
marcus is trying to get a government appt to lead the us cyber command. this is called 'dick sucking'