Schneier on Security

Clive Robinson • July 24, 2017 2:40 PM

@ Dean Webb,

… how swarms of roach-sized bots could be set up to each carry a miniscule part of a nuclear core and assemble it at a remote location, where it could be detonated

There have been many stories about robots / automata / unknowing humans being brought together to form a critical mass and bring about destruction / death / defeat.

One involved an automata replacing a secret agent, that warned about other automata carrying parts of some otherwise undetectable parts of a super weapon. The story revolved around the automata manipulating those listening to it to effectively organise a secret science conferance to discuss finding detection methods. It was only at “the last minute” that a scientist realized that the other automata had replaced low level scientists and that the real plan was to wipe out the nations scientists thus leave them critically vulnerable…

I’m sure if you ask @ Wesley Parish nicely he could come up with a variation, as could a number of other authors who lurk on this blog…

Maybe we should ask our host nicely if he should run such a competition, as a refinement of the annual “Movie Plot” competition 😉

Clive Robinson • July 24, 2017 3:22 PM

@ SwarmsRUs,

It may seem like fantasy now but given what the Military is already doing with drones, it’s only a matter of time and money. Your tax dollars at work.

It’s very far from fantasy and has been so since the 1970’s.

It’s not normaly said but nearly all US military development has been about “overwhelming force”. With the hidden reasons of “Reduce our body bag count, whilst maximizing the opponents body bag count” to “Keep the folks at home quiet and broadly supportive of the political not military objectives”.

The problem with this as should now be clear to by far the majority of real readers of this blog, is that increasingly the enemy is “The folks at home that don’t like the political objectives”.

It’s why so much military equipment is being put in the hands of “Jo Poldunk” sitting “riding shotgun” in the squad car…

What the doughnut munchers have not yet twigged to is that they are actually modern day “Cannon Fodder” or “Grist to the mill” of the political intention.

The political intention is to slowly escalate the arms war between the civilian guard labour and the civilians such that the doughnut munchers become targets either directly via weapons or via the law courts.

This gives the political imperative to reduce doughnut muncher numbers and replace them with AI type drones. This means that the aggravating of the civilian population can increase whilst limiting any court actions (it was the AI malfunctioning due to unknown civilians doing X, Y, or Z excuse).

In reality this will mean that less and less doughnut munchers on the streets and more and more weaponized drones instead. Thus not having cops having fits of conscience when it comes to killing civilians.

So much is in effect self evident on what we can see happening currently.

But let’s think what a little bit of well placed “Plausible Deniability” along with some “software errors” will alow to happen.

On the assumption the drones will of course have a number of quite deliberate Command and Control security issues implanted during production. Such that their threat / attack thresholds can be changed when required by those ultra authoritarian followers. They can then ensure there are not just civilian casualties but a way to have other civilans be blaimed because the drone logs show unauthorised tampering with the thresholds etc…

Think of them as low flying Claymore Mines with a guidence / firing system with current IoT security and you get the general idea…

Clive Robinson • July 25, 2017 2:32 AM

@ Anura,

You’ll need to nutronium gap your systems.

Err no I won’t. Your “Evil Genius” setting must be below “11”.

Hint, for something to “crawl” from point A to point B, it needs a “surface” to crawl on…

As HAL said,

Dave, it’s your move

Clive Robinson • July 25, 2017 3:11 AM

@ Winter,

Currently, the trend is to reduce body bag counts at all sides. In civilized countries*, there is an uproar even when there are many enemies killed.

Actually that is not true, you only need look at the Syrian conflict as reported in MSM.

If you portray the protaganists in a less than honourable way, then it give the so call “civilized” civilian onlookers an out, via that basic human emotion of “They got what was comming to them”, that evrn the Bible portrayed via “The Wrath of God” and “An eye for an eye”.

Back in WWI in England they thought they had the way around the “Conscientious Objector” problem by first establishing if the were “believers in the all mighty” or not (if not it was argued they could have no morals). If they identified themselves as believers then they were asked “Do you believe that the blood of Christ washes away all sin?”… If they said yes then they could kill without sin, if no they were obviously lying…

Similar thinking still applies today especially in those of conservative or authoritarian following outlook on life.

The founding fathers knew about the dangers of letting religion get into the managment of the state. Yet when you look at US politics religion forms a very very strong part of the process and has done so for the past couple of centuries.

In the UK “New Labour” under Tony Blair had fairly strong “Catholic” under tones in the thinking, and the reasoning harked back to WWI thinking…

It’s very sad that so many humans believe that morals only come from belief in deities. They don’t, morals just like law can be more than adequately explained in terms of logic and weighted harms to property, society and individuals.

Anyway enough said on the issue as has often been observed “Don’t discuss religion or politics at the dinner table unless you want the knives to fly”.

Clive Robinson • July 25, 2017 3:35 AM

@ Albert,

As long as swarms communicate by radio, they are vulnerable to jamming, regardless of their susceptibility to hacking.

Err not entirely. The designers of Radio Controled aircraft solved that problem back over half a century ago. Their problem was not Loss Of Signal (LOS) by “jamming” but by being “out of range”. The solution was either a “noise gate” or “loss of mark timing gate” which then switched the flight control surfaces to a slowly descending spiral.

Modern military drones have something similar, only it is designed like an auto pilot to fly the drone back to base. And presumably do a couple of other things to protect the secrecy of the mission, the airframe and it’s sensors etc.

That is on LOS they go into an “autonomous mode”, the only question is what the mode is, and I suspect that will be based on the last mode the drone swarm was in. Thus if in “attack mode” they may well continue as any “cease fire” “break off” or recall signal will be jammed.

This “press home the attack” has been Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) just about since man started warfare. In WWII the American Airforce were more than somewhat disliked because they had a “no counterorder” policy in place. Thus if a pilot had been told to bomb a cross roads at some map location, that is what they would do, irrespective of how the ground battle might have changed since the pilot had been mission briefed. It requires quite a bit of training to be a “Forward Air Controler” and whilst some national armed forces put next to no effort in giving the training others put a lot into it across as many personnel as they can.

Clive Robinson • July 25, 2017 4:30 AM

@ tyt,

It isn’t just the CIA who are appallingly ignorant most of USAs folk have apparently never seen a map.

It depends on what you mean by a map.

I used to be an occasional visitor to the USA mainly up near the Canadian border, as I also occasionaly visited Canada.

I had no difficulty in getting “road maps” and “tourist maps” on either side of the border but when it came to maps you need to navigate away from man made environments, that was a different matter entirely. In Canada getting a decent “Survey” map was not difficult even for areas south of the border. However in the US the usuall places you would expect to find such maps like book, camping and outdoor sports stores did not have them and in more than one place the sales assistants had no idea such maps existed. Even their seniors were supprised when I asked for them and said they would have to order it in specially and it would take a week…

Imagine if you will a conversation between me and a Canadian Imigration official, who asked politely,

“What is the purpose of your visit today?”

To which I said,

“To get a map of Washington State, King County, from a store in Vancover as they don’t have them in Seattle.”

To give the man his due he did not bat an eyelid and simply asked which store I was going to. When I told him, he actually said there were a couple of other places I could try and gave me their names.

This was back in the 1980’s so I guess things might have changed.

I told this story to a Russian friend of mine back in 2000 and he could hardly belive it as he had bought “walking maps” for King County in Moscow a couple of years before. He had to visit Microsoft and decided to take a vacation at the same time.

Clive Robinson • July 25, 2017 5:10 AM

@ albert, tyr,

You might both find this little historical item of interest.

It involves the death of a villainous British pig at the hands of an itinerant American potato farmer, that finally required the services of the most senior of Germans to resolve, lest America and Britain start what could well have been the first world war.

http://www.historylink.org/File/9966

It also demonstrates quite clearly why “autonomous action” be it by human or drone is such a bad idea.

Also why there is very high potential for armed conflict in the South China Seas with both China and North Korea putting military effort into desputed islands.

Clive Robinson • July 25, 2017 10:08 AM

@ Dan H,

ARPA research played a central role in launching the “information revolution,” including developing or furthering much of the conceptual basis for ARPANET, a pioneering network for sharing digital resources among geographically separated computers.

You seriously need to check your history.

Overly simply because I realy don’t have time to educate you yet again, ARPA does not invent things it gives research grants to people who do and likewise contracts to develop the things invented.

Thus if you follow things back you will find that the person who did all the original ground work that gave us what was once called DARPAnet was an Englishman who was responsible for much of the work in Bletchley making Ultra the success it became. As part of that he developed contacts in America and moved across after WWII. It was his ideas on military communications systems –which are still in use today– that arose from his work on traffic analysis that influanced his thinking and those he communicated with at MIT. Visting MIT at the time was a Welshman Donald Watts Davies who put the ground work into packet switching on a single comms line rather than circuit switching across comms lines. He went on to do leading research into data networks at the UKs National Physics Laboratory in Teddington Surrey at the edge of South West London[1].

Back in the US the work at MIT gave rise to what became known as the DoD protocol / stack, and into what became IP which was given to a MIT spin off company up river from MIT in Cambridge Mass, called Bolt, Beranek and Newman (BBN).

BBN was originally an acoustic research and consulting company set up by a couple of MIT professors — Leo Beranek and Richard Bolt– alnon with one of their former students –Robert Newman– and were most known for their annalysis of the JFK shooting.

You can go and look all this up as it’s now fairly common knowledge, though the UK Gov under Maggie Thatcher did her upmost to keep it secret. But that as they say is a story for another day.

[1] As it happens NPL developed their own networking protocols which.went on to form the basis of the ISO OSI model. They also developed and deploued their own Hypertext system long before anything similar was even thought about ay CERN.

Clive Robinson • July 25, 2017 3:00 PM

@ Dirk Praet,

Although some bleeding-heart leftists believe that Daesh combatants (and active supporters) are in fact poor victims of Evil Men themselves

You do not have to be a bleeding heart leftist to believe that many Daesh combatants / supporters are poor victims of evil men.

You and I both know that many were for various reasons unemployed and subsisting on state aid. Frequently they are not that bright and due to their upbringing have not developed a moral compass and lack self respect let alone direction. Thus are easy pray for certain types of –to be polite– “preachers” that have been paid for via certain gulf states and US petro dollars (later Chinese Dollars for oil via Turkey).

Is what those preachers do brain washing? I guess that depends on your point of view. But the more relevant question is Can it be corrected? I suspect the honest answer is “not reliably”, therefore they will forever be a threat to society.

If you can not reliably turn them into safe citizens, then the next question is how do you stop more people becoming like them?

Thus the question of “cutting off the money supply” at those “evil men”, it would no doubt solve many of the problems before they start. But as you are probably aware some if not all these “evil men” have a “protected status” not just with their own governments but that of the US as well as others like the UK.

Whilst I would not condone “shoot on sight” I can see the social and economic logic of it. The simple fact is what ever they may or may not have done whilst abroad does not realy matter. They have in effect had there morals and social norms distorted willingly, beyond any real hope of readjustment to be considered safe to let back into society.

Thus you are in effect looking for the equivalent of a Gitmo in every Western nation to keep them from being used as sleepers etc. Worse the likes of a Gitmo only give those “evil men” more leverage to negatively adjust more morals.

Thus from a home society aspect I can see why many are in favour of making those who originaly claimed to be refugees/migrants, stateless and dumping them in or close to the nations they were born in. In effect just moving the problem out os sight. However that would in effect be a cruel and unusual punishment at the very least, and most likely turn them into the types of criminal we most definitely do not want.

I could go on down a very long list of suggestions, and show that both morals and ethics would not alow the economic or social logic to apply. But eventually you come to realise you have a lost generation that no one wants, including those who paid to make them.

Thus you come back to those evil men who pay to create such people and recognise that cutting them off from what they finance should realy be the first step of the process.

However the reality is they get their money from Western tax payers who want cheap energy. So perhaps we should look at what the price of our energy dependence realy is.

Clive Robinson • July 25, 2017 10:37 PM

@ Winter,

I refered to civilized countries. To my knowledge, Syriah and Iraq are currently not considered civilized.

What I refered to was how the Mainstream Media (MSM) in –supposadly– civilized nations reported what was going on in Syria.

In effect for what appears to be politicaly inspired or profiteering of the MIC reasons the MSM in these supposadly civilized nations are demonising various parties involved. The problem with this, is what is politely called “Boxing / Painting yourself into a corner”. Whilst few would actually care if the MSM shot it’s self in the head rather than it’s foot, it has political issues, that spiral downwards [Which as we saw with US election reporting makes for ludicrous “Slap-Stick Comedy” as the MSM try to pretend they were right all along, when they were wrong by a very large margin].

However when it comes to a forign nation who’s people the MSM have denegrated it also forces the political hand and a whole swath of options come off the table before anyone has a chance to find where to put the table, especialy with the ludicrous “There can be no Surrender” and other equally as pathetic sound bites. The US in particular is especialy egregious in this respect and have more than obviously been so since the 1940’s.

As history shows nations have to try to do the best they can for those within their boarders. This leads to very strange events such as nations swaping sides mid war and even fighting with or for both sides (see Russia, Finland, Yugoslavia and much of the Middle East during WWII). That is the very fluid nature of large scale war in the last century, and it will continue to be so in non asymmetric warfare going onwards for the foreseeable future. Taking options off the table, declairing opposing leaders to be only fit for judicial murder and worse, for what is at the end of the day sound bite jingoistic rhetoric for “Drum banging” with your home audiance or polotical allies is in no way statesmanship, and utter lunacy if it then forces it to become policy going forward. The reality is all it does is prolong the killing, destruction and waste of resources, as well as making those you have to eventially negotiate with less likely to even consider negotiating (WWII Japan being just on example that most should be aware of).

It’s this sort of stupidity that only benifits the “War Profiteers” of the MIC etc, and do you realy want such craven individuals setting policy when your loved ones are the cannon fodder that gives their proffits, that they then use to asset strip you and the rest of the civilian population at fire sale prices?

Clive Robinson • July 26, 2017 12:14 AM

@ Dirk Praet,

[B]ut in the end Daesh fighters and active supporters have made certain choices that exclude a return to mainstream society and which not society, but they themselves have to bear the full consequences of

Which is in part why I consider them a “lost generation”. However many I suspect would not be treated as “mentally fit” to be dealt with by the legislative process in a civilised society. Which is a problem as “justice has to be seen to be fair and impartial” to retain it’s legitimacy. Thus the only way to maintain that is to prevent them getting back into societies jurisdiction. Hence make them “stateless”.

But as I noted that is of it’s self insufficient, as they will inevitably return to the fringes of a society somewhere. Most probably as criminals, who will cause further considerable cost to whichever society they are closest to at the time. But as is the case with drugs, the effects of their actions has a high probability of spreading out internationaly.

Which brings us to your point of,

[B]ut they themselves have to bear the full consequences of for starters in the countries where they have committed their crimes and according to local rule of law, or the war-time equivalent thereof.

If we judge them by the standards they set, then all but a few will be executed or maimed.

Which whilst I do not have an issue with judging them by their own standards, it will unfortunately provide propaganda for the “evil men” to radicalize yet more young and impressionable people.

In a highly intetconected world you have no control over propaganda, you can not stop it being found and used. Once it is out there it is in effect out there for the foreseeable future, hanging there like the malevolent “specter at the feast”.

It is thus the radicalisation element we have to control and that in turn means keeping the disseminators of the propaganda out of society. Otherwise the cycle will repeate as long as their is money to fan the flames of what realy is another form of idolatry to personal power. Which history shows us gave rise to lords and their serfs and a lot worse as the perversion of belief by faux religious teachings is involved.

It is this premedieval behaviour that needs to be stopped, and that unfortunatly means society accepting that religious tolerance must have limits long before we get to the point of hate speech. It is not something I think society will find palatable, due to the risks of “Witch hunts”. I for one do not want to see a return to the likes of “Un-American trials” and McCarthyism, but that is what is likely to happen if we are not carefull.

There is of course another issue that arises from subjecting them to trial by those they have harmed the most. Which is vengence turning into multi-generational feuds.

What ever we do we are almost certain to end up with a mess, because the “evil men” will not change their beliefs or behavious as long as they have the means to maintain them… Hence my reason for saying it is they that need to be neutralized in some way. As for those who have been radicalized they are with little doubt lost to society in any acceptable form and there is in effect no place for them, anywhere…

Clive Robinson • July 27, 2017 11:25 PM

@ albert,

I think we’re talking past each other.

In a way. What you say is true and I’ve said similar in the past and will say similar in the future.

What is different on this occasion is “swarm”, the implication of which is the same as “flocking”. Which is multiple drones flying very close together but not in a fixed formation.

For swarming / flocking the drones would need to be not just fully autonomous, but also require quiet advanced sensor / AI systems.

Think of it with an analogy. We have had safe robot vehicles following tracks etc for years in factories and warehouses, yet we are not even close to having safe robot cars on the road that will cope with rush hour trafic on major roads.

It’s the same difference, our current military drones are safe as individual vehicles but they can not fly in close formation, because of what they lack.