By Ira Winkler
November 29, 2009
For 15 years now, I have been publicly lambasting all of those people
who have made their careers, or at least made fleeting news headlines,
based on their declaration of an imminent Electronic Pearl Harbor. My
disdain is based on several factors, but predominantly the lack of
accountability for such statements. One industry analyst, for example,
stated that there will be such an event by the end of 2003. Six years
later, I didn't see anyone revisit the utter lack of such an event.
However, I now see things developing to the point where there can be a
strategic attack on computer infrastructures. The key word is Strategic.
Another major issue I have with the people who stake their fame in
information warfare is the lack of apparent understanding in the concept
of military and geopolitical issues. Specifically, strategy implies long
term impacts, generally at least 3-6 months. Tactical attacks have short
term impacts. Yes, we have had many tactical attacks against different
infrastructures. However, comparing these attacks to Pearl Harbor is
Pearl Harbor was a preemptive strike against the US Pacific Fleet. It
significantly degraded the US Naval capability for several years. If the
aircraft carriers were in Pearl Harbor as the Japanese expected, it
could have been a complete knockout blow. So the question becomes, what
can make a computer attack strategic?
Did a friend send you this? From now on, be the
first to find out! Subscribe to InfoSec News