You got it.BDKJMU wrote:There's no world wide definition or international convention that has defined it is there?Ibanez wrote:
Of course it's an act of war if we decide it is. The problem is that we decide these things on a case by case basis and have no defining criteria.
I'd say the election process is critical infrastructure. An attack on that should be considered an act of war.
Under the standard defintion of an act of war its easy. Troops/tanks/planes from country A invade country B, or missiles from country A are shot at at/into country B. Simple- acts of war, game on.
But the whole cyber thing seems murky as hell. And would be easy to fake, or mistake, no?. Country A could accuse country B of conducting a cyber act of war when country B didn't have anything to do with it. Maybe it was a rogue group operating within country B, or a group operating in country C that wade it look like country B was responsible for cyber attacking country A.
Or country A could falsely blame country B for committing a cyber act of war, by having a cyber attack conducted on itself from within country B, as a pre text for country A attacking country B conventionally. Kind of like how Hitler staged a fake military attack on a German border installation from Poland as a pre text for invading Poland..
I deal in cyber security threats everyday, mostly insider but a few hactivist and other bad actors. The very first thing you do, if you're any good, is hide your footprint. Or falsify it.
Let's take this real life scenario for example:
Intelligence says that hackers in Vietnam are responsible for the theft of millions of American IDs, account numbers, PII, etc...
Is Vietnam responsible?
- Spoiler: show
Russia doesn't really hack from within Russia. They do a lot of their hacking in Ukraine.






