Talk:Cyberwarfare/Archive 1

Archive 1

Disorganized Incidents section

The Incidents section is quite hard to follow and there isn't a clear method of how the incidents reported are selected. I think we should reorganize the section based on the magnitude or each incident or in relation to the countries involved in the incident. There are several cyber attacks or related new reported every day I think we need a clear method of judging which ones are significant enough for inclusion in the article. ~~Reziebear (talk —Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

History needed

This page is lacking a history section. When were the words "cyberattack" and "cyberwarfare" coined? When was the first cyberattack that made the news and what was the target BillShurts (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The terms 'cyberattack' or 'cyberwarfare' were never coined to my knowledge. Others here have expressed concern with using the term cyberwarfare. The term 'cyber war' however was coined by John Arquilla in 1993, but because it is undecided what name is to be used in the article itself I hesitate to include the history behind the term. If anyone would care to please verify the history and whether its appropriate to include in the article, I used the book Asymmetric Warfare: Threat and Response in the 21st Century by Rod Thornton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reziebear (talk • contribs) 19:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ineffectual use

I think it's a little ridiculous to say that cyber warfare has not been used effectively up to this point - the head of cybercom himself indicated that billions of dollars worth of information and technology has been comprimised as a result of cyber attacks, and israel virtually destroyed iran's nuclear program through such an attack. I'd call that an effective attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.54.13.248 (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Questions

I would like to know about the communication and cyber warfare regarding following points 1. Roll and need for communication in battle field. 2. Decision making and avability of current information 3. Devices and equipments used in communication. 4. Future cyber warfare. 5. Strategy adopted by INDIA,USA,ENGLAND,GERMANY in cyber warfare.124.7.81.96 05:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)aditya

I can understand your questions, but I believe your misunderstanding the subject. The questions that you are asking would be more of Cybernetic warfare. Cyber warfare is computers/equipment attacking computers/equipment. Although communications does play a part in this form of warfare it is the communications of computer to computer. This subject does play an integral part of normal warfare because if you can attack the computers in a command centre that is deploying armaments and successfully shut them down or mislead/misdirect then it hinders the operations of that command centre... maybe to the point of being shut down completely. --Pmedema 16:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Estonia convicts local man over alleged "Russian cyber-war"

Estonia arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced a local 20yr-old man, Dmitri Galushkevich, for launching the attacks from the comfort of his home in Tallin. The court fined him less than US$2,000 in Estonia's local currency.

This article reads as if Russia actually did attack Estonia: a wild initial speculation that was dismissed after Estonia revealed details of the attack. Overall, the article reads like a magazine story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsnbrgr (talk • contribs) 03:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Galushkevich's actions were but a small part in the whole attack. He was not convicted for the attacks but for an attack. The claim of Russia being responsible is not wild at all considering the declarations of Russian officials and the actions of Kremlin youth organisation at the time. Oth (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

More important to me: I thank you for NPOVing the statement I brought into question. Less important to me: if you can source relevant information in the attack re: Russian officials and the role of Kremlin youth organizations, then why didn't you include it in your own edits? Please note that I'm not calling into question the claim you made on this talk page — I'm just saying that (as you must well know!) you don't always need to be an expert to append an obviously relevant fact to an article. If Kremlin officials actually stated or implied Russia wants to use its computing might to hurl Estonia's IP space back to the transistor age, then this is exactly the article where it should be stated & sourced. Again, thank you for NPOVing the statement I brought into question. Rob Rosenberger (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As far I know, the issue has attracted lots of diverse coverage and I am simply not knowledgable enough to assess the value of different opinions. But given the extremely hostile atmosphere at the time, Russia remains a very probable source even if we never know wether the hackers responsible where mobilised by authorities or did they act on their own accord. Oth (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation of known attacks

The United States has come under attack from countries such as China and Russia. See Titan Rain and Moonlight Maze.[8]

This statement seems like it could use some rewording. The citation it points to have no active link to read up on the article, so I can't be sure whether the article states definitely that the US was attacked by so-and-so, or whether it was alleged that the US was attacked by so-and-so. However, the Wikipedia articles the statement points to simply state that the identities of the attackers cannot be confirmed. China and Russia are suspected but are not definitely known to have done so. --132.206.54.86 (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

it says "from countries such as", and hackers have attacked compaines, and google has reported that hackers in China attacked them. while no one but the chinese government knows for sure if they worked for china, they diffinatally were FROM china. Joesolo13 (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue is the creditably of the facts, there isn't much information on the said attacks. If it is included perhaps it should be reworded so that it is not misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reziebear (talk • contribs) 19:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikify Tag

I removed the {{wikify}} tag. I feel the article no longer needs to be wikified, however could probably still use some cleanup. If you disagree feel free to re-add the tag or drop me a message. Bvlax2005 (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Citation broken

Citation number 18's link to Yahoo! news does not exist. --Melab±1 ☎ 16:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Operation Aurora

Nothing about Operation Aurora[1] and the attacks on Google and twenty other companies in December of 2009? --68.45.218.70 (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I just created the Operation Aurora page. Andareed (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the last two points of the Various case histories refer to the same cyberattack —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.185.64 (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"War" is an improper analogy

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/schmidt-cyberwar/

The use of hacking, DDoSing, and virus propagation by governments is espionage, not warfare. This is business as usual just with newer technology. Calling this "cyberwar" is misleading, makes the public unnecessarily fearful, and can lead mass surveillance and censorship of the internet. I suggest this article be renamed to "Cyber Espionage" or merged with "Hacking". -7th sojourn (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Cyberwarfare → Politically motivated hacking —"Cyberwar" is mostly a propaganda term. However, while the scope of activities referred to by "cyberwar" overlaps with espionage, sabotage, and hacking, I think there is a coherent scope of politically motivated activity within those. I would prefer to move this article to a more neutral term, rather than a politically loaded word like "cyberwarfare". ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 18:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment is this article supposed to cover cyberterrorism ? 70.29.212.131 (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose- The current name is more commonly used, and the suggested name is very awkward. "Politically motivated hacking" sounds more politically loaded than cyberwarfare and even if you don't agree, the current name is supported by WP:AT#Neutrality and article titles. --WikiDonn (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is the common name for this activity, so it is the best title. It might sound like propaganda or slang to you, but it's used by thousands of books and scholarly sources. Fences&Windows 23:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This name is commonly used. Also, the two are not synonymous - I see a steady stream of "Politically motivated hacking" which has little or no connection to "cyberwarfare". bobrayner (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Neutrality

I'm concerned about the neutrality of the article.

• Sources: too many of the sources in this article are from the DOD and from antivirus companies. Neither of these are neutral parties. The DOD has an interest in treating this like a military problem, and antivirus companies want to sell their products, so both of these companies are going to be overstating the problem and using non-neutral wording, which is why they absolutely should not be quoted.
• Quotes: as much as possible we should only quote reliable third party security experts.
• Language: the terms cyberwarfare and attack are not only loaded terms being promoted as propaganda, they are nonspecific and unprofessional. These are terms used by sensationalist media sources, not serious experts in the field. These terms should redirect to a neutral and technical discussion.

This article is disorganized.

• Bulleted lists: Do not use them here. They are a poor presentation of material. Consider dividing the material into prose, new sections, or new articles.
• Reported attacks: Perhaps this section should focus on the history of this type of activity. Alternatively, each section could be moved to various articles about diplomatic relations between countries.
• Various case histories: This section is extremely disorganized and unhelpful. It should be dealt with as the previous section, except that more stuff should be deleted.

Lets focus this article on the political and military aspects of computer security, and put technical details about security, DDOS, electrical grid security, etc. in other articles. As part of that, we need to be clear that government statements and actions reflect government positions and not necessarily the reality of the situation. Because this type of activity is often kept secret or muddled, and because a lot of our sources are writing in concerned speculation, we need to be extra careful to use neutral, reputable sources, be clear on technical points, and explicitly state that these are concerns and speculation and carefully note who is raising these concerns. When there is a conflict of interest or controversy, we need to address that. With some work, we can make this article clear and informative in an area filled with propaganda, secrecy, and deceit. Happy editing. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 20:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No, if you want a politically focused article, then a subarticle should be developed. This should be an overview article. The technical aspects can similarly be summarized here, while a more detailed subarticle covers it as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.195.196 (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the technical aspects should be discussed in articles like computer security and exploit (computer security). Overview articles should be at cybercrime and computer insecurity. This page is about a specific type of cracking, "warfare" oriented attacks. This article should not include economically motivated attacks, which compose the majority of cybercrime, but rather it should focus on military attacks, cracking incidents and programs initiated or run by governments, or computer security related aspects to military efforts. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 06:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with above statements. You have the concept of Cyberwarfare, the application, the technicalities (which could be separate articles on computer security), and the views of various parties. These should all be separated in order to maintain neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.179.91.104 (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

This section was removed as there was no source calling this a form of "warfare." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

New name suggestion to "Cyber war"

It seems that "cyberwarfare" is not the commonly used term, as most of the recent articles refer to this subject as "cyber war." Any support for renaming? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, in my line of work, it's more likely to be spelt "cyberwarfare" than "cyber war". Similarly, there's more google results for the former. If we limit ourselves to serious sources, the the first search result I got in .mil uses "cyberwarfare" and that also seems to be the term preferred by Schneier. However, if you have a preponderance of sources that go the other way...

bobrayner (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Doing a Google Books search, "cyberwarfare" - 2,900; "cyber warfare" - 4,200; "cyber war" - 2,400. Since that's all-inclusive of general reading and specialized, I lean to "cyber war" as Wikipedia is mostly read by the general public. The article also mentions cyberspace as the "fifth domain" of war, after land, sea, air and space, so adding "cyberspace" alone, abbreviated to "cyber," seems to keep it in balance with the rest.

There's also a subtle difference in the definitions of "war" and "warfare": "war" is " a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict;" while "warfare" is defined as "military operations between enemies. . . " So "war" is not quite as definite, allowing for more levels of interpretation and engagement. A country might be in a "state of war" or had recently declared war, but not be engaged in actual "warfare." Clarke's book is also called "Cyber War." Just some thoughts, but I'm willing to go either way. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This article really should be renamed. Cyber is a term that provokes fear and indicates ignorance, it's a loaded phrase that exists to scare people. So-called cyberwarfare has always existed, perhaps "Computing security at a national level" would be a better title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.32.138 (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

cyber war is a more recognized term than cyberwarfare. There is a history associated with coining the term cyber war (please refer to history needed). It may be more accurate to change the name to cyber war — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reziebear (talk • contribs) 19:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Add Hacking the Lights Out: The Computer Virus Threat to the Electrical Grid from 20.June.2011?

Add Hacking the Lights Out: The Computer Virus Threat to the Electrical Grid - Computer viruses have taken out hardened industrial control systems. The electrical power grid may be next by David M. Nicol June 20, 2011 Scientific American; page 70-75 in print. Add More To Explore references? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Add A Stronger Net Security System Is Deployed by John Markoff in the New York Times, June 24, 2011.

Add A Stronger Net Security System Is Deployed by John Markoff published: June 24, 2011 in the New York Times, page B1 and B4 in print. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC) Dan Kaminsky and Bill Woodcock quoted. See Domain Name System Security Extensions, Comodo Group, ICANN, and Stuxnet. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It's all Microsoft

Shouldn't the role of Microsoft as the target of all known attacks be mentioned in the lead? Hcobb (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Presumably you mean microsoft software, rather than microsoft itself as an organisation?
• Nonetheless, other software has been targeted too. bobrayner (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC).

Got an example for an attack that did not go through Microsoft software? Even the attack on the Iranian microcontrollers was directed by the attached Microsoft based computers. Hcobb (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The targets were Siemens, weren't they? If the goalposts are moving to include other systems which weren't the actual target of attack, then yes, among diverse networked systems practically every attack can be used to support absurd rants such as "Bill Gates is America's biggest asset in the global war of terror"[2]. bobrayner (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

But it's Microsoft that's been providing the attack vectors all along. If they were (secretly) run by the CIA then how exactly would they act differently? Do you even need go look it up to respond with 99% accuracy to the question: "Which company provided the OS for the computers whose hard disks were seized in the raid on the Bid Laden compound?" Hcobb (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Bin Laden? Are you actually saying that Microsoft provided the attack vector there? bobrayner (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It made the harvesting of the collected information much easier than a secure OS would. And why shouldn't physical access be considered as part of Cyberwarfare? Hcobb (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have any evidence that the physical access was provided by Microsoft, rather than by guys with rifles and helicopters, I would love to see it. The "secure OS" thing is a distraction, too; just as with other OSs, Windows boxes can be protected against local attack either through Windows functionality or through third-party software. (although I recently tried to accredit a WebOS device and simply couldn't find a workable way to protect data from local attack). If some hypothetical Bin Laden wanted to protect the data on their hdd but didn't put any thought into doing so, it's their loss. bobrayner (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Israel

I find it odd that there's no section on Israeli cyberwarfare. Doyna Yar (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Then let's improve it. Got any good sources? bobrayner (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

There's a section on the Stuxnet page. Doyna Yar (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

Some criticize this move saying that it gives away too much to the other sides.

Headline-1: Why is the US Army opening the door of its cyber arsenal?

• http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/02/13/why-is-us-army-opening-door-its-cyber-arsenal/?intcmp=ob_homepage_tech&intcmp=obnetwork

QUOTE: "The U.S. Army has taken the unprecedented decision to release source code from in its cyber arsenal, specifically a version of the Dshell forensic analysis code. ... The army published [Dshell] code on public code repository GitHub on Dec. 17, 2014, collecting more than 100 downloads and 2,000 unique visitors to date." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Cyber Warfare

good or bad? --RaidenB1 (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Cyberwarfare

Cyberbot II has detected links on Cyberwarfare which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://perry4law.org/blog/?p=585

  Triggered by \bperry4law\.org\b on the local blacklist

• http://perry4law.org/cecsrdi/?p=1068

  Triggered by \bperry4law\.org\b on the local blacklist

• http://perry4law.org/cecsrdi/?p=735

  Triggered by \bperry4law\.org\b on the local blacklist

• http://perry4law.org/cecsrdi/?p=720

  Triggered by \bperry4law\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Cyberwarfare

Cyberbot II has detected links on Cyberwarfare which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://perry4law.org/blog/?p=585

  Triggered by \bperry4law\.org\b on the local blacklist

• http://perry4law.org/cecsrdi/?p=1068

  Triggered by \bperry4law\.org\b on the local blacklist

• http://perry4law.org/cecsrdi/?p=720

  Triggered by \bperry4law\.org\b on the local blacklist

• http://perry4law.org/cecsrdi/?p=735

  Triggered by \bperry4law\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

"Cyberweapon"

The usage, topic, and naming of Cyberweapon is under discussion, see talk:cyberweapon -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal of cyberespionage section

The section on cyber espionage is not cyberwarfare, it's spying. Perhaps the text could be added to the Wikipedia article for cyber espionage and said article added to the further reading list. 31.54.230.92 (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cyberwarfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100823023117/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i49n7xcjIHBv_Uq9SOjyP7vs6f8wD9HMP8R00 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i49n7xcjIHBv_Uq9SOjyP7vs6f8wD9HMP8R00

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyberwarfare

This page needs to be split. Warfare, intelligence and counter intelligence are not the same

I do agree with BernardZ. Also, the article looks a bit convoluted because there is a section based on countries, and there is a section based on chronological incidents. I propose to collapse the incidents under the country sections. If the incidents involve multiple victim nations, then we might want to just put the article under the suspected perpetrator nation (e.g. China or Russia). I can help make those changes if there is a consensus. Thoughts? Avataron (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I will attempt to be WP:BOLD and reorganize this article. Pls feel free to revert edits or chime in. Avataron ^talk 16:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is very good but overwhelming at the same time. It tries to cover too much information that it ends up being more confusing than helpful. It discuses ways of cyberwarfare such as sabotage, espionage and propaganda but also goes into all the different countries that are believed to have participated in this cyberwarfare. I do like that there is many sources and the links work. Some that I reviewed seem to be non scholarly articles more like news. Those articles can tend to be bias when talking about other countries. I believe it can bebroke up into two different articles one for the Cyberwarfare strategies and the other on countries who have participated and how.Rubibeltran1 (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Early incidents

These early incidents are not covered:

• "Kako sam nasamario Pentagon"
• "Kako sam provalio u računala minstarstva obrane Jugoslavije"

-- 93.141.0.87 (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cyberwarfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203191412/http://www.scmagazineus.com/Cyberspace-and-the-changing-nature-of-warfare/article/115929/ to http://www.scmagazineus.com/Cyberspace-and-the-changing-nature-of-warfare/article/115929/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130810043238/http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2010/JOE_2010_o.pdf to http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2010/JOE_2010_o.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090531101949/http://www.ccdcoe.org/2.html to http://www.ccdcoe.org/2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007185753/http://www.politik.org.ua/vid/publcontent.php3?y=7&p=57 to http://www.politik.org.ua/vid/publcontent.php3?y=7&p=57

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cyberwarfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100223000551/http://blogs.computerworld.com/15603/cyber_shockwave_cnn_bpc_wargame_was_it_a_failure to http://blogs.computerworld.com/15603/cyber_shockwave_cnn_bpc_wargame_was_it_a_failure
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130617091822/http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/112907-government-cyberattacks.html to http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/112907-government-cyberattacks.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130217225811/http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/16117821/washington-beijing-in-cyber-war-standoff/ to http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/16117821/washington-beijing-in-cyber-war-standoff/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

List of Cyberwarfare forces

Would someone be interested in starting a page that is a List of cyberwarfare forces similar to this page List of CBRN warfare forces??? 122.56.235.53 (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't have the time and would also have to worry about an NDA, but feel free and be bold, as long as you also give citations. That said, it might be a shorter list to list those who do not maintain cyberwarfare forces, with the given assumption that those not listed have them.Wzrd1 (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 May 2021 and 31 July 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fsharbi. Peer reviewers: Rapidking.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2020 and 29 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Samuel Simpson14.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

RSA Conference

@Adfwefsd and Esfdsfsdfasf: it may help if you discuss any concerns you have with content and sourcing here on the talk page. - wolf 14:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)