<![CDATA[[SecurityRatty] tag: unconventional]]> http://securityratty.com/tag/unconventional Thu, 24 Aug 2006 21:48:00 +0000 iRatty Engine http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss <![CDATA[The Pentagon's World of Warcraft Movie-Plot Threat]]> http://securityratty.com/article/b60783b0204251f583fde52e625be0be http://securityratty.com/article/b60783b0204251f583fde52e625be0be In a presentation that rivals any of my movie-plot threat contest entries, a Pentagon researcher is worried that terrorists might plot using World of Warcraft:

In a presentation late last week at the Director of National Intelligence Open Source Conference in Washington, Dr. Dwight Toavs, a professor at the Pentagon-funded National Defense University, gave a bit of a primer on virtual worlds to an audience largely ignorant about what happens in these online spaces. Then he launched into a scenario, to demonstrate how a meatspace plot might be hidden by in-game chatter.
In it, two World of Warcraft players discuss a raid on the "White Keep" inside the "Stonetalon Mountains." The major objective is to set off a "Dragon Fire spell" inside, and make off with "110 Gold and 234 Silver" in treasure. "No one will dance there for a hundred years after this spell is cast," one player, "war_monger," crows.

Except, in this case, the White Keep is at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. "Dragon Fire" is an unconventional weapon. And "110 Gold and 234 Silver" tells the plotters how to align the game's map with one of Washington, D.C.

I don't know why he thinks that the terrorists will use World of Warcraft and not some other online world. Or Facebook. Or Usenet. Or a chat room. Or e-mail. Or the telephone. I don't even know why the particular form of communication is in any way important.

The article ends with this nice paragraph:

Steven Aftergood, the Federation of the American Scientists analyst who's been following the intelligence community for years, wonders how realistic these sorts of scenarios are, really. "This concern is out there. But it has to be viewed in context. It's the job of intelligence agencies to anticipate threats and counter them. With that orientation, they're always going to give more weight to a particular scenario than an objective analysis would allow," he tells Danger Room. "Could terrorists use Second Life? Sure, they can use anything. But is it a significant augmentation? That's not obvious. It's a scenario that an intelligence officer is duty-bound to consider. That's all."

My guess is still that some clever Pentagon researchers have figured out how to play World of Warcraft on the job, and they're not giving that perk up anytime soon.

]]> Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:29:12 +0000 world warcraft plot play world warcraft players discuss movie-plot threat online world meatspace plot dragon fire The Pentagon's World of Warcraft Movie-Plot Threat <![CDATA[Army's New PTSD Treatments: Yoga, Reiki, 'Bioenergy']]> http://securityratty.com/article/66a42d197960adbe31f8ee68a757d8a6 http://securityratty.com/article/66a42d197960adbe31f8ee68a757d8a6
]]> Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:30:00 +0000 traumatic brain injuries million program yoga spiritual ministry army treat vets transcendental meditation post-traumatic stress unconventional Army's New PTSD Treatments: Yoga, Reiki, 'Bioenergy' <![CDATA[Combating Unrestricted Warfare]]> http://securityratty.com/article/419887eeeb4122e5f09f9278c24e0444 http://securityratty.com/article/419887eeeb4122e5f09f9278c24e0444 It's February, 1999, and two senior colonels from China's PLA, namely Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui depressed the world's military thinkers by coming up with a study on the future developments and potential of asymmetric warfare in a surprising move next to the overall discussion always orbiting around symmetric warfare. The study itself entitled "Unconventional Warfare" is an ugly combination of Sun Tzu's 3D perspective on warfare in combination with guerilla approaches to achieve one of Sun Tzu's most insightful quotes - "One hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the most skillful. Seizing the enemy without fighting is the most skillful." Here's a summary of the study :

"Two senior PLA Air Force colonels wrote "Unrestricted Warfare", presented here in summary translation, to explore how technology innovation is setting off a revolution in military tactics, strategy and organization. "Unrestricted Warfare" discusses new types of warfare which may be conducted by civilians as well as by soldiers including computer hacker attacks, trade wars and finance wars."

During the years, and especially since 9/11, the tipping point acting as the wake up call that asymmetric warfare is also getting embraced by the bad guys, many other niche research papers were published in the context of information warfare and cyber warfare such as :

Cyber Warfare: An Analysis of the Means and Motivations of Selected Nation States

Each of these is a visionary reading by itself, but perhaps it was the need for setting a new milestone into such warfare thinking that prompted the public release of the Unrestricted Warfare Symposium Proceedings Book in 2006 and in 2007. An excerpt from the introduction of the 2006 edition :

"To compensate for their weaker military forces, these actors will employ a multitude of means, both military and nonmilitary, to strike out during times of conflict. The first rule of unrestricted warfare is that there are no rules; no measure is forbidden. It involves multidimensional, asymmetric attacks on almost every aspect of the adversary’s social, economic, and political life. Unrestricted warfare employs surprise and deception and uses both civilian technology and military weapons to break the opponent’s will."

Moreover, the 2007 edition is covering in-depth such popular asymmetric threats posed by jihadists (pages 135/143) debunking the use of WMD as a priority, and the cyber dimension (pages 251/297) with some remarkable analogies post Cold-War strategies applied to modern digital threats :

"Technology alone is never going to solve the IA problem. We have no informed national defensive strategy in this area. The situation is starting to change and improve, in large part because visionaries like General Cartwright are in key slots. But we do not have a lot of time. The intelligence community is not sufficiently engaged in conducting, analyzing, and reporting those issues. During the Cold War, we analyzed Soviet capabilities exhaustively. We did everything possible to understand our adversary and manage that gap. We need to do the same thing today. The bottom line is that it is dangerous to underestimate the capabilities of our adversaries. They do whatever it takes to win. Good adversaries know our strengths and weaknesses. They develop surprising partners that sometimes do not even know they are partners—they will give someone an honorarium to talk at a conference and ask that person for information on associates. They play by a different set of rules. They see offense as a systems problem, while our defense is fragmented."

All of these reports and Ebooks are highly recomended bedtime reading, and so is the last but not least one, namely "Victory in Cyberspace" released October, 2007. Besides generalizing cyberspace war activities, it includes a comprehensive summary of the events that took place in Estonia during the DDoS attacks.

]]> Sat, 15 Dec 2007 06:08:23 +0000 chinese information warfare information information warfare warfare cyber warfare unit cyber warfare asymmetric warfare unconventional warfare warfare employs surprise Combating Unrestricted Warfare <![CDATA[Hedge Funds Semantics]]> http://securityratty.com/article/667da2d6be557099109de5aab342b60a http://securityratty.com/article/667da2d6be557099109de5aab342b60a
When we hear the word "hedge" we usually think of protection and safety. In finance, a hedge, usually in the form of derivatives, is used to protect an investment from loss. But it also limits the gains of the position as well. This makes potential earnings predictable and constant. Risk is eliminated since risk is defined as "uncertainty".

But looking at the hedging instrument individually, it is just as exposed to losses as other instruments. Moreover, derivatives are leveraged and losses are potentially greater than conventional assets. The hedge only takes shape if the hedging instrument is taken together with another position, and their reaction to changes in market factors should cancel each other out.

Hedge funds act in the same way. Taken alone, hedge funds are risky investments. But when combined with conventional funds, they can provide diversification benefits and even enhanced returns due unconventional strategies and assets employed. These unconventional strategies and assets result into low correlations with conventional funds.

I guess a lot of people assume that hedge funds are supposed to be safe investments because of the word "hedge". But if these funds are meant to safe in the first place, they should be called "hedged" funds instead.

Tags: ]]> Thu, 24 Aug 2006 21:48:00 +0000 hedge hedge funds hedge funds act funds conventional funds assets result assets risky investments conventional assets Hedge Funds Semantics