But, I will try. Let's use a real life example. How about something that was reported by ZDNet a few years ago. Specifically, "...Coordinated Russia vs Georgia cyber attack in progress|ZDNet"
Russia attacked Georgia and although the cost to Georgia was economically significant the real intent was political and to demonstrate that the will and ability to paralyze the Georgia IT infrastructure was a current Russian capability. It was slightly more than a "warning shot across the bow" but far less than a declared intent to permanently interfere with a sovereign state.
It was, in fact, a twenty first century equivalent of sending soviet tanks into 1956 Hungry (for a few days or so.)
Your question really is, not that cyber warfare should be stopped or responded to, since the capability is available to do so between governments, companies and/or individuals but rather, should there be a world wide treaty forbidding such acts of cyber warfare. Is cyber warfare at the same level as biological , chemical or nuclear warfare is? (Note: There is no international treat in effect or proposed banning nuclear warfare as there is against biological or chemical warfare even though preventing a country from using biological or chemical agents is just as impossible as preventing a country from using nuclear weapons. Its just a political statement of will.)
Personally, I would wish to see an international treaty endorsed outlawing cyber warfare. How and what forms of punishment could be used against transgressions is best left to persons much wiser than myself.
Mike
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
