“The One Thing Wrong…,” by Larry Dunbar, tdaxp, 7 May 2005, http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/05/04/net-attacks_and_counter-attacks.html.
Over the past few days I have been blessed by a wise, well-spoken, and tremendously friendly commenter. Larry Dunbar is a genius. As I’ve said this about one other person — Mark Safranski — that means a lot. Larry has been putting me to shame with briliant thought after thought, while I struggle to find the right words.
He’s given me two wonderful posts in reaction to my article, Net-Attacks and Counter-Attacks, which compared the defense of a Costa Rican online gaming house to styles of war. Here’s his latest, with my comments.
How do you know it wasnâ€™t the Russian police to begin with, and their objective was to get networked with someone in the gaming industry?
Agreed. The original article speculated on whether The Mercenary was behind it, and used the Enemy and the Mercenary Forces (the Russians) as tools. It may have been the Russian police themselves, too.
The greatest argument against the Enemy planning all of it is that computer networkers may be bad social networkers — but such assumptions are always dangerous.
You show no lines off the yellow blocks of the Russian police still attached to the enemy. Even if it was legit, I would expect to see either lawyer, family members and other partners with the enemy still attached to the Russian Police. In fact when the enemy is let go by the police, he now takes a piece of your company and begins another attack somewhere else.
The Enemy is not fully disconnected — he is very connected to dangerous people.
I showed him as isolated, assuming he is now lost in a miserable system and out of contact with his assailants. This also furthered the analogy between the CSO Magazine article and an assassination of a tribal chief. You caught me in an assumption.
Iâ€™m trying to see a win-win situation here and it is hard to see. The mercenary is now stronger than your enemy was. The enemy, if he survives, is now just a little smarter than before. You also have the fact you are dealing with, at least in some context, the Russian police. My guess is you will suffer another attack simply because there are too many people relying on the enemy to attack so they can be rewarded.
Perhaps this established a high cost of attacks which prevents repeat, but otherwise I agree.
What struck me about the CSO article was how very close it was to the plot of Sons, by Pearl S. Buck. The second book in The Good Earth trilogy, Sons focuses on a Warlord in the early Chinese Republic. The maneuvering in the book is very, very similar to the net-attacks described in the article.
Additionally, the trilogy itself is a terrific introduction to different styles of politics and war. Pre-Modern Politics, 1GW, 2GW, and 4GW are major themes of the series. Written in the 1930s by a woman, and spanning from about 1870 to about 1935, I highly, highly recommend the books:
PS: If you care about plot, be careful of the Amazon reviews. They can give a lot away.