Access member only content, take part in discussions with comments on blogs, news and reviews and receive all the latest security industry news directly to your inbox. Join now for free.
Processing registration... Please wait.
This process can take up to a minute to complete.
A confirmation email has been sent to your email address - SUPPLIED EMAIL HERE. Please click on the link in the email to verify your email address. You need to verify your email before you can start posting.
If you do not receive your confirmation email within the next few minutes, it may be because the email has been captured by a junk mail filter. Please ensure you add the domain @scmagazine.com.au to your white-listed senders.
Anonymous has branded comments by a director of the US National Security Agency that the hacktivist group is a year or two away from having the capability to launch attacks that disrupt the power grid as "baseless" and "ridiculous".
Unnamed federal officials, citing comments from NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander during a series of White House meetings, told the Wall Street Journal that Anonymous has never named the electric grid as a target, but said the group is "headed in a more disruptive direction."
A number of flagship Anonymous Twitter accounts spent Monday refuting the report, calling Alexander's comments "baseless," "fear mongering" and "ridiculous."
The collective implied, in a tweet, that the claims from NSA are meant to stir up public concern around cyber attacks in order to help recently introduced cyber security legislation pass in Congress.
Instead of doing that, the government should focus its efforts around securing vulnerabilities in control systems that enable attacks, said Anonymous, which has billed itself as freedom fighters who seek to embarrass and expose corporations and government agencies with whose practices it disagrees.
Gabriella Coleman, an assistant professor at New York University, who studies online collaboration and is writing a book on Anonymous, said the collective has done nothing to indicate it wants to target industrial control systems, which power the nation's critical infrastructure, such as the electric grid and oil-and-gas pipelines.
Such systems have become increasingly vulnerable as they become interconnected with the web.
"I think that over the last six months, Anonymous has successfully managed to be seen more in a positive rather than negative light, participants coming across as activists as opposed to hell raisers, albeit quite transgressive activists, but activists no less," she told SC Magazine in an email.
"So what was reported in the WSJ is probably part of a government effort to discredit them in absence of being able to currently use other tactics."
Joe Weiss, managing partner of SCADA security firm Applied Control Solutions, said the Journal report misses the mark.
The news is not that Anonymous is capable – it's that there is freely available exploit code for anyone, even those who don't have advanced technical knowledge, to use to launch an attack against control systems. And such code is available now via toolkits like Metasploit.
"We're not talking a year or two away," he told SC Magazine on Monday. "We're talking today...I'm going to talk about this as an engineer and not a threat analyst. Can [Anonymous] do it? Yes. Can anyone else do it? The answer is yes. It doesn't matter who or why, or if it's intentional or unintentional. With four lines of code, anyone can take over a programmable logic controller (PLC)."
But, Weiss said that just because Anonymous seems to disagree with the NSA's assessment, that doesn't mean the collectiveOthe, known for being leaderless and amorphous, can be ruled off the suspect list.
"The mainstream of Anonymous may feel exactly that way, that they are the Robin Hoods and are basically trying to do good, but it either takes someone who doesn't necessarily feel quite that way, or wants to do it in Anonymous' name," Weiss said.
Jerry Brito, senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Arlington, Va. questioned the Journal article's validity and whether Alexander's comments were taken out of context. Up until now, he said, Anonymous' actions have been focused on distributed denial-of-service attacks and hacking to expose data, such as emails. Someone who wants to infiltrate a power grid is likely to be a nation-state adversary, he said.
"The question is, why do they run this article with the lede being Anonymous could take down the power grid?" Brito told SC Magazine. "You could say this for anybody ... I'm sure the bigger threat [Alexander] sees are foreign states."
But Dave Marcus, director of advanced threat intelligence research at security firm McAfee, said that Anonymous may consider targeting something like the power grid if it would advance its cause.
"It comes down to if they want to target it or not," Marcus said. "Does it serve their agenda?"
He cautioned that Anonymous might want to steer clear of such actions. "If you start going after infrastructure, that's going to get you branded," Marcus said. "It's not going to get you the change you want."
Meanwhile, articles such as this could have unintended consequences, Brito said. He said a member of Congress could point to the Journal piece, and not "real evidence," as a reason why, for example, the NSA should be monitoring internet traffic.
This article originally appeared at scmagazineus.com
To begin commenting right away, you can log in below or register an account if you don't yet have one. Please read our guidelines on commenting. Offending posts will be removed and your access may be suspended. Abusive or obscene language will not be tolerated. The comments below do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of SC Magazine, Haymarket Media or its employees.