Whats the point of Cyber Security if an EMP attack does the job better and faster?
>EMP can be initiated from space
>EMP does more damage than CyberAttack
Why is everyone stressing about CyberWarfare? An EMP will end all the discussions in an instant.
Whats the point of Cybersecurity if EMPs/ Nuclear EMP's exist?
explain anons
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
EMP sounds good in a Hollywood blockbuster, best accompanied with some dramatic music.
In the real world, however, it can be shielded against, unless the nuclear detonation is so close you are vaporised anyway.
As someone who worked with EMPs before, even UPSs with Surgecharge tech and overflow mechanics can protect against it.
EMPs are useless.
So an actual coordinated cyberattack would be more effective than an actual EMP attack?
Very interesting. So a cyberattacks have more impact? I read a while ago that 3 nuclear EMP's could take out entire US.
>EMP can be initiated from space
There's currently no known way to focus a wideband pulse into a beam narrow enough to be usable on a target from space.
>EMP does more damage than CyberAttack
Cyberattacks aren't always about causing maximum damage to equipment, or even about causing damage to equipment at all.
An EMP can do fuck all to fully shielded electronics.
A cyberattack can do fuck all to fully isolated computers.
Part of my new job as CISO is to take care of that eventuallity.
i'm gonna keep a breed of intelligent hampsters on wheels trained by child secret agents to repower us if lightning is ever cut
and on a more serious note that's why i am gonna be adamant about dragonsteeth arround the office.
Not necessarily space. But a nuclear explosion high enough so that it doesn't cause damage to humans. That does exist I believe.
But most computers are connected though. The power grid. Water infrastructure. Trains etc.
Check the /cyb/ FAQ on .mil tech. There are many different approaches to this.
>Not understanding attribution / deniability
>Not acknowledging the existence and value of attacks / cyberwarfare / espionage that don't involve rendering all of your adversary's electronics inert
>Not appreciating the value of defending against them
>Failing to recognize that protracted, low-intensity conflict between major powers is far likelier than open warfare
>A cyberattack can do fuck all to fully isolated computers.
full isolation can never be achieved so long as humans have access to it.
t. stuxnet
70.182.41.47
faggets emps cant hurt me
Go tip your fedora somewhere else, the adults are talking
Cyber attacks are east to carry out but not easy to prove attribution. Governments can easily deny involvement.
A lot of SCADA systems are pretty much isolated from the rest of the "internet"
>what’s the point of a gun if a nuclear weapon attack does the job better and faster?
>why do anything when you can just detonate a fucking nuke over your enemies' computers????
fucking subtlety user. Go ahead and try nuking a hostile country's airspace during "peacetime"
Detonating an EMP bomb is also likely to aggravate people. Especially those types that require explosive field compression.
EMPs are indiscriminate.
there is a reason we have a treaty against testing nuclear arms in space. It won't just wipe out your enemy's satellites and infrastructure, it will wipe out EVERYONE's. why do that when you can use a directed cyberattack instead?
Moreover with a cyberattack you have deniability. You can always claim some rogue group was the one who did the attack, with an EMP there is no such deniability. If you launch a fucking nuke into space everyone will know you did it and the backlash will be immediate and severe.