“Active Defense” has made a lot of headlines lately. Most relate it to hack back. The main complaint or concern by those against “Active Defense” and many of those just being cautious, is that without attribution of your attacker you could be hitting an innocent bystander. I say bunk. Attribution is not that important. Read on.
I have noticed, at least amongst lawyers, there does not seem to be much middle ground when it comes to “Active Defense” or hack back and the right of self-defense. Those who comment on it either agree self-defense exists in cyberspace, with very few in this camp, or it doesn’t, which is where the majority stand. All I ask of most is don’t simply jump to the conclusion that self-defense does not exist and “Active Defense” or hack back is illegal, but instead look at the arguments, potential fact scenarios, and definitions. Continue reading for my definition of “Active Defense.”
Here are my views on Active Defense in the context of setting the record straight on what I said in a recent Bright Talk panel discussion. Is Active Defense illegal? No! Is attribution impossible? No! And many other issues.
Lately I’ve seen many articles about “active defense” and “hack back.” This is good because current defenses aren’t working and being in a constant state of defensive mode is not a lot of fun. Something needs to be done. The problem is many of these articles take a doomsday approach to the topic. Comments like, “it’s … Continue reading ‘Active Defense’ will Improve Cyber Security