Cyber-attack on the Stock Market?
When the so-called "flash-crash" occurred last April, everyone was surprised - maybe even shocked. The stock market plunged 700 points in seconds, then bounced up. While the day finished with the market down, the quick extreme plunge was something never before seen. It was first said to have been some sort of a technical glitch that simply exacerbated a correction in a bull market. But as time went on, explanations were hard to find - and still are. No one can explain what that technical glitch might have been.
Doesn't it seem odd that no one has been able to explain exactly what happened?
So here's my question: Could this have been some sort of cyber-attack on the stock market? Before you laugh, I'll ask another question: how much do you know about Stuxnet?
Stuxnet is a computer virus that was used to infect the nuclear reactors in Iran. It received a certain amount of press coverage last November when the attacks were unveiled. Like so much else in the press, it's been largely forgotten. But what people seem to have overlooked is the fact that this was the first documented military attack by a computer virus designed specifically for this purpose.
Before you bring up "Titan Rain" - the documented attack on the Pentagon and other U.S. defense facilities - note that this attack by Chinese hackers was not an actual military attack. Sure, it lasted lasted for over two years starting in 2003 and managed to steal millions of secret military documents without being detected. And it's pretty certain that the attack could not have been carried out by typical hackers. It was too sophisticated, and too concerted and effort over too long a time to be the work of a bunch of Chinese civilian geeks.
But the most important point is that it was not intended to destroy its targets, military style. Stuxnet was. It had two components: one that disrupted the nuclear centrifuge, and another that provided readings to the operators of the centrifuge that indicated that it was operating properly. Meanwhile, the centrifuges were forced to spin out of control until they were destroyed - all without the operators knowing a thing. Estimates are that it set the Iranian nuclear weapons program back three years.
In fact, Stuxnet signaled the beginning of cyberwar as a reality of our world. Rather momentous, I'd say. Maybe that's why you hear so little about it.
Oh, and let's not forget about the cyber-attack by Russia on Estonia. Remember that? That's when hackers managed to infect virtually the entire cyber infrastructure of the country during a dispute between Russia and Estonia. The result of the attacks was the collapse of the country's financial system. People couldn't use their banking system, couldn't effectively do simple things like buy milk, bread and gasoline. Estonia caved to Russian demands. Do you blame them?
So back to the flash crash: if no one can seem to figure out what caused the flash crash, would it be imprudent to speculate that maybe - just maybe - it was some sort of cyber-attack? Maybe even a kind of test attack - maybe.
The point here is that cyber attacks have not only increased, but the kinds of attacks have grown in type and sophistication. On April 8, 2009, the Wall Street Journal published an article that said that "Cyberspies have penetrated the U.S. electrical grid and left behind software programs that could be used to disrupt the system" sometime in the future. No one knows for sure who did this and no one knows how to disable the software programs currently in place. No one knows the intention of the people who did this.
So the flash crash being the result of some sort of cyber-attack doesn't seem all that crazy, does it?
Doesn't it seem odd that no one has been able to explain exactly what happened?
So here's my question: Could this have been some sort of cyber-attack on the stock market? Before you laugh, I'll ask another question: how much do you know about Stuxnet?
Stuxnet is a computer virus that was used to infect the nuclear reactors in Iran. It received a certain amount of press coverage last November when the attacks were unveiled. Like so much else in the press, it's been largely forgotten. But what people seem to have overlooked is the fact that this was the first documented military attack by a computer virus designed specifically for this purpose.
Before you bring up "Titan Rain" - the documented attack on the Pentagon and other U.S. defense facilities - note that this attack by Chinese hackers was not an actual military attack. Sure, it lasted lasted for over two years starting in 2003 and managed to steal millions of secret military documents without being detected. And it's pretty certain that the attack could not have been carried out by typical hackers. It was too sophisticated, and too concerted and effort over too long a time to be the work of a bunch of Chinese civilian geeks.
But the most important point is that it was not intended to destroy its targets, military style. Stuxnet was. It had two components: one that disrupted the nuclear centrifuge, and another that provided readings to the operators of the centrifuge that indicated that it was operating properly. Meanwhile, the centrifuges were forced to spin out of control until they were destroyed - all without the operators knowing a thing. Estimates are that it set the Iranian nuclear weapons program back three years.
In fact, Stuxnet signaled the beginning of cyberwar as a reality of our world. Rather momentous, I'd say. Maybe that's why you hear so little about it.
Oh, and let's not forget about the cyber-attack by Russia on Estonia. Remember that? That's when hackers managed to infect virtually the entire cyber infrastructure of the country during a dispute between Russia and Estonia. The result of the attacks was the collapse of the country's financial system. People couldn't use their banking system, couldn't effectively do simple things like buy milk, bread and gasoline. Estonia caved to Russian demands. Do you blame them?
So back to the flash crash: if no one can seem to figure out what caused the flash crash, would it be imprudent to speculate that maybe - just maybe - it was some sort of cyber-attack? Maybe even a kind of test attack - maybe.
The point here is that cyber attacks have not only increased, but the kinds of attacks have grown in type and sophistication. On April 8, 2009, the Wall Street Journal published an article that said that "Cyberspies have penetrated the U.S. electrical grid and left behind software programs that could be used to disrupt the system" sometime in the future. No one knows for sure who did this and no one knows how to disable the software programs currently in place. No one knows the intention of the people who did this.
So the flash crash being the result of some sort of cyber-attack doesn't seem all that crazy, does it?
Comments