I was probably one of the few Kossacks who supported a limited strike against Syria. But a story in this morning's New York Times has me seriously rethinking whether a strike would be worth it. Apparently the FBI is doing something it hasn't had to do in a long time--issue a warning about possible retaliatory cybertattacks by pro-Assad hacktivists.
The government has warned federal agencies and private companies that American military action in Syria could spur cyberattacks, the officials said. There were no such alerts before previous military operations, like the one against Libya in 2011.
[snip]
During the current crisis, the Syrian Electronic Army, a group of hackers who claim to support Mr. Assad, has successfully attacked a number of American companies, including The New York Times.
“The new element here is the cyberattack,” one American official said. The group has been tied to not only shutting down the Web site of The Times but also for causing disruptions on the Web sites of The Washington Post and The Financial Times.
The SEA's attack on the NYT was very sophisticated. It managed to hack into the Old Grey Lady's domain name registrar, MelbourneIT, and change the DNS information. Given how much effort that took, it's all the more reason to not make the same mistake we made with Iraq. That is, we knew we were going to win, but didn't make sure that the risk was worth it. Even if we do manage to make Assad think twice about using chemical weapons, is it really going to be worth it if the SEA or other hacktivists backing him manage to cause a major catastrophe? I think not.
If we are going to take action in Syria, we first have to make sure there are measures in place to keep retaliatory measures to enough of a minimum that there won't be a disaster at home. It's not letting the terrorists win. It's common sense to protect the home front.