A Quote by Michael Hayden

The problem with cyber weapons for a country like ours is the ability to control them. — © Michael Hayden
The problem with cyber weapons for a country like ours is the ability to control them.
When people are talking about cyber weapons, digital weapons, what they really mean is a malicious program that's used for a military purpose. A cyber weapon could be something as simple as an old virus from 1995 that just happens to still be effective if you use it for that purpose.
Once cyber crosses into the realm of the physical, then it's a physical attack, but it starts with cyber. And the idea of a cyber attack being able to take control of machines - that becomes a scary process.
An element of virtually every national security threat and crime problem the FBI faces is cyber-based or facilitated. We face sophisticated cyber threats from state-sponsored hackers, hackers for hire, organized cyber syndicates, and terrorists.
If Iraq's weapons are weapons of mass destruction, surely ours are weapons of growth and nurturing.
Cyber weapons won't go away, and their spread can't be controlled. Instead, as we've done for other destructive technologies, the world needs to establish a set of principles to determine the proper conduct of governments regarding cyber conflict.
I don't want to use the term "nuclear weapons" because those people in Iran who have authority say they are not building nuclear weapons. I make an appeal to the countries who do have nuclear weapons. They don't consider them a nuclear threat. But let's say a country that doesn't have nuclear weapons gets involved in building them, then they are told by those that already have nuclear weapons that they oppose [such a development]. Where is the justice in that?
The problem is not gun possession; the problem is manufacturing guns - who's making these guns and how they gettin' out on the street? There shouldn't even be guns for us to possess. If there wasn't any, then it wouldn't be a problem. So we need to go to the source of the problem. They're making all these wars so they can make more weapons and sell them, and they wanna kill more people - they need population control,'cause people have to die in order for this world to continue. That's the government's goal right now.
Ours is a stable country. Ours is a sensible country. And ours is a fundamentally decent country.
Custom developed digital weapons, cyber weapons nowadays typically chain together a number of zero-day exploits that are targeted against the specific site, the specific target that they want to hit. But it depends, this level of sophistication, on the budget and the quality of the actor who's instigating the attack. If it's a country that's less poor or less sophisticated, it'll be a less sophisticated attack.
Cyber weapons provide the tantalising possibility of being able to cripple the enemy without inflicting lasting damage on them.
All of the threat streams that we have, from all aspects, militarily, economically, supply chain issues, foreign investment, technologically, cyber issues, cyber warfare, 5G, telecommunications - China is in all of those and they are the only country to be in that space and the only country that threatens America supremacy.
We have to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is - it is a huge problem.
Take cyber-capabilities. We have way more cyber-capability than Russia do. We could intervene in their elections easily. We choose not to do so because we're a different country. That's what Obama was trying to say.
In addition, we will improve the Department of Defense's cyber capabilities. A new threat, a new problem, very expensive, and we're not doing very well with cyber.
In any event, the problem in Iran is much bigger than weapons. The problem is the terrorist regime that seeks the weapons. The regime must go.
A digital currency issued by a central bank would be a global target for cyber attacks, cyber counterfeiting, and cyber theft.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!