Talk:Scenario 02: Cyber espionage against government departments: Difference between revisions
Reviewer331 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Reviewer331 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
The topic is an important one and the scenario is well-written. Believe it needs to be fleshed-out somewhat.Corrections are in the text, comments and questions below. |
The topic is an important one and the scenario is well-written. Believe it needs to be fleshed-out somewhat.Corrections are in the text, comments and questions below. |
||
⚫ | |||
(1) Keyword "privacy" added because of the personnel emails being hacked and personal details published: privacy rights are implicated. |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
(3) "Nobody claims responsibility for the attack immediately after the MFA's discovery of the incident and publication of the fact that it has occurred." - is the addition ok? Otherwise - why would anyone claim responsibility, if there's been no public acknowledgement? |
|||
⚫ |
Revision as of 07:22, 5 November 2018
This is a sample comment. Kubomacak (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Comments and questions in addition to text edits
The topic is an important one and the scenario is well-written. Believe it needs to be fleshed-out somewhat.Corrections are in the text, comments and questions below.
(1) Keyword "privacy" added because of the personnel emails being hacked and personal details published: privacy rights are implicated.
(2)"an email server and several other servers belonging to its Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) have been infiltrated" - where are the servers located? If we're testing diplomatic law, important to note that the servers are both on state territory and in diplomatic / consular missions abroad.
(3) "Nobody claims responsibility for the attack immediately after the MFA's discovery of the incident and publication of the fact that it has occurred." - is the addition ok? Otherwise - why would anyone claim responsibility, if there's been no public acknowledgement?
(3)