The next coup? On FBI warnings of a CCP cyber attack that could destroy America’s critical infrastructure and the WEF prediction of a cyber-pandemic
Pre-Covid “pandemic preparedness” and “cyber pandemic preparedness” from a logical and cybersecurity perspective
This post was motivated by the recent warning by the FBI director about imminent CCP-backed cyber attacks on American citizens and communities. The hackers are purportedly preparing to “wreak havoc” on critical infrastructure systems.
The warning was issued by Christopher Wray on January 31, 2023, as e.g. reported here and here and here.
This warning raises a few questions: Why are we suddenly being indoctrinated into the danger of a CCP cyber attack? And why would they suddenly, as the warning highlights, be widespread and systemic?
Do some agencies know something we don’t? Or, are we seeing a very familiar playbook rolled out again where people are being indoctrinated into believing something absolutely scary is coming, and in turn accept the “only” countermeasure that is deemed possible, and thereby allow things they normally would not?
Why do we, purportedly, suddenly know so many specifics about what is to happen? Why are we being informed of all these details, about who might/will be doing the attacks but also what the targets will be?
The predicted target will be critical infrastructure like communications, energy, transportation, water sectors, and other systems that will involve “every American.”
Indeed, it is true that an attack on a critical infrastructure system could result in substantial “real-world harm” (as specifically stated by Wray). The cyber community has long been working on understanding and mitigating the most severe types of risks. Ironically, one additional new type of threat does not seem to have been on their radar but then became “announced” by the WEF.
Here, I want to dissect these warnings so in case we are faced with something new, we are better prepared.
Exploiting the same underlying issue - how to know the truth
Suppose we find MSM reporting such a dreaded and far-reaching cyber-attack. It may involve some power systems, water, communication systems, banking, or whichever.
Or suppose those attacks involve the US banking system giving the impression of a complete financial breakdown.
How on earth can the rest of us know the legitimacy of such an attack?
Just wondering.
All of this reminds me of very recent events. The parallels cannot be ignored.
Notably, the New York Times Post puts it this way: “Chinese cyber attacks are intended to 'induce societal panic' across America, security directors tell Congress.”
Will it be about fear-mongering again? If we do hear the news about a cyber attack, it will be interesting to see who should panic, who will be penalized, and how.
Will we be able to witness the predicted devastating effects or be able to validate the truth of such a global attack? Frankly, many of us have no way of knowing what’s happening behind closed doors of most businesses. And why should we be able to tell what did, or did not, happen to the finance sector, electric grid, or other cyber-physical components of critical infrastructure systems?
Cyberattacks are real and their effects can be tragic. But why is there suddenly the promise they are now becoming global, affecting all?
Pandemic pre-knowledge and narratives
The “promised” global cyber threats have too many familiar features, especially if we consider what unfolded before the pandemic.
Last few decades, and years in particular, there have been increased warnings of new pandemics. There are countless examples of this narrative. One, given by Baric about pre-pandemic potentials I find highly illustrative. Here, he is pretending to be joking as to what’s causing much panic. After recounting how various pathogens seemingly kill millions of people, some even in one year, he rapidly shifts to emerging viruses in the 21st century:
“Clearly the most dangerous viruses are coronaviruses….If you don’t believe me, you can believe Bill Gates. He clearly thinks that 10 million people could easily be killed in the next decade or so…. When naive populations come into contact with new pathogens, the results can be devastating…. Rather than having trucks or trainloads of human bodies…. you get the idea… There are really no places to hide from emerging pathogens… they are basically about 24 hours away. … The numbers can be pretty horrifying.”
Stephane Bancel, Moderna CEO, recalling a conversation he had in 2019:
“I said how we make a billion dollars next year? And you look at me a bit funny say what? I said yeah we need to make a billion dollars next year. There's going to be a pandemic.”
Event 201: Less than 3 months before the announcement of the new coronavirus, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation hosted this infamous tabletop exercise in New York, NY, putting forth clear steps in “response to a severe pandemic in order to diminish large-scale economic and societal consequences.” Uniquely, this simulation exercise focused on “public/private partnerships” (some may think these could more effectively be described as the “censorship industrial complex”). Ironically, the “simulation” exercise knew, beforehand that the “next severe pandemic will not only cause great illness and loss of life but could also trigger major cascading economic and societal consequences.”
Ironically, in hindsight, it does not appear that this exercise focused on steps to mitigate the effects of a pandemic. Ironically, one of the officially stated recommendations was (emphasis added):
“Countries, international organizations, and global transportation companies should work together to maintain travel and trade during severe pandemics. Travel and trade are essential to the global economy as well as to national and even local economies, and they should be maintained even in the face of a pandemic….. The fear and uncertainty experienced during past outbreaks, even those limited to a national or regional level, have sometimes led to unjustified border measures, the closure of customer-facing businesses, import bans, and the cancellation of airline flights and international shipping.”
Given that during the Covid pandemic the opposite happened, some may think the “exercise” was, instead, to discover other “gaps.” The recommendations also included a push “to combat mis- and disinformation,” specifically to develop “the ability to flood media with fast, accurate, and consistent information.”
The WEF has been promising the “inevitable” global cyberattack in analogy to the Covid pandemic
A few months ago, Whitney Webb warned about global cyber attacks, which, in analogy to the Covid pandemic would lead to some digital lockdowns out of which people would only be released if they accepted some type of digital vaccination. To be honest, it seemed a bit far-fetched and I did not pay close attention.
It was only recently, that I realized these were not Webb’s words. Indeed, all of this has in detail been described by the WEF which first began to stir fear about this in 2020.
Here are their warnings of a coming cyber pandemic (analogs to the Covid pandemic emphasized):
“We should prepare for a COVID-like global cyber pandemic that will spread faster and further than a biological virus, with an equal or greater economic impact…. a cyber pandemic is probably as inevitable as a future disease pandemic…. A cyberattack with characteristics similar to the coronavirus would spread faster and further than any biological virus…. The cyber equivalent of COVID-19 would be a self-propagating attack using one or more “zero-day” exploits, techniques for which patches and specific antivirus software signatures are not yet available. Most likely, it would attack all devices running a single, common operating system or application.”
In light of the parallels to the pandemic, this is shocking. For example, note the emphasis on the global spread - where the emphasis is not on the health of individuals, or availability of critical infrastructure (water, electricity, etc); by contrast, the focus is on the economic impact. I also find it interesting that a cyber attack (indeed, in analogy to the attack on the entire globe via pandemic/response measures) would be particularly dangerous because of its novelty - zero-day exploits describe a new vulnerability in a piece of software that is not publicly known yet; the point is, there are no “antivirals.” And the threat is that it would have a broad impact, infecting all devices that are programmed by a single operating system (indeed, a single narrative).
The WEF threat continues:
“Since zero-day attacks are rarely discovered right away… it would take a while to identify the virus and even longer to stop it from spreading.”
It would be tempting to speculate on the pandemic analog - which could indeed mean that the “novel coronavirus” was also not “discovered” right away, that it took too long to identify it, and that no steps were taken to stop it from spreading….
What is very clear is: (a) the predicted impact on individuals, and (b) the only way out that the WEF wants to allow:
“If cyber-COVID mirrored the pathology of the novel coronavirus, 30% of infected systems would be asymptomatic and spread the virus, while half would continue functioning with performance severely degraded – the digital equivalent of being in bed for a week. Meanwhile 15% would be “wiped” with total data loss, requiring a complete system reinstall. Finally, 5% would be “bricked” – rendering the device itself inoperable.
“The end result: millions of devices would be taken offline in a matter of days.
“The only way to stop the exponential propagation of cyber-COVID would be to fully disconnect all vulnerable devices from one another and the internet to avoid infection. The whole world could experience cyber lockdown until a digital vaccine was developed. All business communication and data transfers would be blocked. Social contact would be reduced to….”
I don’t think I need to elaborate any further. At this point, it does not matter that their numbers do not add up at all. The end goal is a “digital vaccine” and people like Whitney Webb think this stands for central bank digital currency (CBDC).
While we do not know for sure this is the case, we can likely get some good idea when we ask what the Covid pandemic counterpart has been.
mRNA vaccine prediction
During the last few years, a discussion between Dr Fauci, Rick Bright, and co during a conference at the Milken Institute has been circulated on several social media platforms. I think it is relevant to watch and listen to what was said already in October 2019:
The main agenda of this meeting was how to realize a global (influenza) vaccine. Also, since its inherent flaws could not be brushed aside, the idea of an even better vaccine technology (mRNA “vaccines”) was brought forth.
Specifically, after 45 minutes, they also suggested there could be an outbreak in China from a bat virus. They are excited about this because the sequence, without the virus, could be shared around the world. Based on that, the mRNA vaccines can easily be made with existing technology.
It's critically important to see in which context the viral outbreak in China was described. Only a few minutes earlier (after 32 minutes), there was “the urgent call for an entity of excitement out there that’s completely disruptive, that’s not beholden to bureaucratic strings and processes."
We don’t know what this refers to. But a pandemic could easily fall into this category. It seems to fit with the context. Indeed, after 42 minutes Dr Fauci fusses about the problem - which is money:
Apparently, what Specter is asking is: if the 2009 pandemic had been much more deadly, would that have been a better thing for humanity? Fauci then goes on to say, no, because we have had pretty serious pandemics in 1957 and 1968. He stresses "That did not change much."
Change what? Some may speculate he was implying we need a more serious pandemic or something else that is better suited to address the real issue.
Immediately following (after 43 minutes), they emphasize what the real problem is - that of funding - and they lament the fact that all the focus is only during "the time of crisis" - where money is thrown at the crisis only "but then everything drops off" (all this is in line with the statement by Daszak I believe, cited by Dr. David Martin "To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, we need to increase the public understanding for the needful medical countermeasures such as a pan-influenza or pan-coronavirus vaccine."). They do stress that they want "this time to be different" than in previous crises and they want "sustained action"
After 51 minutes, they stress the need to get industry on board, namely, "to create a context in which "they will get rewarded" and to decrease "the barriers" that currently exist related to the uncertainty (of the new mRNA technology). And they emphasize "financial incentives or guaranteed purchases" or "resolving the regulatory questions" for them so they won't have to walk down the cliff not knowing if the technology will work (I think we now call it all forms of indemnity that the Pharma Concerns were granted). And around 55 minutes, they emphasize the infusion of resources and regulatory activities....
Those who won’t accept the digital vaccine will be reduced to unacceptable living situations
The WEF, in their warning of the coming cyber-pandemic, goes on to elaborate on the type of life they envision for those who do not accept their digital vaccine.
“The end result: millions of devices would be taken offline in a matter of days. …. Social contact would be reduced to people contactable by in-person visits, copper landline, snail-mail or short-wave radio. A single day without the internet would cost the world more than $50 billion. A 21-day global cyber lockdown could cost over $1 trillion….Cyber lockdown would also introduce novel challenges for digitally dependent economies. During the 2020 Australian bushfires, power outages and damage to mobile phone infrastructure gave citizens a newfound appreciation for battery-operated FM radios. But if cyber-COVID ravaged a country, which radio stations would still operate without digital recording and transmission systems? Would states like Norway, which has completed its transition to digital radio, be able to roll back? … It would be impossible for manufacturers to rapidly scale up production to meet demand, particularly if manufacturing and logistics systems were affected. For systems that survive, there would be a significant bottleneck in patching and reinstallation.”
The message seems to be that unless there was a “solution,” offered by the WEF, countries would be forced into horrible living situations. Many may not survive (not even those who have been already accustomed to eating bugs, I guess).
But sadly, if people are not warned, many could fall for the digital vaccine believing that otherwise, their doom would seem unavoidable.
Indicators of a real cyber-attack
A real cyber-attack is likely characterized by the opposite of fear-mongering and MSM media announcements. For example, in the context of hacks on banking systems,
Companies that are susceptible or those that have been hacked will try to not have this information broadly disseminated. Which bank, for example, would want to openly admit that their cyber system had proven insecure or that their system could be broken into? It would do the bank no service if a cyber attack on their institution became known or if their security flaws were widely announced. It would make sense that such info would not be widely circulated, as one narrative, with the agenda to get everyone afraid about the safety of their financial institution!
Agencies will rather publicly overrate the security of their system rather than cause customers to panic, take their money out, and go elsewhere.
In case of a real attack, the ones who were attacked would likely do everything possible to appease those who may have been affected hoping that news of the attack would not be disseminated.
Under a real attack, in the context of real players and agencies (I mean those performing their true tasks), everything will be done to protect and support the public. After all, they would not want to lose their clients or that they tell everyone about their bad experience.
Conclusion
It seems ironic that the WEF (and other infamous 3-letter agencies) try to roll out a new pandemic, following the exact same script as for the Covid-19 pandemic.
Apart from these “predicted” parallels, there are no legitimate indicators of the feasibility of a cyber pandemic nor that the “suggested” response measures would make any sense at all.
It seems instructive to learn how cyber security professionals gauge emerging cyber risks. For example, recently, the agency tasked with E.U. cybersecurity matters put forth a comprehensive list of TOP 10 emerging cybersecurity threats - but neither of those involves a computer virus that could spread faster than a real virus and which would be able to infect a large part of the global digital system.
Interestingly, some of the emerging threats this agency warns about include: Advanced disinformation campaigns, Rise of digital surveillance authoritarianism/loss of privacy, Skills shortage, Cross-border ICT service providers as a single point of failure, and Artificial intelligence abuse.
Notably, this does include a “single point of failure” - which is a part of a system that, if it fails, takes down the entire rest of the system too. From a cybersecurity perspective, SPOFs are highly undesirable and enormous efforts have been devoted for their prevention. Indeed, the goal of cybersecurity has always been to strengthen skill and individuality, and system implementations have always aimed to be flexible, variable, and independent.
Given the numerous security by design and by default practices, implementations, and laws, it seems difficult to see how the specifically imagined threat of a global cyber attack could suddenly become a reality - unless people fall for the hype.
Beyond doubt, hackers continuously become more sophisticated. So do their defenders. There have always been countless professionals, groups, and individuals who have managed to mitigate or prevent attacks.
The WEF, “predicting” that the novel cyber virus would infect and spread millions of devices globally, gave some illustrative examples of major cyber attacks. I find it interesting that they specifically highlight the WannaCry hack. Ironically, this example is proof of the fallacy of their narrative. Even though this ransomware attack caused significant loss, it was stopped in its tracks by one single 22-year-old who discovered the “kill switch.”
No, we do not need to panic about a cyber threat that will take down the entire Internet. Hackers have not suddenly developed superpowers. The best powers lie with intelligent smart individuals. There has always been a back-and-forth between attackers and defenders. It’s not going to change now. We are not going to be wiped out by some global cyber attack unless we believe it.
And this is one of the main reasons I wrote this note. Ironically, the E.U. cybersec agency has predicted that deepfakes and AI abuse are among the greatest emerging threats. I think many of us agree, indeed.
Should we see the familiar playbook rolled out again (figure below), possibly complemented by various digital tricks such as AI-generated fake images or videos, I hope we will ask for proof of the reality of the purported attack, and if it cannot be given, accept it as a demonstration of a dirty crime.
Committing a crime and then blaming someone else (here, it’s China and no one else) is not new. It’s a characteristic of humans who have lost their true identity as capable, wise, caring, and loving creatures. I trust that those who know humanity’s true nature can put an effective end to this all.
(In a short accompanying “Note” I will recount a famous incident attributed to King Solomon, which I believe, we are all capable of doing.)