Every time I see the term "digital weaponry" or a synonym, I think of a bleak future where citizens are jailed for possession of "military grade encryption systems".
I don't know if it's because I'm inside the industry, if software is inherently easier to create and duplicate, or if the damage is somewhat smaller, but I really can't see any software as a weapon.
Malware that specifically targeted (inadequately protected) control systems for critical infrastructure (think power/water/transport) would not be unlike an EMP bomb in my opinion.
A weapon is just a type of tool used with intent to harm.
>A weapon is just a type of tool used with intent to harm.
While that is correct, it can be extended to pretty much everything. In the end, weapons don't kill people, people kill people.
And while this will probably will get me labeled as conspiracy theorist, I still think that a lot about stuxnet was way too fishy, and it was way too conveniently timed for all the security facists that are raving about "Cyber War".
I think a more accurate description would be "a type of tool created with the intent to harm". You can use your kitchen knife to stab someone, but it's not its main purpose.
Rifles and bombs don't kill people by themselves either, but are a damn good indication of intent and their simple presence facilitates dangerous situations.
I'd say a weapon is a tool whose only use is harm to other men.
The line gets a little blurry around things like guns and knives, but I think it still holds. For example, an AK-47 is a weapon, while a bird shotgun can be used as a weapon.
I don't know if it's because I'm inside the industry, if software is inherently easier to create and duplicate, or if the damage is somewhat smaller, but I really can't see any software as a weapon.
A tool used in war? Sure. But a weapon? Hardly.