I ordered this a few days ago after seeing plenty of good reviews: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18465875-countdown-to-ze...

It covers the Stuxnet worm, which was allegedly built by the US and the Israeli government to target the Iranian nuclear program.

Oh yeah, would be interesting. Also some comparison of different teams suspected in working for govs

Counterargument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_HXPm-PN1g&t=1h31m53s

(Not about what the title says)

no serious commenter would say that for f-secure.

As the security researcher who wrote the sentence, I fully understand the apprehension for using 'cyber' but the sad truth is it seems to be the easiest way of conveying the message to the general audience.

I also wholeheartedly agree that 'cyber' as of now is a dangerously poorly defined concept that gets thrown in front of pretty much any other word. Hopefully someone will step up and come up with a mutually agreeable definition for it soon. And then get everyone to use that definition, which is the real struggle ...

Cyber is a poorly defined concept that we need to reform, but given its massive mindshare and the geopolitical reasons* around its use we are probably stuck with the word (but hopefully not the current definition).

* There is a reason that the US military went from talking about information-warfare to cyber-warfare and it has much to do with Russian positions on information sovereignty.

"Cyber" (with due respect to Norbert Wiener) is a useful search term right now because it means exactly one thing.

Interestingly, "cybersecurity" (one word) and "cyber security" (two words) yield distinct sets of results, and one is more useful than the other.