There's much discussion, especially in the US, but elsewhere, too, of what constitutes an act of war in cyberspace. SIGNAL publishes a piece by retired Admiral Stavrides deploring muddled thinking on how to recognize a cyber attack. Just Security says no serious authority doubts the law of armed conflict applies to cyberspace as well as physical space, but the conditions under which a cyber operation could warrant physical retaliation are murkier. The Hill reflects recent (bipartisan) Congressional sentiment favoring expansive views of hacking as terrorism or war, but Defense One thoughtfully points out the problems such conflation involves. (Defense One's piece was written before yesterday's sad horrors in Paris, but one might with profit contrast the attack on Sony with the massacre at Charlie Hebdo.)

Norse's contention of insider involvement in the Sony hack receives support from ex-Sony employees who mutter about motive and opportunity.

Anti-Assad hackers hit a UN target-of-opportunity in Pakistan.

Apparent ISIS-sympathizers of the "CyberCaliphate" work mischief in Maryland, attacking Salisbury television station WBOC's website and Twitter account.

F-Secure explains why it thinks Duke the work of Russian security organs.

AOL takes steps to close malvertising on its ad network.

Inadvertent release of the wrong documents in a Freedom-of-Information-Act response exposed US water and power vulnerabilities (doubly unfortunate given the unrelated indictment of a NOAA employee for stealing dam information that may have found its way to China).

Management unrest (the obverse of labor's) appears in cyberspace: a lawsuit alleges Netjets impersonates its (unionized) pilots on Twitter.