Craigslist founder Craig Newmark says the next serious threat to the United States may not begin with missiles, soldiers, or even a visible attack, but with hackers quietly probing the digital systems that control water, electricity, vehicles, communications, and thousands of ordinary devices that most people rarely think about as national security risks.
Speaking with comedian Theo Von on the podcast This Past Weekend, Newmark described cybersecurity as a new form of warfare and warned that foreign adversaries could exploit poorly protected infrastructure to create widespread disruption, particularly in rural areas where smaller utilities may not have the money or staff needed to defend increasingly connected systems.
His concern is not that every internet-connected appliance will suddenly become a weapon, but that modern life now depends on so many digital systems that attackers no longer need to break into one massive target to cause serious damage.
Newmark Says Cyberwar Is Already Taking Shape
Von asked Newmark where his interest in cybersecurity came from and whether it was connected to attacks against Craigslist, which Newmark founded in the 1990s.
Newmark said Craigslist had dealt with attempts to disrupt service and steal proprietary information, although he described the company itself as relatively simple compared with the kind of systems that concern him today.
Over time, he said, his attention shifted from protecting a website to the much broader question of how hostile actors could manipulate systems that people depend on in the physical world.
He used military drones as one example.
Newmark said an autonomous drone that gathers targeting information could become especially dangerous if an adversary managed to hack it, change the information it sends, or even turn the system against the force operating it.
Von immediately recognized how different that kind of threat is from a traditional battlefield attack, because a military would not necessarily need to lose control of an entire network before suffering serious consequences.
That is part of what makes cyberwarfare so difficult to think about. A relatively small intrusion can become physically destructive if the software being compromised controls machinery, weapons, transportation, or infrastructure.
Everyday Devices Could Become Part of the Problem
Newmark then moved from military systems to much more ordinary technology, arguing that internet-connected appliances can create vulnerabilities people rarely consider.
He mentioned water heaters, factory boilers, ovens, industrial painting robots, and other connected equipment that can be monitored or controlled remotely.
In theory, he said, an attacker who gained access could manipulate those systems in dangerous ways, such as forcing equipment to operate at unsafe temperatures and potentially causing fires.
Von noted that a single hacked oven might sound trivial, but the calculation changes if the same tactic could be repeated hundreds or thousands of times.
Newmark agreed, saying first responders can manage a handful of isolated incidents, but a large coordinated wave would create a much more serious emergency.
That example may sound dramatic, yet the underlying point is fairly straightforward: the more physical systems are connected to networks, the larger the number of possible entry points becomes.
A cyberattack does not need to look spectacular at first to have serious consequences.
Water and Power Systems Worry Him Most
Newmark said his biggest concern involves utilities, particularly water and electricity.
He pointed to warnings about Volt Typhoon, a hacking campaign tied in public reporting to Chinese actors targeting U.S. critical infrastructure, and told Von that attackers have been trying to infiltrate systems that control the movement of water and electricity.
He said many of the systems that worry him most are not located in major cities with large cybersecurity budgets, but in smaller communities where rural water and power providers may lack the resources to defend themselves against sophisticated attackers.
That weakness, he argued, could become strategically important during a larger international conflict.
Newmark offered a hypothetical scenario in which an adversary wanted to discourage the United States from supporting an ally abroad. Rather than attacking American military forces directly, it could try to demonstrate that it had the ability to turn off water or electricity in U.S. communities.
The goal would not necessarily be to destroy infrastructure permanently, but to create fear, disruption, and political pressure.
Von responded that even temporary outages would quickly become serious if they happened alongside other problems.
That is where Newmark’s argument becomes especially convincing. Modern infrastructure is interconnected enough that failures can compound, meaning a power outage can affect communications, transportation, water systems, businesses, and emergency response at the same time.
Cars Could Become Another Target
Newmark also warned that modern vehicles are increasingly networked computers on wheels.
As cars become more dependent on software, digital control systems, and internet connectivity, he said, attackers may gain new ways to interfere with them.
He suggested that even disabling a relatively small number of vehicles in a dense city could create major traffic problems.
In New York, for example, he argued that shutting down around 100 cars during rush hour could produce widespread gridlock, particularly if that disruption happened at the same time as power or communications problems.
Von pointed out how quickly the situation could escalate if several systems failed together.
Newmark’s broader point was not that hackers can simply push a button and shut down every car in America, but that cyberwarfare increasingly involves looking for weak points whose effects spread well beyond the original target.
A traffic jam created by disabled vehicles is one problem. The same jam blocking emergency vehicles during a blackout is something much more serious.
Newmark Wants Communities to Build Stronger Networks
Despite the warnings, Newmark said he sees reasons for optimism because cybersecurity experts, nonprofit groups, governments, and local organizations are already working on the problem.
He described efforts to build what he called “networks of networks,” bringing together people who can share expertise and help smaller organizations improve their defenses.
Newmark said he has been using his philanthropy to fund some of that work and wants local governments, utilities, nonprofits, veterans, and other groups to cooperate rather than treat cybersecurity as a problem each organization has to solve alone.
He compared the mindset to the way communities were expected to look out for one another during World War II.
The analogy was not meant to suggest the country is already in the same kind of conflict, but to argue that resilience depends partly on people understanding that protecting infrastructure is a shared responsibility.
Newmark also emphasized recovery, saying utilities should be designed so that if a natural disaster or cyberattack knocks them offline, they can return to service quickly.
That is an important distinction because perfect prevention is unrealistic. A strong cybersecurity strategy also has to assume that some attacks will succeed and prepare for how systems recover afterward.
He Says Americans Need to Take Smaller Threats Seriously Too
Newmark said individuals also have a role to play, particularly because foreign attackers often use ordinary devices and home networks as stepping stones into larger systems.
He mentioned a campaign encouraging people to pause before responding to suspicious messages, especially phishing attempts designed to trick users into giving away access.
Von noted that people often do not think about the number of ways they can be targeted until something unusual happens to a device they use every day.
Newmark agreed and said the same basic principle applies from a home camera to a major utility: people need to recognize abnormal behavior quickly and know where to turn for help.
He also mentioned a new cybersecurity effort at Vanderbilt University associated with retired Gen. Paul Nakasone, the former head of U.S. Cyber Command, and described a more active “defend forward” philosophy in which defenders do not simply wait for attacks to arrive.
The Warning Is About Fragility, Not Just Hacking
Newmark’s message throughout the conversation was less about one particular attack than about the number of systems that could become vulnerable at once.
America’s digital infrastructure has become deeply embedded in ordinary life, from cars and appliances to power grids, water systems, military equipment, and local government networks.
That creates efficiency and convenience, but it also means the country’s weakest digital defenses can become disproportionately important.
A small rural utility may not appear strategically significant in isolation, yet if enough similar systems are vulnerable, they collectively create a much larger national problem.
Newmark believes that is why cybersecurity should be treated less like a narrow technology issue and more like basic infrastructure protection.
His warning to Von was ultimately about resilience: the United States may not be able to prevent every intrusion, but it can make sure that critical systems are harder to compromise and quicker to recover when something goes wrong.
In a conflict where the first major disruption could arrive through a computer rather than across a border, that preparation may matter as much as the defenses Americans can actually see.
Mark grew up in the heart of Texas, where tornadoes and extreme weather were a part of life. His early experiences sparked a fascination with emergency preparedness and homesteading. A father of three, Mark is dedicated to teaching families how to be self-sufficient, with a focus on food storage, DIY projects, and energy independence. His writing empowers everyday people to take small steps toward greater self-reliance without feeling overwhelmed.
