Is Cyber a new warfare? Debate (catch all)

[Stan]

'No one is ready for this'

Now, cyber-attacks are on the rise and Nato's top computer experts have gathered in a military base in Estonia to prepare cyberwar defences

And the coup de grace? Hidden programs inside the country's electricity grid might then jump to life, shutting down power supplies, creating targeted blackouts, even sending nuclear reactors into freefall.

Such a doomsday scenario might sound drastic - more of a cyber-apocalypse than a cyber-attack - but it is one that has been outlined many times by the Metropolitan Police, MI5 and the Joint Intelligence Committee. The US Navy investigator and cybercrime specialist Kenneth Geers characterises the typical response of powerful individuals as they hear this doomsday scenario outlined as a sort of unbridled terror inspired by technology. "More than one senior official said they've had so many cyber-briefings now that they don't want to turn their computers on any more," he says.

Behind the security gates and razor wire, however, this is a different kind of military operation - the unlikely frontline in Nato's attempt to prevent a global cyberwar. K5 is where the alliance's top computer experts - high-ranking researchers, academics and security specialists - work in teams to analyse potential cyberthreats, and predict exactly how Nato will fight virtual wars in the future.

[selil]

Stan,

I've decided most in the military are clueless to the real cyber risks. My frustration finally culminated in a blog post I won't spam y'all with. The problem is that people (government and civilian) think a denial of service is cyber war. It isn't. There is more to "cyber" than simplistic examples from the world wide web, and the meat and potatoes of the Internet. The virii in the electric grid computers is a vague and unsophisticated exercise in fear, uncertainty, and doubt. They're trying to feed the funding cycle.

I need a beer.

[Schmedlap]

I've decided most in the military are clueless to the real cyber risks... There is more to "cyber" than simplistic examples from the world wide web, and the meat and potatoes of the Internet.

I sat through several hours of explanations of the arrays of threats - the highly sophisticated, state-sponsored ones. I think every five minutes a hand went up and some field-grade officer would ask/say something along the lines of, "how the f do you defend against that?" or "so, we're basically screwed is what you're saying" or "so we now have MAD with cyber war?"

After that, I started thinking twice about keeping my cash in my E-Trade account. But, then I thought about it some more. If the entire financial system were erased, then I would probably have other concerns - like how much ammo and bottled water I have.

[wm]

Two interesting cyberwar-related stories from the WSJ:

Pentagon Jams Web, Radio Links of Taliban: The Obama administration is starting a broad effort in Pakistan and Afghanistan to prevent the Taliban from using radio stations and Web sites to intimidate civilians and plan attacks, according to senior U.S. officials.

and CNET:

Brits use SEO strategies to fight terrorism: Islam is getting a little help from Britain's Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism, which says it plans to train government-approved groups to "flood the Internet" with "positive" interpretations of that religion in an online fight against radicalization. The OSCT plans to coach moderate Islamic groups on how to manipulate the Google rankings of their Web sites in order to boost the online profile of moderate voices in the Muslim community…. It is widely understood that terrorists use the Web to radicalize and recruit the vulnerable and disaffected; search engine optimization, or SEO, training is part of the campaign to counter this, a Home Office representative confirmed to The Register.

[ridek]

Interesting article on WSJ.com today:

Computer spies have broken into the Pentagon's $300 billion Joint Strike Fighter project -- the Defense Department's costliest weapons program ever -- according to current and former government officials familiar with the attacks.

Many details couldn't be learned, including the specific identity of the attackers, and the scope of the damage to the U.S. defense program, either in financial or security terms. In addition, while the spies were able to download sizable amounts of data related to the jet-fighter, they weren't able to access the most sensitive material, which is stored on computers not connected to the Internet.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124027491029837401.html

[ridek]

This is the second short response for a class I am taking. Enjoy!


On April 21st, the Defense Department announced that spies hacked into the $300 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter project. Full details of the cyber attack may never become available to the public, but the Department of Defense quickly revealed that the amounts of F-35 data dowloaded were "sizable", and speculation places the origin of the attack in China. This cyber attack follows a chain of escalating security breaches, including Air Force air-traffic control, and the U.S. electric grid (on April 4). In the last six months, the Pentagon spent $100 million repairing damage caused by network breaches (WSJ.com).

But what exactly is 5th generation warfare? According to Thomas Hammes, the U.S. currently fighting the 4th generation of warfare—underscored by a transition from “maneuver warfare” (third generation) to targeting multiple networks (political, economic, social, and military) and making strategic goals “unachievable or too costly for the perceived benefit” (Hammes, 2006). Fourth generation warfare does not focus on the “military victory” of the first three generations, but destruction of the political will to wage war. It is from this mindset we see the new prominence of non-conventional warfare and tactics, such as violent insurgencies and transnational terrorism. This definition begs the question: “is cyber warfare a form of non-conventional warfare”

The general theme between generations of warfare is the gradual expansion of the battlefield at the expense of restrictions--for example, the dynamics of forth generation warfare include a “social” dimension previously ignored by third generation. If we look to expand the scope today’s wars, we must move beyond “physical warfare”. Thus a fifth generation may be defined by kinetic (conventional and unconventional warfare) and non-kinetic attacks on political, economic, social, and military networks in order to make strategic objectives unachievable or too costly for the perceived benefit. I believe that cyber warfare pushes the boundaries forward in such a way that makes fifth generation an inevitable reality. In spite of the addition of “non-kinetic” tactics such as cyber warfare, physical attacks will remain just as relevant as they are today—a few well-placed, heavy chains or IEDs on a high voltage transmission line can bring down the U.S. power grid just as cheaply and effectively as a hacker.

The recent surge of high-profile cyber attacks on the United States serve as a litmus test for fifth generation warfare. Congress recognizes the existence (though not necessarily the extent) of a threat, and allocated $17 billion to buffering government network security. American utility providers are also taking steps to secure technologically dependent systems. However, the symbolic nature cyber attack on the F-35 project should not be overlooked—tomorrow’s wars will depend on $300 computers as much (or more) than a multibillion dollar super jet.

Sources:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124027491029837401.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123914805204099085.html

Hammes, Colonel Thomas X., and Usmc. The Sling and the Stone: On War in the 21st Century. Zenith Press, 2006.

[Stan]

Hey Sam,
Being the computer novice I am, I have to wonder what the term Cyber War is now being defined as

I recall the Russian "commissar" reporting that "I wouldn't have called it a cyber attack; it was cyber defense," the official, Konstantin Goloskokov, told the paper. "We taught the Estonian regime the lesson that if they act illegally, we will respond in an adequate way."

So, I'm wondering if DDoS is now an oversimplified term when it in effect shut down government and banking institutions for over a month.

Regards, Stan

Stan,

I've decided most in the military are clueless to the real cyber risks. My frustration finally culminated in a blog post I won't spam y'all with. The problem is that people (government and civilian) think a denial of service is cyber war. It isn't. There is more to "cyber" than simplistic examples from the world wide web, and the meat and potatoes of the Internet. The virii in the electric grid computers is a vague and unsophisticated exercise in fear, uncertainty, and doubt. They're trying to feed the funding cycle.

I need a beer.

[selil]

So, I'm wondering if DDoS is now an oversimplified term when it in effect shut down government and banking institutions for over a month.

Regards, Stan

Yes it is. I have been unable to get ANY traction with thought leaders about this. But here try this.

Assumption:

1) The military through doctrine places cyber warfare squarely in the realm of information operations such as defined by JP3-13.

2) Though information is a component of all conflict in the end kinetic wins wars.

3) To be truly useful cyber warfare must have a kinetic component.

The following is in addition to a LOT of stuff. So if it appears I'm jumping in the middle, well, I am...

The cognitive model most people use to think about "cyber warfare"

Starts with the "World Wide Web" A set of applications and protocols such as web pages, and services like Television and Internet (sic) Radio. The world wide web in most cases is stuff delivered through your browser.

In the middle is "The Internet" a set of services best described by MAC addresses and TCP/IP addresses. This is the place that IP spoofing and Denial of Service attacks occur.

If we were to draw a stack such as the OSI 7 Layer model and add an 8th layer at the top calling it people/politics we would have just described and could describe layers that are attacked with different effects. Though, so far, we have not killed anybody or done any real damage.

Just for grins and giggles lets add a bottom layer to that stack. Let's call it kinetic effect. Below the physical layer of the OSI 7 Layer model. Now placing it here is for simplistic sake it plugs in actually slightly higher.

This new 9th layer is where SCADA and death & destruction occur. You also now have recreated a fairly good representation of the cognition through physical envelope of cyber space. A more Gibsonian approach than military writing suggests.

At the kinetic layer we open valves and in a very small wars/guerilla way we attack the adversary using their own technology against them. We open the water valve creating a disaster like Bohpal, we rupture gas mains like in Bellingham Washington, we divert spent gasses the wrong way in fuel fields, and the best part? Well the best part is there is no current forensic technology to trace these attacks and they are often unsecured to the point of pity.

A properly trained person could kill a freaking lot of people and not have to get off the couch.

DDOS, is passe' welcome to the real world of cyber warfare.

[selil]

Consider whether a cyber incident is an attack, war, or something else. Not all violence is war. Some is crime, some is football. Not all cyber incidents are warfare. Was the F35 incident espionage? Was it simply trespass? Motive can be a determining factor.

Cyber is as old as the military. Though cyber was coined by Norbert Wiener in "Cyberneticss: or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine", and cyber space was coined by William Gibson in "Neuromancer" the actual act of command and control through various means reaches back to the beginning of time.

So, and this is key, is cyber warfare actually just a continuation of war (simple) and destruction of an enemies command and control?

How does stealing or infiltrating the F35 project rise to that test?

[Hacksaw]

I always read one of your cyber posts just before leaving work so I'll have a good reason to go home and kick the cats...

[selil]

I always read one of your cyber posts just before leaving work so I'll have a good reason to go home and kick the cats...

I apologize to your cats. I have quit posting much on cyber warfare as I realized most people a) don't believe it, b) don't care. So the cats should be safer.

[Schmedlap]

A properly trained person could kill a freaking lot of people and not have to get off the couch.

Not to nitpick, but it that accurate? Can someone who is not state-sponsored really pull that off? And, supposing they could, do you think they could avoid detection and get away with it?

Also - do you know of any legal issues related to cyber warfare that could answer this RFI?

[quanticle]

The way I see it, information warfare, specifically the targeting and attack of the enemy's command and industrial infrastructure is an adjunct to other, more "conventional" forms of warfare, not a form of warfare in itself. As Selil put it, armies have been targeting others' infrastructure since the dawn of warfare.

As I see it, cyberwar isn't a form of warfare per se, it is a tactic that is used as part of a wider strategy. Its just like bombing the enemy's roads or power lines to slow his movements and reduce the effectiveness of his fighting forces.

[selil]

Not to nitpick, but it that accurate? Can someone who is not state-sponsored really pull that off? And, supposing they could, do you think they could avoid detection and get away with it?

Also - do you know of any legal issues related to cyber warfare that could answer this RFI?

The answer is yes it is accurate. State sponsorship is actually a problem for response, but knowledge is the challenge not national status. Succinctly AT&T is not a nation state but with the flip of a switch in the AT&T NOC the world go's dark. That switch could "proverbially" be flipped by anybody.

Yes I have an excellent idea and will post it for you.

[selil]

The way I see it, information warfare, specifically the targeting and attack of the enemy's command and industrial infrastructure is an adjunct to other, more "conventional" forms of warfare, not a form of warfare in itself. As Selil put it, armies have been targeting others' infrastructure since the dawn of warfare.

As I see it, cyberwar isn't a form of warfare per se, it is a tactic that is used as part of a wider strategy. Its just like bombing the enemy's roads or power lines to slow his movements and reduce the effectiveness of his fighting forces.

There is another level of cyber warfare that exists, where bits become weaponized but that is for other threads.

[William F. Owen]

Fourth generation warfare does not focus on the “military victory” of the first three generations, but destruction of the political will to wage war. It is from this mindset we see the new prominence of non-conventional warfare and tactics, such as violent insurgencies and transnational terrorism. This definition begs the question: “is cyber warfare a form of non-conventional warfare”

So 4GW is like every other war. It's always been about political will. Nothing new here.

Thus a fifth generation may be defined by kinetic (conventional and unconventional warfare) and non-kinetic attacks on political, economic, social, and military networks in order to make strategic objectives unachievable or too costly for the perceived benefit. I believe that cyber warfare pushes the boundaries forward in such a way that makes fifth generation an inevitable reality.

5GW is as much rubbish as 4GW, both of which are invented problems looking for a unnecessary solution. So...

"Defined by kinetic (conventional and unconventional warfare) and non-kinetic attacks on political, economic, social, and military networks in order to make strategic objectives unachievable or too costly for the perceived benefit."

- What does that mean? Can you give me specific example of each type of action and how it would gain the outcome you suggest, in a way that has not been seen before?

[Distiller]

Sounds a bit like the descent into a perpetual state of war. Or maybe just a side effect of the global reach of certain tools. I would call what is described in the article about the F-35 spy incident "strategic warfare", or simply an intelligence operation.

Seeing either of the current colonial uprisings as "4th generation" warfare is questionable. It's just asymmetric and in that as old as mankind, or like Mao with a different ideological goal.

[ridek]

As I see it, cyberwar isn't a form of warfare per se, it is a tactic that is used as part of a wider strategy. Its just like bombing the enemy's roads or power lines to slow his movements and reduce the effectiveness of his fighting forces.

Exactly. The idea of 5GW does not imply a shift to "cyber warfare" in its purest sense, but an additional tactic and broadened "battleground" in warfare. Over the last few years, the number of network attacks has grown exponentially. It is a dramatic change from bombing a road or power line("kinetic") versus taking down computer support systems electronically ("non-kinetic"). Both can knock out a power grid, but kinetic is much more costly and invasive (to destroy and/or rebuild) than non-kinetic. At the same time, one does not make the other irrelevant in 5GW warfare.

Cyber warfare is interesting in that it is not limited to targeting military operations. Sure, you can take down radar systems and military communications (leaving your enemy blind and deaf) and achieve a tactical victory on the battlefield. On the other hand, you can shut off televisions, phone lines, power plants, sewage plants, etc. Maybe the population's leverage (after living in their own crap without electricity for a few weeks) is enough to force a government to "surrender" before a shot is even fired. It would not be any different than the objectives of an embargo.

[GC13]

Maybe it's a good thing you didn't link to that blog post... I dug it up and started reading but had to switch to skimming because it's so depressing!

Is there any reasonable prayer of things being fixed before we're violently shown the error of our complete and total lack of cyber security? For such a severe problem that's in the news every six months or so, you'd think there'd be a lot more clamoring about fixing the problem.

[Ron Humphrey]

If it wouldn't be more beneficial and effective to use the terms Lethal and Non-Lethal when discussing "cyber". It seems like too often the conversation turns to comparing apples and carrots.

Perhaps when you begin thinking of all the applications computers are a part of and simply remind yourself what happens if they stop working or even work incorrectly the possibilities for nonlethal to become very lethal are much more apparent.