Is Cyber a new warfare? Debate (catch all)

[kaur]

eWMDs

By John J. Kelly and Lauri Almann

The internet has enabled the bountiful benefits of eCommerce, and the incorporation of eCommerce into our economies has, in turn, created a dependence on the Internet, similar to our dependence on water, electric, and telephone utilities. Unlike other utilities, however, communication utilities can be crippled without even necessarily being physically attacked — they can be attacked in cyberspace. Such a cyber attack can result in loss of life, loss of wealth, and serious impediments to the flow of goods and services. In a modern just-in-time economy, these disruptions have the potential to cause catastrophic damage. Cyber attacks present a grave new security vulnerability for all nations and must be urgently addressed.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/p.../35543534.html

[Surferbeetle]

Today's VOA news...

Three main Internet cables from Italy to North Africa were inexplicably severed in the second such incident in a year, plunging Egypt and several other Arab countries into a communications crisis. Some suspect that sabotage was involved, although it is too soon to tell.

Last year, Internet cable cuts caused major economic havoc from Egypt to the Persian Gulf and on to India. Those cuts took days to repair, forcing banks and other corporations to resort to old-fashioned technology to conduct business.

Is it just me or is VOA popping up more and more as a source on Goggle News...

[Stan]

"We know that if someone shoots missiles at us, they're going to get a certain kind of response. What happens if it comes over the Internet?,"

The United States is unprepared for a major hostile attack against vital computer networks, government and industry officials said on Thursday after participating in a two-day "cyberwar" simulation.

The game involved 230 representatives of government defense and security agencies, private companies and civil groups. It revealed flaws in leadership, planning, communications and other issues, participants said.

[cabanab]

Has anyone heard of any cyber warfare in the current Hamas/Israeli conflict?
I know Israel gets hammered everday but was wondering if there was an upswing of activity.
Thanks.

[Stan]

Cyber Warfare 2009, 28-29 JAN 09, London, UK

Recognizing And Fighting Advanced Persistent Threats
The Overlay Of Military And Civilian Cyber Security
The First International Inter-Ministerial Cyber Defense Exercise: CYBER SHOT 2008
Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence
National Response In New Threat Environment: Hierarchies Versus Networks

* Estonia crisis 2 years on: Reflection on the response by Estonia
* Analysis of the evolving threat environment (CND)
* Future development of Computer Network Defense for appropriate security

Much more at the links

[cabanab]

here is a link:
http://cyberwarfaremag.wordpress.com...ct-on-the-web/

[cabanab]

In an Op-ed piece in the NY Times, it is requesting that the Obama Administration start looking at cyber initiatives more closely. I am finding part of that struggle is just in lableing such things as cyberwarfare or is it information/computer warfare etc. Just trying to get a discussion going here.
Attached is the Op-ed, really not much we dweebs haven't heard, read, thought or spoken of.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...21duelfer.html
Enjoy.

[selil]

Since 1970 every year there is a substantive report written on computer/information/cyber security and what is needed to accomplish it. In 1980 the concepts of computer warfare was really getting going. Though the roots of cyber warfare can be found in the late 1950s work on cybernetics and even further back in the ideas of command and control through technology.

Not that I know much about cyber warfare being an academic and all, but it would seem for anything to rise to the actual level of warfare all of the associated real world effects, needs, issues, and elements of war would have to exist. If zipping a high speed round through the cranial mass of a radio operator is an effective method of interrupting command and control, and a computer network operation has the same capability of interruption without the associated loss of life. How would you rate each on the test for perfidy?

Much of what we see reported in the press would not seem to rise to the level of cyber warfare if our test is correct. Not that I know much about computers but defacing websites, and other hooligan tactics of disruption would not seem to be warfare anymore than riots are warfare. There may be death, and injury but a riot is not war. The Georgia and Estonia examples were very entertaining examples of the power of non-state actors and super-empowered individuals through technology to disrupt but not wage war.

There always seems to be a debate between the low intensity conflict practitioners of COIN, small wars, 4GW etc.. and the High Intensity Conflict practitioners with Armor and 3GW blitzkrieg tactics. Regardless of the thinking behind it cyber warfare is deeply entrenched in the use of the communications systems and in any spectrum of conflict it would seem to be lurking about in the command and control system.

As a separate entity of conflict cyber warfare could be considered to be disruption (severing and changing communications), destruction (wholesale slaughter of bits and bytes), and even kinetic (opening the flood gates on dams, blowing up generators remotely, causing weapons systems to cook off while in storage). But, I recently read that as an academic I likely don't have much to add to this discussion of practitioners.

With that I'm off to have the elbow patches repaired on my sport jacket.

[William F. Owen]

There always seems to be a debate between the low intensity conflict practitioners of COIN, small wars, 4GW etc.. and the High Intensity Conflict practitioners with Armor and 3GW blitzkrieg tactics. Regardless of the thinking behind it cyber warfare is deeply entrenched in the use of the communications systems and in any spectrum of conflict it would seem to be lurking about in the command and control system.

Which means that Cyber warfare is not much different from EW. Maybe it is a subset of EW or "Spectrum Denial." I have no problem with Cyber as long as militaries concentrate on disrupting militarily relevant means and the GCHQ/NSA go after the other stuff. Forming a "Cyber Corps" is just dumb.

As a separate entity of conflict cyber warfare could be considered to be disruption (severing and changing communications), destruction (wholesale slaughter of bits and bytes), and even kinetic (opening the flood gates on dams, blowing up generators remotely, causing weapons systems to cook off while in storage). But, I recently read that as an academic I likely don't have much to add to this discussion of practitioners.

...and what I said before. If Cyber degrades combat power I am all for it, the same way as I am all for EW, which is actually not as well exploited as it should be.

If someone can sensibly differentiate between "Cyber" and "EW" I'm all ears.

With that I'm off to have the elbow patches repaired on my sport jacket.

Black leather with studs and Rabbit hair trim?

[Stan]

But I enjoy the sarcasm and otherwise hate being behind a computer

I for one have troubles with the mere use of "cyber" other than in a good film with Arnold Schwarzenegger

Wilf's comments seem to be some of the best examples in simple, easy to use terms (for a guy like me that must perform without the benefit of comms other than our wireless robot and X-ray).

IMO cyber warfare much like EW contributes to the success of IO. Cyber warefare possesses both offensive and defensive tactics, and when employed correctly can not only disrupt, but also exploit your enemy.

DDoS is far too simplistic a term for what most continue to assume occurred in Estonia. Georgia's use of/reliance on computers (that is if you happen to own a computer and live within 5 kilometers from the city center where one might connect) is not even remotely similar. In any case, the so-called non-state actors were not waging war, they were employing cyber in support of their ongoing operations.

It's all relative and darn simple for a minion like me. To employ such cyber operations in say Africa would be a true waste of time (similar to shutting off the electricity in a country that barely has 4 hours of electricity per day). Shut the power off in say West Bend for 8 hours (intentionally) and you'll have a full scale riot on your hands (assuming you don't have a 5KW in your back yard).

[wm]

Which means that Cyber warfare is not much different from EW. Maybe it is a subset of EW or "Spectrum Denial." I have no problem with Cyber as long as militaries concentrate on disrupting militarily relevant means and the GCHQ/NSA go after the other stuff. Forming a "Cyber Corps" is just dumb.



...and what I said before. If Cyber degrades combat power I am all for it, the same way as I am all for EW, which is actually not as well exploited as it should be.

If someone can sensibly differentiate between "Cyber" and "EW" I'm all ears.

JP1-02 defines EW thus:

electronic warfare — Military action involving the use of electromagnetic and directed energy to control the electromagnetic spectrum or to attack the enemy.

Cyberwar is the larger use of EW and other means to attack the enemy's cyber capabilities while defending one's own. For example, were I to put sugar in the gas tank of your generator so that it quits and you can no longer run your computer network, that would be a form of cyberwar. It would not be EW. Were I to use my Jedi light saber (aka laser/directed energy) to cut the cables that connect your generator to the distribution panel so you can no longer run your computer network, that would be a form of cyberwar that happens to also be EW.

By the way, based on the JP definition. I guess that if an everyday enemy rifleman happened to stumble through your high powered jamming signal and get cooked (sorta like what happens to meat in your microwave), he would be an EW casualty, but not a cyber casualty.

[William F. Owen]

For example, were I to put sugar in the gas tank of your generator so that it quits and you can no longer run your computer network, that would be a form of cyberwar.

So if I used a 454kg LGB to kill the computers would that be "cyberwar" or just an airstrike?

This is what worries me about people trying to come up with new terms to explain stuff we don't actually need to explain. Computers and networks are primarily used for command and control. Attacking the technology associated with that function is primarily an area of EW.

[wm]

So if I used a 454kg LGB to kill the computers would that be "cyberwar" or just an airstrike?

This is what worries me about people trying to come up with new terms to explain stuff we don't actually need to explain. Computers and networks are primarily used for command and control. Attacking the technology associated with that function is primarily an area of EW.

I guess that would depend on what funding source you used to acquire the bomb and then deliver it (or what funding line you were trying to beef up and then defend in your next budget submission).

Sarcasm aside, I think we often get so wrapped up in trying to sort out a set of descriptions at such excruciatingly tiny levels of granularity because the bean counter accountants out there force it upon us. How many cost centers and work units do we really need to break a task down to when we are tracking money? In the US DoD anyway, I submit that a lot of our problems are a direct reflection of the complexities in the PPBES.

[selil]

So if I used a 454kg LGB to kill the computers would that be "cyberwar" or just an airstrike?

This is what worries me about people trying to come up with new terms to explain stuff we don't actually need to explain. Computers and networks are primarily used for command and control. Attacking the technology associated with that function is primarily an area of EW.

This is the kind of question that makes it really hard to have a discussion. If a terrorist group uses a nuclear bomb is that global thermonuclear war? If with two non-warring soldiers look at each other and one stabs the other. Is that an act of war or simply murder?

Cyber warfare in some ways is the transition from using kinetic weapons as the primary method of interruption of command and control, espionage, etc. To using the cyber tools themselves to make war. The evidence suggests (extensive analysis of attacks), that in cyber warfare the tools are the terrain. That is a fairly substantial leap and substantive shift in thinking about war. To say a tank is the terrain rather than the land would be ludicrous. Yet in some ways that is exactly what we say about cyber warfare.

[William F. Owen]

This is the kind of question that makes it really hard to have a discussion.

Well not my intention. My primary interest is discussion.

Cyber warfare in some ways is the transition from using kinetic weapons as the primary method of interruption of command and control, espionage, etc. To using the cyber tools themselves to make war.

Hence my scepticism. The best way to disrupt command and control is to kill commanders. If some type of "network attack" capability adds additional degradation or even complete denial, then all good. I am not saying "cyber" has no merit. Clearly it does, and it would seem to be pretty well understood, at least at the conceptual level. My point is that it's real utility is possibly as an augmenter to lethal kinetic means and not an alternative.

[selil]

The best way to disrupt command and control is to kill commanders. If some type of "network attack" capability adds additional degradation or even complete denial, then all good. I am not saying "cyber" has no merit. Clearly it does, and it would seem to be pretty well understood, at least at the conceptual level. My point is that it's real utility is possibly as an augmenter to lethal kinetic means and not an alternative.

How about going a bit deeper. Using cyber to open the spill ways on a dam and flood a valley below? Especially a dam well protected by all that nice anti-air and instead of using a $100K bomb you use the enemies bits/bytes against them? What about cooking off an adversaries munitions while they are stored? How about opening the safety valves or misconfiguring the safety systems of a major chemical plant in an otherwise technologically unsophisticated country? Kinetic effect from cyber activities. And, yes I stayed completely away from command and control on purpose just to give examples.

[wm]

The best way to disrupt command and control is to kill commanders. If some type of "network attack" capability adds additional degradation or even complete denial, then all good. I am not saying "cyber" has no merit. Clearly it does, and it would seem to be pretty well understood, at least at the conceptual level. My point is that it's real utility is possibly as an augmenter to lethal kinetic means and not an alternative.

Wilf,
You might want to qualify your use of best. I define "best" as using the most effective and efficient means to achieve my desired end. If I could disable my opponent's command and control more effectively and efficiently using something other than direct action(that is by not putting a squad on the ground and getting half of them killed in the process of doing a DA mission to take out (kill) my opponent's commander while he is in his TOC), then that would be best. If commanders cannot command because they do not have situational awareness or cannot communicate their commands to their subordinates, then the goal has been achieved.

We used to call this comand, control and communications countermeasures (C3CM) in the 80s. But this is the 21st Century, and we apparently need new buzzwords.

[William F. Owen]

Wilf,
You might want to qualify your use of best. I define "best" as using the most effective and efficient means to achieve my desired end.

Concur. I just want effective! Can a purely non-kinetic attack deliver shock to an effective degree? I wonder.

[cabanab]

It is best suited as a supplemental form of warfare. Whether it is considered EW, if it has the capability of knocking anything out prior to "boots on the ground" grunts doing what they do best, then so be it. It is obvious that this form of warfare will be exploited in future conflicts. Russia and China are prime examples, not to mention, groups such as the Russian Business Network, as proxies. Incidents such as Titan Rain prove we are being reconned and have been for some time.

[cabanab]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01...ocked_offline/

The Russian Empire rearing its ugly head again.