Loading

International Hacking and Its Potential Use in Future Wars By ava Duane

Background

What is Cyber Security

About Cyber Security, the Department of Homeland Security says,

As our lives become more digitized, cyber breaches not only become more profitable to the hacker, but more detrimental to the hackee. Recently, sophisticated nation-states and cyber actors have show capability to disrupt and destroy necessary online or digitalized services.

Cyber Security is the is the protection of computer systems from tampering, theft and disruption. It includes restricting physical access to the computer, as well as protecting against harm from network access, data and code injection. Most attackers look for Vulnerabilities -- a weakness in design, implementation, operation or internal control -- that they can exploit to gain the type of access they want. In the cyber world, countermeasures can be taken to minimize a vulnerability and prevent attacks. They also include methods of discovery and reporting that can help minimize the damage of an attack after it has happened.

Examples of International Hacking

When people think of “Hackers”, many times the image that comes to mind is of a nerdy guy sitting in a dark room only illuminated by the computer he is viciously typing away at. He is probably hard at work convincing your grandparents that they need to wire money to a Nigerian Prince. While this happens, it is far from the only type of hacker out there. Countries hack each other all the time. In fact the United States itself hacks other countries -- sometimes from submarines! The top five hacking countries are China, the U.S., Turkey, Brazil and Russia. For any government, hacking is often used as a form of spying. So it makes sense that, as we have all gone online, so has international spying. However, it is one thing to gain access to sensitive government information and another to shut down hospitals with ransomware. This happened last year in England in the biggest recording ransomware attack to date. While the hackers responsible were not a country, they were using a stolen cyber weapon developed by the N.S.A and funded by American taxpayer dollars. The same kind the U.S used to hack the Iranian nuclear program. Going forward, what kind of hacking can be seen as “necessary spying” and what will be considered an act of aggression or even war?

Current Situation

Russian Hacking in U.S. Election

In the past year, the United States Intelligence Community has concluded with high confidence the involvement of the Russian government -- instructed by Putin -- in the 2016 presidential election. A January 2017 assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) stated that Russian leadership preferred presidential candidate Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian president Vladimir Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's electoral chances and "undermine public faith in the US democratic process." Since then, several investigations have been opened concerning Russian interference in the 2016 election. A few cybersecurity experts and firms were able to link the hacks on the DNC to Russian intelligence groups due to the similar attack patterns they had seen them deploy before. Investigations as well as actions from Trump himself have also linked the Trump administration to the Russian hacks. This brings a whole new meaning to corruption. I interviewed the Vice President of Marsh Cyber Practice, Jeffery Batt. He formally served as an Associate Deputy General Consel at the U.S. Department of Defense. When asked whether he thought America had sufficient cyber security in place, he replied, "No, as a country, the U.S. does not have sufficient cybersecurity in place to combat international attacks on critical infrastructure. Due to the inherent nature of internet communications and the advantage that offensive cyber operations have over defensive, there is never going to be a 100% security. That said, the U.S. public and private sector do not prioritize training, mandatory software patching and updates, and creating a cyber fluent workforce as much as it should." However, in light of the recent events, perhaps the United States will start prioritizing cyber security.

Equifax Hack

The recent Equifax hack has really help drive home the importance of cyber security to the American people. It used to be if you you got hacked you could just change your passwords and be on you merry way. However, you can’t change a birthday, or a social security number and once thats taken it remains vulnerable information. Equifax breech hackers stole data including the full names, birth dates, Social Security numbers, home addresses and more from 143 million Americans. That data could be used to steal people’s identities, take out fraudulent loans, or power social engineering attacks where hackers call their bank or cell phone carrier and use info only he/she should have to trick them into providing access to their accounts. These days voting booths, power grids and even cars are being hacked into. With many of our basic necessities at risk why wouldn’t warring countries utilize cyber warfare? None of their own would be put on a dangerous frontline and plenty of damage could be done.

Going Forward

What does this mean for International Politics?

Some countries are taking the initiative to crackdown on cyber breaches. The EU will implement the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on the 25 of May 2018. Its intention is to give the “power back to the people” per se. One thing that it does is it legally requires companies to report a breach to their consumers 72 hours after it has been discovered. This is a pretty small window compared to the 40 plus days it took Equifax. These stricter regulations prompt companies to become smarter with their tech and have better protection systems in place to protect against and detect breeches. These seem to be an emerging trends in international data breech laws. South Africa’s Protection of Personal Information Act (POPI) is another such example. As to whether or not the United States needs to implement its own from of GDPR, Mr. Batt said, "I’m not sure every nation needs to implement its own version of the GDPR…..

There is little political will or possibility of a federal breach law or set of privacy rights that would be universally applicable across the U.S. Privacy law enforcement such as that exercised by the FTC is probably as robust as things may get for the foreseeable future."

While there is being progress made in cyber security, it really is only geared to protect against personal information theft. This covers credit card numbers, social security numbers and other individual based information. However, there has been increasing cyber meddling by foreign governments in other countries affairs. For example recent elections in France, the United States and possibly Germany were shown to have been tampered with by Kremlin backed hackers. Unfortunatly, there is nothing it place to combat this rise in international hacking. When asked what he thinks should be done to combat this rise, Mr. Batt answered, "To limit the scope and impact of damaging cyber attacks, both the US and the international community more broadly needs to have more disincentives and consequences for actors to carry out such attacks. Examples include more damaging economic sanctions against countries that harbor or hire advanced hacking groups, and potentially kinetic action if the nature of the cyber incident warrants such a forceful response (for example, an attack on U.S. critical infrastructure that caused significant physical, financial, or loss of human life)."

Yet, Mr. Batt went on to explain why nation states have turned to more damaging forms of hacking. For many smaller, less powerful nations, hacking is a tool that allows them insert themselves as a global presence, despite their limited resorces ans size. As put by Mr. Batt, "Regarding the future of international hacking,

Financially speaking, hacking is a very economical geopolitical tool; its far easier for a small nation-state to catch up and punch above its weight in the cyber sphere than it is through more traditional means of nation-state competition (such as a standing army, planes, high-end weapons, etc). Currently, some countries have already turned to hacking as a means of physically compromising infrastructure (the U.S. and Israel with Stuxnet is an example, the Russian attack on the Ukrainian power grid and alleged North Korean responsibility for NotPetya are others). Whether this tendency increases going forward depends how much the nation-state has to lose in terms of the current geopolitical climate, and also their fears/concerns about being isolated or threatened. Using this barometer, the U.S. and China, and also to an extent Russia, still gain a lot from the current geopolitical order, the U.S. most of all. On the other side of the coin is North Korea, and to a lesser extent Iran, Venezuela, and others….North Korea in particular has little to lose, feels threatened and isolated, and so on, so accordingly, it can be expected to use its now-considerable cyber attack capabilities to maximum and unpredictable effect. I realize this is somewhat vague, but these considerations (and the gauge of a nation-state’s willingness to use such cyber tools to undermine broad economic and political stability) will naturally ebb and flow based on the nature of geopolitical events. For example, North Korea likely felt more isolated and threated this summer than it does now, Russia the same back in 2013-2014 when U.S. and European sanctions took a heavy toll, and so on". The most important thing to realize is that not only does the cyber world allow small countries to go head to head with superpowers, but it is those smaller less respected and more isolated countries -- like North Korea -- that would be the most inclined to use cyber force.

Could this change how we view warfare?

As Mark Clayton from the Christian Science Monitor described in an article titled The New Cyber Arms Race:

However, how much of war can actually be taken over for cyber? As Mr. Batt put it in our interview, "Cyber attacks will never be a wholesale replacement for kinetic (aka physical) warfare, but military reliance on cyber tools and means of communication will continue to increase, thus expanding the size and scope of potential vulnerabilities." This means that not only can nations inflict damage on an enemy through bullets, bombs and so forth, but can also cut out military communication or even gain control of drones via cyber hacking. Another problem is what cyber warfare would even mean. The ambiguity of the topic, according to Mr. Batt, "...enables nation-states to get away with subversive actions that it otherwise could not in the physical 'real' world. Arguably, nations are fighting in cyberspace now, although it would be a stretch by conventional definitions to describe such conflict as 'warfare'."

Sources

Web Sources (For Annotations, Visit....

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WLUtVqFlyPxhbz0PyL70YTfXFxNuDnnMLy1FH2csa5Q/edit# )

  1. “Cybersecurity.” Department of Homeland Security, 6 Oct. 2017, www.dhs.gov/topic/cybersecurity.
  2. Fung, Brian, and Andrea Peterson. “America Uses Stealthy Submarines to Hack Other Countries' Systems.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 29 July 2016, www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/07/29/america-is-hacking-other-countries-with-stealthy-submarines/?utm_term=.098d807d2a8c.
  3. 03, 2017 Mar. “Top 5 Countries Where Cyber Attacks Originate.” Security Today, 3 Mar. 2017, securitytoday.com/Articles/2017/03/03/Top-5-Countries-Where-Cyber-Attacks-Originate.aspx?Page=2.
  4. Perlroth, Nicole, and David E. Sanger. “Hackers Hit Dozens of Countries Exploiting Stolen N.S.A. Tool.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 12 May 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/world/europe/uk-national-health-service-cyberattack.html.
  5. “Russian Interference in the 2016 United States Elections.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 6 Jan. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections.
  6. “Background to ‘Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections’: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution.” 6 Jan. 2017, www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf.
  7. Constine, Josh. “We’Re All Equif*Cked.” TechCrunch, TechCrunch, 10 Sept. 2017, techcrunch.com/2017/09/10/unsecurity/.
  8. 46halbe. “Software to Capture Votes in Upcoming National Election Is Insecure.” CCC, CCC, 7 Sept. 2017, ccc.de/en/updates/2017/pc-wahl.
  9. Goodin, Dan. “Hackers Lie in Wait after Penetrating US and Europe Power Grid Networks.” Ars Technica, Ars Technica, 6 Sept. 2017, arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/09/hackers-lie-in-wait-after-penetrating-us-and-europe-power-grid-networks/.
  10. Maggi, Federico. “The Crisis of Connected Cars: When Vulnerabilities Affect the CAN Standard.” TrendLabs Security Intelligence Blog, TrendMicro, 21 Aug. 2017, blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-security-intelligence/connected-car-hack/.
  11. Clayton, Mark. “The New Cyber Arms Race.” The Christian Science Monitor, The Christian Science Monitor, 7 Mar. 2011, www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2011/0307/The-new-cyber-arms-race.
  12. Bradshaw, Alexandria. “Emerging Trends in International Data Breach Law.” Georgetown Law Technology Review , Georgetown Law, 10 Jan. 2017, www.georgetownlawtechreview.org/emerging-trends-in-international-data-breach-law/GLTR-11-2016.

Expert: Jeffery Batt

Does the USA have sufficient cyber security in place to combat international attacks on critical infrastructure such as hospitals, power grids and public transportation? If not, what do you think they need to implement in order to improve?

- No, as a country, the U.S. does not have sufficient cybersecurity in place to combat international attacks on critical infrastructure. Due to the inherent nature of internet communications and the advantage that offensive cyber operations have over defensive, there is never going to be a 100% security. That said, the U.S. public and private sector do not prioritize training, mandatory software patching and updates, and creating a cyber fluent workforce as much as it should.

How much warfare do you think will potentially shift to cyber? What would our increasing reliance on technology mean in the case of an international conflict? Do you think any future wars will be primarily fought through hacking?

- Cyber attacks will never be a wholesale replacement for kinetic (aka physical) warfare, but military reliance on cyber tools and means of communication will continue to increase, thus expanding the size and scope of potential vulnerabilities. Due to attribution concerns that are inherent with digital communication, increasing reliance on technology could lead to mistaken blame in the aftermath of a damaging incident, and also enables nation-states to get away with subversive actions that it otherwise could not in the physical “real” world. Arguably, nations are fighting in cyberspace now, although it would be a stretch by conventional definitions to describe such conflict as “warfare”. Cyber conflict and/or subterfuge is a more accurate classification in my opinion.

What would we need to do as a nation and an international community to best protect against breaches? Should every country implement its own version of GDPR?

Where do you feel the future of international hacking is going? In other words, do you think countries that had used hacking simply as a way to spy on other countries or to be disruptive (like the past election) will turn to hacking as a way to physically compromise infrastructure etc. in ways that would not just undermine our economy and political system, but also our safety and security?

- To limit the scope and impact of damaging cyber attacks, both the US and the int’l community more broadly needs to have more disincentives and consequences for actors to carry out such attacks. Examples include more damaging economic sanctions against countries that harbor or hire advanced hacking groups, and potentially kinetic action if the nature of the cyber incident warrants such a forceful response (for example, an attack on U.S. critical infrastructure that caused significant physical, financial, or loss of human life).

- I’m not sure every nation needs to implement its own version of the GDPR…..Europe views privacy rights as a fundamental human right, some Asian countries/entities like Hong Kong and Japan feel similarly, but in the U.S., privacy rights in the cyber event/breach context are more balanced with commercial interests and are separately largely controlled at the state level. There is little political will or possibility of a federal breach law or set of privacy rights that would be universally applicable across the U.S. Privacy law enforcement such as that exercised by the FTC is probably as robust as things may get for the foreseeable future

- Regarding the future of international hacking, countries have used hacking so far as an “all of the above” tool….to spy, to steal technology, to be disruptive, for economic gain, and so on. Financially speaking, hacking is a very economical geopolitical tool; its far easier for a small nation-state to catch up and punch above its weight in the cyber sphere than it is through more traditional means of nation-state competition (such as a standing army, planes, high-end weapons, etc). Currently, some countries have already turned to hacking as a means of physically compromising infrastructure (the U.S. and Israel with Stuxnet is an example, the Russian attack on the Ukrainian power grid and alleged North Korean responsibility for NotPetya are others). Whether this tendency increases going forward depends how much the nation-state has to lose in terms of the current geopolitical climate, and also their fears/concerns about being isolated or threatened. Using this barometer, the U.S. and China, and also to an extent Russia, still gain a lot from the current geopolitical order, the U.S. most of all. On the other side of the coin is North Korea, and to a lesser extent Iran, Venezuela, and others….North Korea in particular has little to lose, feels threatened and isolated, and so on, so accordingly, it can be expected to use its now-considerable cyber attack capabilities to maximum and unpredictable effect. I realize this is somewhat vague, but these considerations (and the gauge of a nation-state’s willingness to use such cyber tools to undermine broad economic and political stability) will naturally ebb and flow based on the nature of geopolitical events. For example, North Korea likely felt more isolated and threated this summer than it does now, Russia the same back in 2013-2014 when U.S. and European sanctions took a heavy toll, and so on.

Credits:

Created with images by tigerlily713 - "code hacker data" • Markus Spiske - "Green Matrix rain on a screen" • methodshop - "hacking cyber hacker" • Luca Bravo - "Code on a laptop screen" • Alessio Lin - "Time traveler."

NextPrevious

Report Abuse

If you feel that the content of this page violates the Adobe Terms of Use, you may report this content by filling out this quick form.

To report a copyright violation, please follow the DMCA section in the Terms of Use.