There’s a war going on every day that the majority of Americans don’t know about. Though bullets and missiles haven’t been fired over traditional battlefields, soldiers on the digital frontlines have been engaged in cyber conflict for years.
Despite possessing the capacity to engage in full cyber warfare, the United States has predominantly refused to employ such tactics even as the threat continues to grow.
In 2010, former Director of National Intelligence, Dennis C. Blair told Congress, “Malicious cyberactivity is occurring on an unprecedented scale with extraordinary sophistication.” One year later, acting DHS Deputy Undersecretary Greg Schaffer told reporters that U.S. utilities and industries are becoming increasingly vulnerable to cyber-attacks as they wire their industrial machinery to the Internet.
And this week, cyber security firms discovered a computer virus that is using service members’ network security cards to hack into government networks.
Yes, America is embroiled in a virtual war, and unfortunately, we are not winning.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other senior DoD officials have called cyber-attacks one of the greatest threats to America’s national security, and an area in which the U.S. military is the farthest behind.
It isn’t that we don’t have the know-how to protect ourselves: According to a 2011 Los Angeles Times article, “the NSA and Cyber Command have the world's most advanced capabilities … and could undoubtedly wreak havoc on the networks of any country that attacked the U.S.,” but there are reasons why the U.S. is behind the cyber curve.
First, most people in the U.S. are oblivious to the threat of cyber-attacks and therefore create opportunities for cyber spying and hacking, using weak passwords to protect confidential information and opening documents without knowing the sender.
Second, the U.S. is only willing to engage in cyber warfare as a last-ditch military option.
The New York Times reported in October that the Obama administration debated cyber warfare before the American-led strikes against Libya, but instead relied on more traditional military routes. An Obama official said, “These cyber capabilities are still like the Ferrari that you keep in the garage and only take out for the big race and not just for a run around town, unless nothing else can get you there.”
It is becoming increasingly clear that countries like China and Russia have no misgivings about using cyber warfare as a highly effective and inexpensive means to obtain information and improve their national superiority.
As cyber security expert Joseph Steinberg explains in Why the U.S. is losing the cyber war against China, "spying via computer systems … poses far fewer risks than its physical-world counterpart. Deniability is always an option; no highly trained people are at risk; and there is far less of a threat of agents defecting, betraying their sponsor or becoming double agents.”
Fortunately, it looks like the U.S. is finally catching on and making some of the necessary changes to protect our nation from cyber-attacks.
In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama announced that he is working with our military leaders to create a new defense strategy that will save trillions of dollars and ensure that we are safe from foreign threats — both on the ground and in the virtual arena. He said, “[t]o stay one step ahead of our adversaries, I have already sent this Congress legislation that will secure our country from the growing danger of cyber-threats.”
This is a good first step. If we are going to defend ourselves from 21st century threats, we need to change the way we look at cyber warfare. We must educate Americans about the real dangers that cyber-attacks pose and encourage our students to study computer science to create a new generation of professionals who know how to safeguard our nation against cyber terrorism.
In addition, we must not be afraid to use our intelligence and technology to our advantage. If America wants to remain a super power and maintain a strong geopolitical standing, we must use every weapon at our disposal to protect ourselves.
Photo Credit: Baddog
I'm in the trenches in this war, handing out weapons and ammunition and training the soldiers. The soldiers, for the most part, are unwilling and unknowing participants until they get wounded by an enemy combatant. After that its an easy sell. What most people don't realize is that as long as we maintain an open and free internet, any computer system attached to that internet is vulnerable to attack. This is further exacerbated by the defense conundrum, which states that the defenders must think of every possible means of attack while the attackers only need to find one that the defenders didn't think of. There is an answer, but its REALLY inconvenient. Sensitive data must be kept apart from the internet. There can be no single computer that has access to both the sensitive data and the internet. That makes it inconvenient to transfer information from the sensitive area to the internet area, and the reality is that sensitive data shouldn't be on the internet anyway. BUT That means no online bill pay, no online banking, online commerce requires that you not use a standard credit card (prepaid only with no connection to banking information). Did I mention inconvenient? The list goes on. The bottom line here is that freedom isn't free, and if you want security there is also a price to be paid. If we are to have a free and open internet, the price for security needs to be paid by the private sector. If the government is required to stop these attacks, the internet will no longer be free. As an example, I give you the TSA. An ineffective organization who's only real capability is to make air travel painful and create controversy. Do we want the internet to operate through a similar filter? I don't.
The Discussion
Close All ThreadsThe annual cost of the DoD "black" budget was estimated at $32 billion in 2008 but was increased to an estimated $50 billion in 2009 and it looks like Obama has increased that even more. There are allot of things in that budget, but cyber-warfare is one of the things that is present. With Panetta's concern possibly its share will increase. The danger of a strict security environment is the risk of dissemination to those who can act on the information. Yet, the greatest risk for our classified information continues to be people who have access to intelligence stealing that intelligence and then disseminating to the press (Wikileaks) or selling it to our enemies (Pollard). As for personal responsibility; Loose lips sink ships!
I'm in the trenches in this war, handing out weapons and ammunition and training the soldiers. The soldiers, for the most part, are unwilling and unknowing participants until they get wounded by an enemy combatant. After that its an easy sell.
What most people don't realize is that as long as we maintain an open and free internet, any computer system attached to that internet is vulnerable to attack. This is further exacerbated by the defense conundrum, which states that the defenders must think of every possible means of attack while the attackers only need to find one that the defenders didn't think of.
There is an answer, but its REALLY inconvenient. Sensitive data must be kept apart from the internet. There can be no single computer that has access to both the sensitive data and the internet. That makes it inconvenient to transfer information from the sensitive area to the internet area, and the reality is that sensitive data shouldn't be on the internet anyway.
BUT
That means no online bill pay, no online banking, online commerce requires that you not use a standard credit card (prepaid only with no connection to banking information). Did I mention inconvenient? The list goes on.
The bottom line here is that freedom isn't free, and if you want security there is also a price to be paid. If we are to have a free and open internet, the price for security needs to be paid by the private sector. If the government is required to stop these attacks, the internet will no longer be free. As an example, I give you the TSA. An ineffective organization who's only real capability is to make air travel painful and create controversy. Do we want the internet to operate through a similar filter?
I don't.
I think this article starts with a false assumption that the US is not engaged in cyber espionage. The US most certainly is using this tool, but its use is just not really mentioned in the public. This is for a couple reasons: 1) it, like SIGINT, is the most sensitive, and public knowledge of any use of it could actually ruin any operations under way. 2) Countries it is predominantly being used on (Russia, China, Iran, etc.) do not have the same incentive as the US to disclose when it has found a virus, since it would signal some level of weakness to its public (same way you never hear of China capturing a HUMINT asset, even though they have before).
3 Replies
1 Replies