Tag Archives: Cyberespionage

History Repeats Itself: The 60-Day Cyberspace Policy Review in Context

On February 9, 2009, President Obama gave his National Security and Homeland Security Advisors 60 days to conduct a Cyberspace Policy Review.1 The stated purpose of this “60-Day Review” was to provide a comprehensive assessment of U.S. policies for cybersecurity.2 According to a White House press release, the review would “develop a strategic framework to ensure that U.S. Government cyber security initiatives are appropriately integrated, resourced and coordinated with Congress and the private sector.”3

The 60-Day Review was an ambitious project and, in the end, took more than 60 days to complete.4 When the final report was issued on May 29, 2009, it offered a careful assessment of the current situation and a broad vision of what the United States must accomplish to secure our digital future. This vision, however, was not fundamentally different from previous iterations of cybersecurity strategy that the U.S. government has issued over the past 12 years.

The 60-Day Review undoubtedly represents a critical step toward addressing the many challenges the United States faces in working to secure its public and private information systems. However, it is important to place this document in proper context and understand what it accomplishes and what business it leaves unfinished. Before much progress can be made in improving cybersecurity, there are some tough policy decisions that have to be made.

The 60-Day Review does not take on many of those decisions. Rather, it provides an accurate and troubling picture of what the country is up against. It offers a glimpse of the daunting but important tasks of trying to harmonize the cybersecurity programs within government, establishing an effective partnership with the private sector, and developing strong relationships with other nations to combat cyber crime. It recommends…

 

Offensive Cyber Operations and the Use of Force

Hostile actions against a computer system or network can take two forms.1 One form – a cyber attack – is destructive in nature. An example of such a hostile action is erasure by a computer virus resident on the hard disk of any infected computer. In this article, “cyber attack” refers to the use of deliberate actions and operations – perhaps over an extended period of time – to alter, disrupt, deceive, degrade, or destroy adversary computer systems or networks or the information and (or) programs resident in or transiting these systems or networks.2 Such effects on adversary systems and networks may also have indirect effects on entities coupled to or reliant on them. A cyber attack seeks to cause the adversary’s computer systems and networks to be unavailable or untrustworthy and therefore less useful to the adversary.

The second form – cyberexploitation – is nondestructive. An example is a computer virus that searches the hard disk of any infected computer and emails to the hostile party all files containing a credit card number. “Cyberexploitation” refers to the use of actions and operations – perhaps over an extended period of time – to obtain information that would otherwise be kept confidential and is resident on or transiting through an adversary’s computer systems or networks. Cyberexploitations are usually clandestine and conducted with the smallest possible intervention that still allows extraction of the information sought.3 They do not seek to disturb…

Cyber Threats and the Law of War

When I was invited to participate in a forum dealing with “National Security Threats in Cyberspace,” sponsored by the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Law and National Security and the National Strategy Forum, my assigned role was to provide a “succinct and brief” explanation of how the existing Law of War (LOW) might be applied to cyber threats. The Journal of National Security Law & Policy later requested that I reduce my comments to writing. No doubt this generous request was made due to the brevity of my analysis, rather than to my intellectual prowess. Others have dealt with this subject in a far more detailed and sophisticated fashion …