DISEC II: Regulating Cyberwarfare 

Topic History

“Information and communications technologies are a part of daily life. They are helping to revolutionize health and education, transform the way we live and work and move us closer to our development goals. But cyberattacks have the potential to destabilize on a global scale. Cybersecurity must therefore be a matter of global concern.”- Ban Ki Moon

Cyber-warfare is a type of modern warfare where one party deliberately penetrates the information networks of another with the intention of disrupting or damaging it. While commonly referring to the actions between state actors, it can also involve non-state actors such as hacktivist groups, terrorist organizations, crime syndicates and extremists. As modern governments become increasingly reliant on information technology, cyberspace has become the new warzone of the 21st century. As defined by the US Homeland Security, information infrastructure has become so crucial to states that “the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.

For a brief history of cyber-warfare, please see the infographic below. Just a few definitions: worms are computer viruses which replicate themselves through computer networks, damaging data on multiple computers; a botnet is a network of Internet-connected computers often used to send spam emails and spread other malware; a Trojan Horse is a program that seems to perform a useful function, but actually breaches the security of a computer. 

Case Study: Russo-Georgian War 

The 2008 Russo-Georgian War marked a watershed moment where conventional warfare openly bled into unconventional attacks. The war broke out after decades of territorial and ethnic tensions. Weeks prior to Russia’s annexation of South Ossetia, several “zombie” computers had already commenced attacks on government websites, including that of the Georgian President. This quickly escalated into large-scale denial-of-service on major government and civilian cyber infrastructure. Information networks between the military and bureaucracy were disrupted. Civilian networks--such as news sites OSInform News Agency and OSRadio--were hacked and its content replaced. Other affected agencies included the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the National Bank of Georgia, which was defaced by images of dictators. Most notably, the strategic Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan crude oil pipeline suffered an explosion--though not directly linked to Russian attacks, Western intelligence agencies widely believed that Russian hackers had compromised the pipeline’s security system. To many, this opened up a new era of warfare where even concrete targets and infrastructure were not spared from cyberwar , a particularly severe problem given our dependence on information networks.

Summary

· Cybersecurity is a particular area of concern given our modern dependence on information technology and networks

· Both cyber and concrete targets are vulnerable to attack

Interstate cyberwarfareRecently, the CIA presented legislators with the appalling assessment that Russia had intervened in the 2016 US elections. It has been widely suspected that Russian hackers were involved in the infiltration of Democratic National Committee email servers, and had similarly penetrated Republican National Committee data with the intention of helping Trump win. Although no concrete evidence has been provided by the CIA, this shows that cybersecurity and cyberwarfare have penetrated all levels of state policy. In this section, we will delve into relevant case studies of cyberwarfare, but first - the definitions:

I. Defining cyber warfare

Although cyber warfare has become increasingly prominent, it is exceedingly difficult to define, posing serious challenges to international frameworks that seek to regulate such activity. Please watch the video below on definitional problems of cyber warfare and possible solutions:

Summary

· Cyber warfare is difficult to define as the lines of liability and chains of command are blurred in cyberspace.

· This makes it difficult for comprehensive legislation as parties simply cannot agree on its scope and definition.

II. Interstate cyber warfare

Case Study: China and the US

As two of the leading powers in the world today, both China and the US have repeatedly accused the other of cyberespionage. In 2009, the US created the US Cyber Command as an armed forces subunit in the National Security Agency to organize resources for both attack and defense; likewise, China is believed to have both specialized military network warfare forces within the People’s Liberation Army, and authorizes civilian hackers as part of its operations. In 2016, the Pentagon published a report asserting that China ‘is using its cyber capabilities to support intelligence collection against the US diplomatic, economic, and defense industrial base sectors”, which Chinese authorities vehemently denounced.

Beyond that, it is also widely believed that China has been conducting industrial espionage on American companies largely through the cybersphere, though no clear evidence has been presented. This shows how cyber warfare differs from conventional warfare in that it is difficult to gather compelling evidence and apportion blame ; states therefore almost always deny their involvement in such attacks, rendering it a sensitive but implicitly-acknowledged issue in global diplomacy. The photograph below is one of Lanxiang vocational school in China, where national hackers are allegedly trained according to US intelligence sources. Chinese media, however, has largely dismissed this with one report clarifying that the students were mostly “unmotivated farmers who could not be remotely capable of hacking US targets”.

Case Study: The US and Iran

The US has been accused of cyberattacks on Iran. Most notably, Iranian authorities accused the US and Israel for sabotaging Iranian nuclear capabilities, after the productivity of uranium enrichment facilities in Natanz fell by 30% in 2010. Stuxnet is a computer virus that specifically targets industrial control systems (such as power plants, water treatment facilities and gas pipelines. This article gives a comprehensive overview of the Stuxnet malware, but the main point is that physical infrastructure is under real threat even in the realm of cyber warfare.

Summary

· Cyber warfare is difficult to prove.

· Cyber warfare has been increasingly used to target both cyber and concrete infrastructure, often with crippling outcomes.

· This means that both cyber defense and attack capabilities are of utmost importance to states.

III. Non-state actors in cyber warfare

Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind that interstate conflict is not the only arena of cyber warfare. In fact, it can be said that cyber warfare has democratized warfare by making the means available even to ordinary citizens and non-state actors.

Case Study: Anonymous

The hacktivist group Anonymous rose to fame in 2010 with their numerous collaborative attacks on both government and non-governmental targets. Originating from the imageboard forum 4chan in 2003, this was a decentralized network of activists which soon began concerted and highly publicized attacks often with an overt sociopolitical cause in mind. During the Arab Spring, Anonymous aided Tunisian dissidents in disseminating their materials , and with denial-of-service attacks on Tunisian government websites. In 2012, Anonymous launched a campaign against child pornography, disabling numerous child porn websites and posting the information of suspected pedophiles on public forums. In 2015, they launched Operation KKK, releasing the names and private information of many in the Ku Klux Klan, an American white supremacist group with a history of hate crimes and violence against persons of color. These are only a few examples of the wide scope covered by Anonymous, yet their influence has been so great that Times named them one of the “top 100 most influential people in the world” in 2012. With their symbol being the iconic Guy Fawkes mask, Anonymous demonstrates the sheer impact of online vigilantism in the age of cyber warfare.

Summary

· Cyber warfare has helped the rise of online vigilantism.

· This means that unlike conventional warfare, the state does not have a monopoly over its use.

· Domestic regulation is thus important on top of international regulation, though cyber attacks often cross state boundaries.

IV. UN responses

UN efforts to regulate cyberspace have been rudimentary at best. It was first adopted to the General Assembly agenda in 1998, introduced by the Russian Federation. Until now, however, there has been little more than national reports and recommendations on the state of information security. Groups of Governmental Experts (GGEs) were established to examine the threats of cyber warfare and address possible solutions. In June 2015, the group - comprised of 20 nations - published a report on ‘norms, rules or principles of the responsible behavior of states in the cyber sphere as well as confidence building measures, international cooperation and capacity building’. Recommendations include:

· Observing the principles of international law, state sovereignty and the settlement of disputes by peaceful means when using information technology

· Protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms

· Not using proxies to commit internationally wrongful acts using information technology, and seeking to actively ensure that non-state actors do not do so as well

Although this seems to cover most concerns with regards to cyber warfare, it was deliberately vague and its terms can be interpreted rather broadly. This shows that in the realm of cyber warfare, international organizations and states alike are still grappling with the challenges of definition and regulation.

Summary

· Cyber warfare is difficult to define as the lines of liability and chains of command are blurred in cyberspace.

Questions to Consider 

· How would you incentivise countries to regulate cyber warfare?

· How would you define cyber warfare? 

· How should countries manage different types of cyber warfare?

· The RAND feature on cyber warfare provides analysis, commentary and research reports on different facets of the issue.· New sites like The New York Times and The Guardian also have columns on cyber warfare so you can keep up to date on recent developments.· This TED video talks about how cyber war differs from conventional warfare and what the implications of these are.First, it is useful to obtain a working understanding of different types of cyber warfare and tactics used. Here’re a few useful links:

· This is NATO's timeline on the history of cyber attacks

· A short history on cyber warfare

· An introduction to different forms of cyber warfare - this is on the technical side, but provides a useful overview.

Here’re some reports on more prominent examples of cyber warfare:

· Russia and Georgia, 2008 Georgian War: http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/01/28/this-week-at-war-lessons-from-cyberwar-i/

· The ongoing cyber war between the US and other states: Russia, Iran, China. 

It’s also important to understand the controversies concerning cyber warfare.

· The RAND feature on cyber warfare provides analysis, commentary and research reports on different facets of the issue.

· New sites like The New York Times and The Guardian also have columns on cyber warfare so you can keep up to date on recent developments.

· This TED video talks about how cyber war differs from conventional warfare and what the implications of these are.