FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Missing Rules of Engagement in Cyberwar

The United States lacks a fully defined policy and legal framework for using offensive cyberwarfare capabilities against adversaries, making it difficult for policymakers to determine the origin of computer attacks and when pre-emptive action is justified against criminals, terrorists and hostile foreign nations, according to current and former government officials.

The information networks of U.S. government agencies and critical industry sectors, such as the nation’s power and banking companies, are under persistent and increasing cyber attack from foreign foes, including major criminal organizations and countries like China, according to officials and recent high-level reports.

Although the U.S. government has an arsenal of cyberwarfare capabilities at its disposal, policymakers are grappling with how and when to use them, along with what kind of privacy and civil liberties issues are raised in doing so.

Officials say the government needs to develop better policies and laws for cyberwarfare, similar to that developed for the use of nuclear weapons.

“It is, in many ways, unchartered territory and I know the policymakers are struggling with how and when to use our offensive capabilities,” House Homeland Security Emerging Threats Subcommittee Chairman James Langevin, D-R.I., said in a recent interview.

“It’s important for the government to have a clear understanding of what our offensive capabilities are and how best to employ them and when. There are a lot of questions that still need to be answered,” Langevin added. “Should the U.S. include pre-emption action as part of its cyber doctrine? What are the thresholds for proportionality of response?”

Playing Offense

The Bush administration launched the so-called Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative this year to monitor Internet traffic and protect federal agencies against cyber attacks.

The initiative is expected to cost billions of dollars over many years, and most of its details are classified. Although government officials have talked publicly about defensive measures being deployed for cyber security, the U.S. government also has offensive capabilities, officials said.

Steven Chabinsky, deputy director of the joint interagency cyber task force within the office of the director of national intelligence, hinted at the offensive aspects of the initiative in a speech at a security conference last week.

“The CNCI brings the offense and defense together to try to achieve complete information awareness,” he said.

He did not give specific examples but added that the initiative will “blend the U.S. government’s talents and expertise in computer network operations with such disciplines as information security, law enforcement, combat and counter intelligence.”

That’s where things get muddy, officials say.

“We don’t have the doctrine yet that’s codified” said Steven Bucci, former Pentagon deputy assistant secretary for homeland defense. “What is an act of war in the cyber realm?”

Indeed, Pentagon officials told a cybersecurity commission established by the Center for Strategic and International Studies they need help clarifying existing doctrine for playing offense in the cyber realm, said James Lewis, director of the technology and public policy program at CSIS.

“Modernize the laws; clarify the authorities,” said Lewis, who serves as the commission’s project director. “Clarify what your doctrine is for responding to attacks.”

Chabinsky would not answer questions from reporters after his speech and directed inquires to the office of the director of national intelligence, which did not respond to questions.

Attribution vs. Retribution

One of the most difficult issues for government agencies is determining the origin of cyberattacks because intruders can hide their identity by using remote servers or by installing malicious code on computers operated by innocent users, officials said.

“Attribution is a very serious and complex troubling issue when you talk about deploying offensive capabilities for deterrence and for response,” said Langevin, co-chairman of the cybersecurity commission.

Part of the challenge for policymakers is determining whether attacks require a law enforcement response, an intelligence response or a military response, Lewis said.

“We were told the default is to use law enforcement authorities because often the circumstances are so unclear that you have to treat it as a crime rather than a military episode,” he said.

And the scale of offensive action needs to be weighed against many factors.

The U.S. government might be aware, for example, that relatively minor attacks against information networks in the United States are coming from a hostile foreign government, Bucci said.

But what happens if the United States learns that a large-scale cyber attack is going to come from that country, Bucci asked. The U.S. government will then be faced with whether to take pre-emptive cyber action against the information networks of that country, he said.

Some organized crime syndicates also operate with the implicit support of adversarial foreign governments. “Do we attack those governments?” Bucci asked.

Such policy questions now await President-elect Obama, whose transition team declined to comment for this report.

Langevin said the U.S. government must immediately define a national cyber strategy with a public component that communicates to adversaries what the United States is capable of doing and prepared to do.

Such a strategy, he said, would be equivalent to the policy of mutually assured destruction for nuclear weapons. Langevin said the government also must immediately train and equip a cybersecurity workforce.

“This is something where the Congress and the administration need to work closely to determine when and how we will respond,” Langevin said.

Growing Threats

The need to clarify policies and laws for cyberwarfare was highlighted in recent high-level government and private industry reports that documented the growing cyber threat to U.S. agencies and companies.

The congressionally charted US-China Economic and Security Review Commission released its annual report last week, concluding that China is targeting U.S. government and commercial computers for espionage.

The Defense Science Board released a report earlier this month, saying in part that cyber attacks could have a crippling impact on space-based assets that provide surveillance, communication and navigation services.

And the board of directors of the Internet Security Alliance, a trade group that advocates greater public focus on and investment in cybersecurity, issued policy recommendations for President-elect Obama last week in a report documenting vulnerabilities and concerns of major firms in such sectors as technology, banking, defense, manufacturing and higher education .

“Signature-based intrusion detection, firewalls, and anti-virus technologies are all deployed, but they do little to identify or prevent more sophisticated adversaries,” said a section of the ISA report devoted to the defense industry.

“Spam, spoofed e-mail addresses, multi-hopping exploits, and third party domain registration all serve to make internet crime and intellectual property theft all but impossible to prevent,” the report said.

Questions also persist over whether, and when, the U.S. government should take offensive cyberwarfare action to protect a private company, given that most of the critical infrastructure in the United States is owned and operated by the private sector.

“It’s a great question. It’s an important question,” said J. Michael Hickey, Verizon’s vice president of government affairs for national security policy, adding that he has not had discussions with the government about the issue.

“I do think it’s important for government and industry to address this issue given the ownership and responsibility for managing our nation’s networks,” he said. “If they are 90 percent privately owned, then there does need to be a considerable discussion about it.”

CHRIS STROHM writes for Congress Daily, where this article originally appeared.

 

 

 

 

 

 

More articles by:
August 21, 2018
Anthony DiMaggio
Fascist Nation: The “Alt-Right” Menace Persists, Despite Setbacks
Chris Floyd
Dial “N” for Mayhem: Wording Our Way to a New Level of Hell
Creston Davis
The Education Impasse in the USA
Jonathan Cook
In Detaining Peter Beinart, Israel Has Declared it No Longer Represents Millions of Jews Overseas
Kshama Sawant
UPS Teamsters, We Have Your Back in this Fight
Kenneth Culton
Trump Supporters: the Joyous Cult Bound by Shared Story and Ritual
Andy Thayer
Why the Chicago ‘68 Convention Matters Today
Simone Chun
Sea of Tears: The Tragedy of Families Split by the Korean War
William Blum
The Russians Did It (cont.)
Manuel E. Yepe
How Capitalism Erodes Mental Health
Doug Noble
Thomas Mountain
Djibouti Faces Dark Days to Come; Eritrean Ports, Pipeline Threaten Ethiopian Trade Lifeline
Binoy Kampmark
Finding Fault and Faulty Infrastructure: Genoa’s Morandi Bridge Disaster
Kary Love
“Suffer Not the Little Children….”
Thomas Knapp
Omarosa Manigault Newman, Public Servant
August 20, 2018
Carl Boggs
The Road to Disaster?
James Munson
“Not With a Bomb, But a Whimper” … Then More Bombs.
Jonathan Cook
Corbyn’s Labour Party is Being Made to Fail –By Design
Robert Fisk
A US Trade War With Turkey Over a Pastor? Don’t Believe It
Howard Lisnoff
The Mass Media’s Outrage at Trump: Why the Surprise?
Faisal Khan
A British Muslim’s Perspective on the Burkha Debate
Andrew Kahn
Inhumanity Above the Clouds
Dan Glazebrook
Trump’s New Financial War on the Global South
George Wuerthner
Why the Gallatin Range Deserves Protection
Ted Rall
Is Trump a Brand-New Weird Existential Threat? No.
Sheldon Richman
For the Love of Reason
Susie Day
Why Pundits Scare Me
Dean Baker
Does France’s Economy Need to Be Renewed?
Jeffrey St. Clair
A Mighty Voice for Peace Has Gone Silent: Uri Avnery, 1923-2018
Weekend Edition
August 17, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Daniel Wolff
The Aretha Dialogue
Nick Pemberton
Donald Trump and the Rise of Patriotism 
Joseph Natoli
First Amendment Rights and the Court of Popular Opinion
Andrew Levine
Midterms 2018: What’s There to Hope For?
Robert Hunziker
Hothouse Earth
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Running Out of Fools
Ajamu Baraka
Opposing Bipartisan Warmongering is Defending Human Rights of the Poor and Working Class
Paul Street
Corporate Media: the Enemy of the People
David Macaray
Trump and the Sex Tape
CJ Hopkins
Where Have All the Nazis Gone?
Daniel Falcone
The Future of NATO: an Interview With Richard Falk
Cesar Chelala
The Historic Responsibility of the Catholic Church
Ron Jacobs
The Barbarism of US Immigration Policy
Kenneth Surin
In Shanghai
William Camacaro - Frederick B. Mills
The Military Option Against Venezuela in the “Year of the Americas”
Nancy Kurshan
The Whole World Was Watching: Chicago ’68, Revisited
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail