Cyberwarfare

United States Military Command for Cyberwarfare. In June 2009, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) announced the establishment of a new “cyber command.” The U.S. Cyber Command is designed to wage digital or cyberwarfare and to strengthen defenses against growing threats to its computer networks.  Secretary of Defense Robert Gates formally established the command—the country’s first—that would operate under the U.S. Strategic Command, said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman. The Cyber Command begins operating in October 2009 and will be fully operational in October 2010, said Whitman (De Luce, 2009).

The move indicates a shift in military strategy with cyber dominance now part of U.S. war doctrine. Cyber dominance comes amid growing concern over the perceived threat posed by digital espionage emanating from China, Russia, and elsewhere. China has developed a sophisticated cyber warfare program. A host of intrusions in the United States and elsewhere were traced back to Chinese sources. The command is located at Fort Meade, Maryland. The Pentagon will not be taking over security efforts for civilian networks from other government agencies.  United States Army General Keith Alexander, former director of the National Security Agency (NSA), now leads the new command (De Luce, 2009).

Cyber-Attack. Officials say that the USAF will not only defend its computer networks, but it may also attack United States enemy systems. Air Force General William Lord, interim commander of the AF Cybercommand said, “Imagine what can happen to us,” of an attack on DoD computers. “We’d like to take that capability and bring it down on the heads of our enemies” (Magnuson, 2009).

Admiral William Owen (USN, Ret.), former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that there is little evidence that a government-wide understanding exists of the repercussions of launching a cyber attack on enemy computers. That also goes for the military. Owen co-authored the National Research Council (NRC) report titled “Technology, Policy, Law and Ethics Regarding U.S. Acquisition and Use of Cyber-Attack Capabilities.” The NRC said that the report is the first comprehensive review of cyber-attack that addresses policy, legal, technical, and ethical issues (Magnuson, 2009).

The report defines cyber-attack as “deliberate actions to alter, disrupt, deceive, degrade, or destroy computer systems.” Cyber-attacks range from small-scale skirmishes to all-out war.  Gen. Lord defines potential opponents as nation states, cyber-terrorists, and common criminals. He stated that identifying the origination of an attack is very difficult (Magnuson, 2009).

North Korea was Behind the Week of Cyber Attacks. North Korea was indeed behind the cyber attacks that targeted scores of websites in South Korea and the United States during the first week in July 2009. An anonymous Pentagon official said that the attack did not penetrate the DOD’s computer systems. These systems are constantly being probed from the outside. Defense officials privately complained that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was the lead agency on protecting all government agencies from cyber attacks.  However, the Pentagon wasn’t informed about the attacks until almost a week later after hearing about it from the media (Anonymous, 2009).

In a DDoS attack, a large quantity of zombie computers conglomerated in a botnet, or robot network, are directed such that all of them go to U.S. government websites at precisely the same time. This action knocks down less-robust websites because they cannot handle all the traffic simultaneously. Basically, it just overloads the system. Attacks on federal computer networks are common. They range from nuisance hacking to more serious assaults. Sometimes, they are blamed on China. United States security officials are also concerned about cyber attacks from al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups (Anonymous, 2009).

Russian Hackers Stole U.S. IDs for Attacks. Russian hackers hijacked American identities (IDs) and U.S. software tools and used them in an attack on Georgian government websites during the war between Russia and Georgia last August 2008, according to new research released on August 17, 2009, by a nonprofit U.S. group. In addition to refashioning common Microsoft Corporation software into a cyber-weapon, hackers collaborated on popular U.S.-based social-networking sites (Twitter and Facebook) to coordinate attacks on Georgian sites, the U.S. Cyber Consequences Unit found. While the cyber attacks on Georgia were examined shortly after the events in August 2008, these U.S. connections were previously unknown. The research indicates how cyberwarfare has outpaced military and international agreements, which do not consider the probability of American resources and civilian technology being used as weapons (FoxNews.com, 2009).

Common means of attack include ID theft, social networking, and modifying commercial software.  However, integrating them elevates the attack method to a new level, said Amit Yoran, a former cybersecurity chief at the DHS and now chief executive officer (CEO) of computer-security company NetWitness Corporation.  In August 2008, the cyber attacks significantly disrupted Georgia’s communications capabilities by disabling 20 websites for more than a week.  Among the sites eliminated in 2008 included those of the Georgian president, defense minister, National Bank of Georgia, and major news outlets.  The five-day Russian-Georgian conflict in August 2008 killed hundreds of people, crushed Georgia’s army, and left two segments of its territory bordering Russia—Abkhazia and South Ossetia—under Russian occupation (Fox.News.com, 2009).

More Devastating than a Nuclear Bomb Explosion. Senator Kit Bond, vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, told Newsmax that a cyber-attack on the United States could be economically more devastating than a nuclear explosion and could also cause massive deaths. Bond said, “You can cause more economic harm with a cyber-attack than a nuclear one.” Furthermore, he said, “It could crush our country and the world economy, which depends upon the United States as the world’s leading economy.  If they take us down, they cripple everybody.” The Missouri Republican said that the recent attacks demonstrate how such a cyber-attack “could take down our entire infrastructure, which depends upon the use of computers and information technology” (Kessler, 2009).

Senator Bond had opposed President Barack Obama’s plan to appoint a cyber czar to oversee the U.S. response. Bond said, “I’m not willing to live under a Russian-style czarist system.” “He’s talking about a czar for everything. We’ve got a system that works.  Now I’m not in favor necessarily of forming a new bureaucracy.  But that responsibility ought to be in the hands of either a new agency or an existing agency, where the Senate has confirmation authority and the head of it reports to Congress to tell us what they’re doing” (Kessler, 2009).

Whether located in the DoD or DHS, this new agency would be responsible for providing assistance to the private sector. Additionally, it would work closely with the intelligence community, the military, and the rest of the government. Bond said that this agency could assure that “we have the capacity to pre-empt strikes where we see a potential threat arising, before it destroys our system” (Kessler, 2009).

Cyberspy Defense. The flagship system designed to protect the U.S. government’s computer networks from cyberspies is being stymied by technical limitations and privacy concerns, according to current and former national-security officials.  The latest complete version of the system, known as Einstein, won’t be fully installed for 18 months, according to officials, seven years after first rolled out. This system does not protect networks from attack, but it raises the alarm after an attack is in process (Gorman, 2009).

A more capable version has tripped privacy alarms, which could delay its rollout. Since the NSA acknowledged eavesdropping on phone and Internet traffic without warrants in 2005, security programs have been hounded by privacy concerns.  For Einstein, AT&T Corp., which would test the system, has sought written approval from the Department of Justice (DOJ) before it would agree to participate.  Designed to protect all nonmilitary government computers, the total cost of the system is classified, but officials familiar with the program said the price tag was expected to exceed $2 billion (Gorman, 2009).

The Obama administration has made combating threats to the nation’s computer networks as a top priority.  President Barack Obama recently called such attacks as “one of the most serious economic and national security challenges” facing the United States.  Attacks on the government have been intensifying.  Thousands of federal networks are being breached including those of the DHS (Gorman, 2009).

Conclusion

Cyberwarfare is not being conducted against us by individual, civilian hackers or by terrorist organizations but is being conducted by nation states in an organized, methodical manner.  The United States must be prepared to conduct cyberwarfare.  Indeed, we must be ready to conduct offensive cyberwarfare instead of just defensive cyberwarfare.  Additionally, we must be prepared for massive cyber retaliation should our entire nation be massively attacked by China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, or any other nation that would do us harm.  Massive Retaliation was a national strategy that ended with the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union.  However, it should be revived for cyberwarfare, or we may see the demise of the United States.  We must not allow that outcome to happen.

References

Anonymous (2009, July 9). Pentagon official: North Korea behind week of cyber attacks. FOXNews.com. Retrieved from www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,530781,00.html.

De Luce, D. (2009, June 23). U.S. creates military command for cyber battlefield. AFP. Retrieved from www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jCjrZHbTK6tr91wmAX8IW24TWp_w.

FoxNews.com. (2009, August 17). Russian hackers stole U.S. IDs for attacks. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,539900,00.html.

Gorman, S. (2009, July 3). Troubles plague cyberspy defense. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from online.wsj.com/article/SB124657680388089139.html.

Kessler, R. (2009, July 15). Sen. Bond: Cyberattack more devastating than nuclear bomb. Newsmax.com. Retrieved from www.newsmax.com/kessler/kit_bond_cyberattacks/2009/07/15/235753.html.

Magnuson, S. (2009, July). Cyber-attack: U.S. plans to destroy enemy computer networks questioned. National Defense, XCIII (668), pp. 22-23.

###