Cyber attack: Is it the same as a missile attack on sovereign territory

[zzzz]

Interesting discussion on the ramifications of cyber warfare and its relation to physical attacks. A cyber attack like we conducted on Iran is an attack but does it rise to the same level as an Israeli missile attack on nuclear sites in Iran?

Although a cyber attack may or may not inflict personal injury against citizens it still damages the countries assets and causes potential harm their security and financial resources. A cyber attack could drop a whole countries electrical system or water supply, possibly cause a meltdown or shutdown of nuclear reactors and a myriad of other possibilities. The potential of a massive disruption and resulting casualties are very real. Yet it is a surgical strike that is more refined than previous methods.

A missile or bombing raid is a blunt force tool that destroys infrastructure and inflicts casualties and inherently damages the area and people surrounding it, and some of these attacks go awry and hit non targeted areas.

Of course cyber war is harder to detect who attacked whom. It was thought the cyber attack on Iran was Israel yet leaks in the US confirmed that it was the US in conjunction with Israel. It is now clear that we conducted an attack on Iran, so where is the counterattack from Iran? It is an interesting contrast between the two methods.

The Japanese conducted a surprise attack on the US at Pearl Harbor. It is believed the Chinese conducted a surprise attack on the US using cyber war. The US conducted a cyber attack on Iran.

It appears that the International community is categorizing cyber warfare as a category of non-warfare conduct and it is an acceptable form of competition between states. Yet congress seems to think it is a form of war.

The Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war — but it's silent on cyberwar.
That's causing consternation on Capitol Hill in the wake of a New York Times story Friday detailing how President Barack Obama joined forces with Israel to launch secret cyberattacks on Iran's nuclear program. For some lawmakers, it's further evidence that the White House has taken too much war-making power from Congress.

“When we see the results it’s pretty clear they’re doing it without anybody except a very few people knowing about it, much less having any impact on whether it’s happening or not,” said Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.).
McDermott is troubled because “we have given more and more power to the president, through the CIA, to carry out operations, and, frankly, if you go back in history, the reason we have problems with Iran is because the CIA brought about a coup.


Read more: Can the White House declare a cyberwar? - Jennifer Martinez and Jonathan Allen - POLITICO.com

 

[g5000]

This is a very good question, and it is good that it is asked now. Because I think it would be very interesting to see the way some people would react to a similar attack against a US installation, and to look for signs of hypocrisy.

If a foreign power planted a virus which caused actual physical damage to a US installation, I think we would take that as an act of war and would respond with force.

 

[zzzz]

This is a very good question, and it is good that it is asked now. Because I think it would be very interesting to see the way some people would react to a similar attack against a US installation, and to look for signs of hypocrisy.

If a foreign power planted a virus which caused actual physical damage to a US installation, I think we would take that as an act of war and would respond with force.

Very true. It is a double sided sword and if is acceptable for one nation state to conduct cyber attacks on others then does it make it acceptable for any country?

 

[waltky]

'Missing link' found in cyber weapon hunt...

'Proof' Links Flame, Stuxnet Super Cyber Weapons: Researchers
11 June`12 - Researchers say they have uncovered "proof" linking the authors of the Flame cyber espionage program to Stuxnet, the most powerful offensive cyber weapon ever developed -- both of which are believed to have targeted Iran.

Analysts at the Russia-based cyber security firm Kaspersky Labs, which was the first to uncover Flame and had previously analyzed Stuxnet, wrote in a blog post today that they had found the "missing link" between Flame and Stuxnet: a specific piece of code that appears to have been used in both programs. Flame, a highly advanced "toolkit" of cyber espionage programs capable of watching virtually everything on an infected computer, was discovered last month on computers in the Middle East and Iran and had apparently been spying on those systems for years. Stuxnet, an offensive cyber weapon designed to physically alter its intended target, was discovered in 2010 after it reportedly infiltrated and managed to damage an Iranian nuclear enrichment facility -- an unprecedented feat.

In both cases, cyber security experts that analyzed the programs' code determined that due to similarities in cost, time requirement and apparent target, it was likely they had each been developed under the direction of a nation-state, leading to speculation the U.S. or Israel may be involved. However, the same experts quickly noted that Flame's code architecture was vastly different from Stuxnet's and determined that while both could have come from the same nation-state, they were not likely written together. But now Kaspersky Labs says the two cyber tools appear to have been developed in tandem and a section of code directly from Flame was used in an early 2009 version of Stuxnet, meaning that the two development teams overlapped in their work at least for a little while, even if they appear to have gone their separate ways in 2010 when newer versions of the programs appeared.

"We believed that the two teams only had access to some common resources, [but] that didn't show any true collaboration," Kaspersky Labs senior researcher Roel Schouwenberg told ABC News. "However, now it turns out that the Stuxnet team initially used Flame to kickstart the project. That proves collaboration and takes the connection between the two teams to a whole new level." After Stuxnet's discovery, a Congressional report in December 2010 put the U.S. and Israel on a short list of countries believed to be capable of carrying out that attack -- a list that also included Russia, China, the U.K. and France. A month later, The New York Times reported Stuxnet may have been the result of a joint U.S., Israeli project to undermine Iran's nuclear program.

Five different U.S. government agencies declined to comment to ABC News about allegations they were involved in Flame and the Israeli government has reportedly denied any link to the virus. News of the new connection between the two programs came just days after a U.S.-based cyber security firm, Symantec, reported Flame appears to have been given a "suicide" command that would wipe any trace of it from an infected computer.

Source

See also:

Smoke Over Flame: Who Is Behind Super Cyber Spy Tool?
May 30, 2012 - Cyber security experts around the world are racing to dissect Flame, the largest cyber espionage program ever discovered, as clues in the code and vague statements from Western officials fueled speculation as to whether the U.S. or Israel may be behind what researchers are calling a potential game-changer in the burgeoning arena of cyber warfare.

The existence of Flame, an unprecedented intelligence-gathering program designed to track and record basically everything an infected computer does, was disclosed Monday by two international cyber security firms as well as the Iranian government, which said Flame had been discovered on its networks. One of the firms, Kaspersky Labs, reported the malware had been discovered in several countries in the Middle East, mostly in Iran, and had been operating for at least two years. Kaspersky Labs, along with a Hungarian cryptology lab called Crysys that also analyzed Flame, said that because of the expertise, time and funding required to create such a large and sophisticated program, it was likely some government agency had created the malicious code, rather than a group of cyber criminals or rogue hackers. Clues in the code, such as the names of processes like "Beetlejuice" and "Platypus," led some experts to believe it could have been written by native English-speakers, but others pointed out that English is a common coding language in many countries.

Roel Schouwenberg, a senior researcher at Kasperky Labs, told ABC News today some monikers used in coding mean nothing at all or are just inside jokes among the programmers. "We are talking about a very high stakes operation here, covert cyber ops, but that doesn't mean these guys aren't just having fun sometimes," he said. Another possible clue in the code, Schouwenberg said, is that even though the program's structure and capabilities are very different, Flame shares some sophisticated techniques and geographical targets with another infamous cyber weapon, Stuxnet. Stuxnet was an offensive cyber weapon that was only discovered in 2010 after it had reportedly infected and caused physical damage to an Iranian nuclear facility.

Schouwenberg said Kaspersky Labs is operating under the theory that Stuxnet and Flame were created by different development teams but likely under the direction from the same backer and with access to each other's work. A researcher with the U.S.-based cyber firm Symantec told ABC News that scenario was a "definite" possibility and in its report Crysys said it could not be ruled out. After Stuxnet's discovery, a Congressional report in December 2010 put the U.S. and Israel on a short list of countries believed to be capable of carrying out that attack -- a list that also included Russia, China, the U.K. and France. A month later, The New York Times reported Stuxnet may have been the result of a joint U.S., Israeli project to undermine Iran's nuclear program. Publicly, U.S. officials repeatedly denied involvement in Stuxnet, while Israeli officials declined to comment.

Source

 

[Swagger]

This is a bit like asking what's worse: getting beaten to the ground for your wallet/purse; or falling victim to an identity thief/fraudster? Although the latter - which correlates with a cyber attack against another nation - is non-violent, it still causes distress which has an impact in the 'real world'. Cyber attacks are an act of aggression that can have disastrous physical and emotional ramifications offline. True, it doesn't provide the media spectacle of wailing funerals in the streets and flag burning, but it's still an attack worthy of redress.

Not as immediately savage as a missile strike, but still potentially disastrous for the victim state in the long run.

 

[waltky]

Cyber chief comes out in the open, warns of increased danger from attacks...

Cyber chief warns of rising danger from cyber attacks
July 9th, 2012 - In a rare public appearance Monday, the head of the country's Cyber Command warned that the nature of cyberattacks is changing and becoming more dangerous.

Gen. Keith Alexander also talked about the economic toll that cyberintrusions are taking on American business, saying that for every intrusion detected by the FBI, there are 100 others that remain undetected. "The probability for crisis is mounting," said Alexander, who also heads the National Security Agency. He told an audience at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington that he was concerned about the changing nature of the threat from disruptive to destructive attacks and that the numbers of cyber attacks against business and critical infrastructure are on the rise.

Alexander used the public opportunity to urge Congress to quickly pass legislation that would give the government additional authorities to communicate what it knows with the private sector to enable a closer public-private partnership when it comes to cybersecurity. Critics argue that giving the government too much power will come at a cost when it comes to civil liberties. "We can protect civil liberties and protect cyberspace," said Alexander, who added that the government is not interested in reading private e-mail, but is interested in identifying the IP addresses from which malicious computer programs are being launched.

Alexander said there are still concerns that terrorist groups like al Qaeda may launch a cyberattack. He added that al Qaeda "is not viable in that realm right now," but said that could change quickly and that concerns him.

Source

 

[whitehall]

A cyber attack ain't the same as a missile attack for a hundred reasons. It proves one thing though, the billions we spend on so-called "intelligence" agencies are wasted when a bunch of smart kids can out fox the CIA, the FBI and Homeland.

 

[Charles_Main]

This is a very good question, and it is good that it is asked now. Because I think it would be very interesting to see the way some people would react to a similar attack against a US installation, and to look for signs of hypocrisy.

If a foreign power planted a virus which caused actual physical damage to a US installation, I think we would take that as an act of war and would respond with force.

The US has already been the Victim of Several Coordinated State Sponsored Cyber Attacks from China alone, and so Far we have no responded with Conventional Force.

 

[Charles_Main]

A cyber attack ain't the same as a missile attack for a hundred reasons. It proves one thing though, the billions we spend on so-called "intelligence" agencies are wasted when a bunch of smart kids can out fox the CIA, the FBI and Homeland.

yeah, sure that proves it's all wasted. Lets just de fund them all.

God man, Wise up. I am sure the NSA has stopped as many or more attacks than have Happened. Intelligence is a very shitty Job, the world only ever hears about your Failures. Well unless the President feels like talking about it to help his Re-election campaign that is.

lol

 

[whitehall]

A cyber attack ain't the same as a missile attack for a hundred reasons. It proves one thing though, the billions we spend on so-called "intelligence" agencies are wasted when a bunch of smart kids can out fox the CIA, the FBI and Homeland.

yeah, sure that proves it's all wasted. Lets just de fund them all.

God man, Wise up. I am sure the NSA has stopped as many or more attacks than have Happened. Intelligence is a very shitty Job, the world only ever hears about your Failures. Well unless the President feels like talking about it to help his Re-election campaign that is.

lol

We have the NSA, the CIA, and the FBI and Homeland Security and ten thousand federal geeks with a secret budget can't do the job. What do you think?