Cyber Security Conference in Georgia

I was in Tbilisi last week and spoke at the Georgian Cyber Security and IT Innovation conference. The first day focused solely on cyber security topics. Agenda and materials are available here. As expected, the 2008 Russia-Georgia war and its cyber component came up in several presentations.

My talk on Volunteers in Cyber Conflict was based on a number of papers I have written on the subject. While I have focused on the offensive (and illegal) hactivism/patriotic hacking so far, I am in the process of switching gears and focusing on the defencive (and official) use of volunteers. For example, the reserve cyber units in US military, the WARP system in UK and the Cyber Defence League in Estonia. I believe there is great merit in harnessing the skills and resources of security specialists and enthusiasts for a constructive purpose.

Two papers published at C6

I have updated the publications tab with two papers that were published in the proceedings of the upcoming Conference on Cyber Conflict. As is always the case, by the time they went to print I already had some ideas for changing them. Nevertheless, here they are:

• Lorents, P. and Ottis, R. (2010) Knowledge Based Framework for Cyber Weapons and Conflict. In Czosseck, C. and Podins, K. (Eds.) Conference on Cyber Conflict. Proceedings 2010. Tallinn: CCD COE Publications, p 129-142.[link]
• Ottis, R. (2010) From Pitch Forks to Laptops: Volunteers in Cyber Conflicts. In Czosseck, C. and Podins, K. (Eds.) Conference on Cyber Conflict. Proceedings 2010. Tallinn: CCD COE Publications, p 97-109. [link]

Any comments and feedback welcome.

Russia and Cyber Attacks

A colleague pointed me to an article in the Baltic Security and Defence Review, an annual publication of the Baltic Defence College (international staff college for military officers at OF3-OF5 ranks). MAJ William Ashmore (US Army) writes an overview of recent cyber conflicts with Russia, titled "Impact of Alleged Russian Cyber Attacks" [pdf].

While the article covers a lot of ground it seems that he is not a subject matter expert in cyber conflicts. The quality of the references is relatively weak (mostly public news media) and there are a few simple errors. On the other hand, he has done a fairly broad background check for the legal/doctrinal work done at OSCE, UN etc.

He provides an overview of events in Estonia 2007 and Georgia 2008 among others, and a summary of NATO's activities in setting up cyber defence. He spends some time on Herman Simm's case (highly placed spy for Russians in Estonian MoD, caught 2008), although to me his arguments there seem a bit weak.

He reviews the national and international responses/comments to the Russian cyber campaigns, including potential attribution. There is also a fairly interesting chapter about future trends in Russian cyber activities (including Dr Panarin's recommendations). I think he may be onto something when he says that in Russia, cyber is mostly seen as an offensive capability.

With the US primarily focused on the Chinese cyber threat, the Russian (and other) cyber studies remain in the background. Therefore, it is a refreshing piece of reading, regardless of some issues with depth or quality. As always, read the article for full info.

Happy holidays!

Centralized vs de-centralized cyber campaigns

The previous post got me thinking about some of the key tenets of the Chinese approach: the cyber campaign must be centrally controlled, executed by organic forces and have a tightly focused target.

Obviously, this centralized approach provides good command and control opportunities. It also limits collateral damage and I guess, most important of all, eliminates possible interference from volunteer actions (such as someone taking control of one of the key entry points to the enemy network and shutting you out). Historical examples also seem to show that volunteers are more likely to engage visible targets (web sites etc) that have little or no tactical value.

On the other hand, NOT using the volunteers (the de-centralized approach) denies you the use of a potential resource. Odds are that if a country has a developed patriotic hacking community, they will take part in the conflict one way or the other, so you might as well try to guide them to be useful.

The second argument for using volunteers is psychological. It displays public support to your campaign, potentially reinforcing the mindset in other sectors of the society. It also brings in small but visible IW victories, as press covers the "citizen campaign" against the opposing side.

The third argument would be the Fog of War. The patriotic hacking community can provide the smoke screen necessary to execute the important strikes against key nodes. Remember, if the plan is to concentrate your attacks in time and (network) space, they will become immediately visible. However, if you have attacks of various severity levels happening all the time the enemy may not recognize the significance of the critical attack until it is too late.

The fourth argument is that patriotic hackers can "prep the battlefield" before the hostilities commence, provide retaliatory attacks after the hostilities, target third parties and civilian or commercial targets while the state can deny any involvement. This supposes that there is an established patriotic hacker community in place, so the world does not necessarily consider there to be a direct link to the specific conflict.

Finally, political attacks by civilians as part of a larger conflict have no clear regulation and few legal precedents. If the host country is not willing to cooperate with the criminal investigation (not likely in a time of war) the attackers will remain anonymous and protected, while the state still has "formal" deniability.

However, as I have noted before, there is a price for accepting patriotic hacking in a state. Most pressing are the long term rise in cyber crime and the potential that they act against the state. On the other hand, if the decision has been made or if there is already a well-established community in place, one should consider the possible uses of this force. Because whether you plan for (with) them or not, they will participate in the fight.

Blog reset

I am back from my summer hiatus. As promised, I will continue to throw my ideas and thoughts in here.

I have often found it interesting how some people fear the offensive side of cyber. 'Defense only' is the politically correct way of putting things, even though it is pure nonsense. Skills and knowledge to be a good defender is largely dual-use.

Look at it this way. Imagine briefing a general: "Sir, our defensive infantry brigades have dug in around the city, we can now deploy our offensive infantry regiment to attack the enemy." True, some units are better equipped and trained for offensive or defensive missions, but that does not mean that they lack the capability to do both.

ECIW 09 in Lisbon

I just got back from Lisbon and the 8th European Conference on Information Warfare and Security. This annual conference brings together 60-100 academics from across the world to present and discuss their research during the two-day event.

A paper that I wrote for the conference in the winter got published in the proceedings (see publications). The main idea of the paper is that there are three general ways to create an offensive capability in cyberspace:

• establish a unit/agency for that mission ("conventional" own forces approach)
• outsource the problem by hiring digital mercenaries, cyber criminals and the like
• develop or hijack a volunteer force, or a cyber militia, to attack convenient targets with little or no attribution for the state.

In reality, a combination of two or three is potentially more powerful than any single approach.

While thinking about the last two approaches, I came to some interesting conclusions. First, if a government uses volunteers or mercenaries to conduct an "illegal", or at least unethical, campaign against its political enemies, then there will be a rise in (cyber) crime in the state. This happens because the government cannot alienate the "friendly" attackers by arresting them for non-political crimes (such as sending spam, stealing credit card information or DDoSing commercial sites for blackmail). This also explains why cyber criminals seem to flourish in some states that also seem to have an aggressive stance in cyberspace.

The second idea was that in case of volunteer forces, the government would have to "exercise" these forces once or twice a year, in order to keep them "on mission". A volunteer offensive cyber militia will likely disband for more interesting pursuits, if they are not called to arms for several years. This means that the state would have to provide a steady stream of external or internal "enemies" to keep the militia occupied.

A time for a Cyber Service of the Military?

I stumbled on an article by COL Surdu and LTC Conti, which was published earlier this year in the IA Newsletter [Vol 12, No 1, 2009 - pdf]. In the article, they argue that US needs a new military service that would handle the cyber warfare mission.

Currently, each service already has small elements dispersed in the structure, but they are not coordinated, nor are they integrated into the bigger picture. I think they bring out a good point that the US military (in fact, other militaries as well) is not fit to fight a cyber war, as its leadership, processes and culture are fundamentally incapable to understand it.

The main problem is that the military does not place enough emphasis on technical expertise, or as they put it:

"Today’s militaries excel at their respective missions of fighting and winning in ground, sea, and air conflict; however, the core skills each institution values are intrinsically different from those skills required to engage in cyberwarfare.
...
To understand the culture clash evident in today’s existing militaries, it is useful to examine what these services hold dear—skills such as marksmanship, physical strength, and the ability to jump out of airplanes and lead combat units under enemy fire. Accolades are heaped upon those who excel in these areas. Unfortunately, these skills are irrelevant in cyberwarfare.
...
Consider the awards, decorations, badges, patches, tabs, and other accoutrements authorized for wear by each service. Absent is recognition for technical expertise. Echoes of this ethos are also found in disadvantaged assignments, promotions, school selection, and career progression for those who pursue cyberwarfare expertise, positions, and accomplishments."

I wholeheartedly agree with their arguments, having come to a similar conclusion some time ago. Their proposal to deal with this issue is to create a new service that would be on equal status with the kinetic services. However, I am not so convinced that a transition so profound can be made in one step. Perhaps it would be better to use the USAF model and first create cyber commands (historical Army Air Corps) within the services, then integrate them, and then, maybe, raise them into a new service.

They are right, however, that the root of the problem lies with the personnel management in the military. One could say that a techie should stay in the service, become the top dog and change it from within, but that discounts the fact that techies do not get promoted to top dog. In fact, there are precious little positions near the top that have anything to do with technology. Therefore, a techie must either be a multi-talent or forget his tech aspirations and plod up the traditional leadership/management track. Meanwhile, people who have a talent for tech positions will not be promoted and more than likely get rotated to (technologically) meaningless positions... or they get out. Therefore, any step that will accommodate the requirements and skills of the tech oriented service members while not undermining the traditional services, is a step in the right direction.