Search

Begin New Search Topic Cybersecurity Publication Year within 5 Years

251. Cybersecurity (Syllabus Resource)

Author:
Peace and Security (GIWPS) Georgetown Institute for Women
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security (GIWPS)
Abstract:
The following is material to consider for your syllabus. Specifically, there is: Scholarly writing on cybersecurity written by diverse scholars and experts; Scholarly writing providing geographic variety and geographically varied perspectives; Studies and analyses examining diversity, equity and inclusion-related dimensions of cybersecurity.
Topic:
Education, National Security, Cybersecurity, Norms, and Syllabus
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Africa, India, North America, and Global Focus

252. Cyber-Warfare between Iran and Israel

Author:
Omer Dostri
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
The recent reciprocal cyber-attacks attributed to Israel and Iran were meant to set red lines on the non-kinetic dimension of war.
Topic:
Military Strategy, Cybersecurity, Conflict, and Digitalization
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, and Israel

253. Modern Conflict and Artificial Intelligence

Author:
Aaron Shull, Daniel Araya, Samantha Bradshaw, Amandeep Singh Gill, Michael Horowitz, Meg King, Robert Mazzolin, Maya Medeiros, Rodrigo Nieto-Gomez, and Liis Vihul
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)
Abstract:
Autonomous systems are revolutionizing our lives, but they present clear international security concerns. Despite the risks, emerging technologies are increasingly applied as tools for cybersecurity and, in some cases, cyberwarfare. In this essay series, first published online, experts explore digital threats to democracy and security, and the geopolitical tensions they create.
Topic:
Cybersecurity, Conflict, Artificial Intelligence, and Emerging Technology
Political Geography:
Global Focus

254. The Role of Digital Power in Estonia and Taiwan in Combating COVID-19

Author:
Andrey Makarychev, Elizabeth Wishnick, and Andrew J. Nathan
Publication Date:
08-2020
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Weatherhead East Asian Institute, Columbia University
Abstract:
Taiwan and Estonia are known as digital democracies. As both face threats from neighbors, their degree of digitization typically has been seen as a vulnerability. The DNS attack from Russia that Estonia faced in 2007 brought home the potential for cyberspace to be used as a domain of war. Similarly Taiwan has faced repeated cyberthreats from the People’s Republic of China. Nonetheless, in their successful responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, Taiwan and Estonia have highlighted the strengths of digital democracy in combating a non-traditional security threat without employing the strongarm tactics of authoritarian states. In this article we reexamine the digital vulnerability of democracies and put forward a conception of digital power to explain the success of Estonia and Taiwan in using their digital prowess to combat COVID-19. On the one hand their reliance on cybertechnology make them particularly vulnerable to cyberattacks, but on the other hand their digital power enhances their global stature and domestic capacity to address threats like COVID-19.
Topic:
Security, Cybersecurity, Democracy, COVID-19, Non-Traditional Threats, and Digitalization
Political Geography:
Taiwan, Asia, and Estonia

255. International Strategy to Better Protect the Financial System Against Cyber Threats

Author:
Tim Maurer and Arthur Nelson
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
In February 2016, a few months after Carnegie began its work on this project, a cyber attack shook the finance world. Hackers had targeted SWIFT, the global financial system’s main information network, trying to steal 1 billion U.S. dollars, nearly 0.50 percent of Bangladesh’s GDP, from the Bangladeshi central bank over the course of a weekend. It was a wake-up call revealing that cyber threats targeting the financial sector were no longer limited to low-level theft but could now pose systemic risk. Only a few months earlier, in 2015, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace had launched an initiative to better protect the global financial system against cyber threats. Our first step was to develop a proposal for the G20 to launch a work stream dedicated to cybersecurity in the financial sector. In March 2017, the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors outlined an initial road map to increase the cyber resilience of the international financial system. In the wake of the Bangladesh incident, Carnegie expanded its work, complementing the G20 project with the development of an action-oriented, technically detailed cyber resilience capacity-building tool box for financial institutions. Launched in 2019 in partnership with the IMF, SWIFT, FS-ISAC, Standard Chartered, the Global Cyber Alliance, and the Cyber Readiness Institute, this tool box is now available in seven languages. And we are continuing to track the evolution of the cyber threat landscape and incidents involving financial institutions through a collaboration with BAE Systems. To raise more awareness among senior officials of the growing threat, Carnegie also hosted a series of roundtables at the Munich Security Conference, including a cyber war game, dedicated to cybersecurity and the financial system. We co-hosted a high-level roundtable with the IMF for central bank governors and launched a workshop series at Wilton Park to strengthen the relationships among financial authorities, industry, and law enforcement as well as national security agencies. In July 2019, an international group—convened by Carnegie—of leading experts in governments, central banks, industry, and the technical community decided that there would be value in developing a longer-term international cybersecurity strategy for the financial system. This report is the result of that project and offers a vision for how the international community could better protect the financial system against cyber threats. The recommendations are designed to inform the deliberations among the G20, the G7, relevant standard-setting bodies as well as the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum and the Munich Security Conference. Written by Carnegie experts, this document includes feedback obtained through consultations with more than 200 stakeholders in government, the financial regulatory community, industry, and academia. An international advisory group, formed in fall 2019, provided strategic advice throughout the project. In February 2020, following Carnegie’s presentation of this project at the Forum’s annual meeting in Davos the previous month, the World Economic Forum became an official partner.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Finance, and Non-Traditional Threats
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

256. War, Terrorism, and Catastrophe in Cyber Insurance: Understanding and Reforming Exclusions

Author:
Jon Bateman
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Cyber insurance is a promising way to contain the havoc cyber attacks wreak, but endless lawsuits hamper its effectiveness. Reforms and new solutions are sorely needed. Insurance is one of the most promising tools for addressing pervasive cyber insecurity. A robust market for insuring cyber incidents could, among other things, financially incentivize organizations to adopt better cyber hygiene—thereby reducing cyber risk for society as a whole. But cyber insurance is not yet mature enough to fulfill its potential, partly due to uncertainty about what kinds of cyber risks are, or can be, insured. Uncertainties in cyber insurance came to a head in 2017, when the Russian government conducted a cyber attack of unprecedented scale. Data-destroying malware called NotPetya infected hundreds of organizations in dozens of countries, including major multinational companies, causing an estimated $10 billion in losses.1 NotPetya showed that cyber risk was greater than previously recognized, with higher potential for “aggregation”—the accumulation of losses across many insurance policies from a single incident or several correlated events. NotPetya also exposed a serious ambiguity in how insurance policies treat state-sponsored cyber incidents. Some property and casualty insurers declined to pay NotPetya-related claims, instead invoking their war exclusions—long-standing clauses that deny coverage for “hostile or warlike action in time of peace and war” perpetrated by states or their agents.2 War exclusions date back to the 1700s, but they had never before been applied to cyber incidents. This novel use of the war exclusion, still being litigated, has raised doubts about whether adequate or reliable coverage exists for state-sponsored cyber incidents. Some observers have asked whether such incidents are insurable at all, given the potential for aggregated cyber losses even more catastrophic than those of NotPetya.3 And while the war exclusion has attracted the most attention, another exclusion—for terrorism—presents similar challenges to cyber claims.
Topic:
Terrorism, War, Cybersecurity, and Non-Traditional Threats
Political Geography:
Global Focus

257. Deepfakes and Synthetic Media in the Financial System: Assessing Threat Scenarios

Author:
Jon Bateman
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Bad actors could use deepfakes—synthetic video or audio—to commit a range of financial crimes. Here are ten feasible scenarios and what the financial sector should do to protect itself. Rapid advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are enabling novel forms of deception. AI algorithms can produce realistic “deepfake” videos, as well as authentic-looking fake photos and writing. Collectively called synthetic media, these tools have triggered widespread concern about their potential in spreading political disinformation. Yet the same technology can also facilitate financial harm. Recent months have seen the first publicly documented cases of deepfakes used for fraud and extortion. Today the financial threat from synthetic media is low, so the key policy question is how much this threat will grow over time. Leading industry experts diverge widely in their assessments. Some believe firms and regulators should act now to head off serious risks. Others believe the threat will likely remain minor and the financial system should focus on more pressing technology challenges. A lack of data has stymied the discussion.
Topic:
Security, Cybersecurity, Artificial Intelligence, and Non-Traditional Threats
Political Geography:
Global Focus

258. A National Cybersecurity Agenda for Resilient Digital Infrastructure

Author:
Aspen Cybersecurity Group
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Aspen Institute
Abstract:
As the White House changes hands and Congress begins a new term, there is ample opportunity to find bipartisan consensus on key cybersecurity priorities. This document outlines achievable action steps for federal policymakers to make rapid progress toward a more resilient digital infrastructure. Some can be accomplished in weeks or months; others will take years. Fortunately, the federal government is not alone. Cyberspace is ultimately the domain of civil society and private enterprise, sectors teeming with experts who can guide the White House and Congress as they grapple with the difficult tradeoffs inherent to any cybersecurity policy decision. In crafting the National Cybersecurity Agenda, the Aspen Cybersecurity Group sought input from a diverse network of partners in academia and industry. Together, we stand ready and willing to assist policymakers in cultivating a secure, reliable, and productive cyberspace.
Topic:
Security, Infrastructure, Cybersecurity, Resilience, and Digitalization
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

259. Moldova Cybersecurity Governance Assessment

Author:
Natalia Spinu
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance (DCAF)
Abstract:
This report is a two-factor analysis of cybersecurity, including the legislative framework and key national actors in cybersecurity. The report presents the main cybersecurity threats in Moldova and the needs arising from national security objectives. After analysing the national cybersecurity strategy for Moldova, an identification and need for the main actors within the state who would be responsible for the implementation of the national strategy on cybersecurity was undertaken. A national action plan for cybersecurity was designed. It was understood that for a responsible and developed society there is a necessity to collaborate with the private sector and academia, and thus a robust cooperation and communication mechanism was described to include all the relevant stakeholders. The report reflects the conclusions and final remarks that have made the operational cybersecurity architecture in Moldova an elaborate framework.
Topic:
Security, National Security, Governance, Cybersecurity, and Private Sector
Political Geography:
Europe and Moldova

260. Iran’s Authoritarian Playbook: The Tactics, Doctrine, and Objectives behind Iran’s Influence Operations

Author:
Ariane Tabatabai
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
According to a 2013 indictment by the U.S. Department of Justice, hackers backed by a foreign power gained access to the controls of the Bowman Avenue Dam, a small dam in the New York City suburb of Rye, New York. Cyberattacks on infrastructure have long been a concern in the United States: Russia has targeted the U.S. power grid and other critical infrastructure in the past—at times successfully.1 Hackers backed by the People’s Republic of China have targeted U.S. utilities companies.2 However, neither of these strategic adversaries was behind this bold foray into U.S. suburbia: the culprit, according to the indictment, was the Islamic Republic of Iran.3 Over the past decade, Iran has emerged as an important national security challenge for the United States. A novel part of the regime’s effort—facilitated by the advent of the information age and new technology—is its development of a playbook and toolkit designed to undermine the United States at home just as, in the eyes of Tehran, Washington does in Iran. This makes the current Iranian challenge more subtle and nuanced than has been the case for most of the Islamic Republic’s existence. Iran has gradually expanded its capabilities to compete against the United States for influence within the region, and it is now also taking this competition into the United States and even Europe. One hundred days before the 2020 U.S. elections, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence put a fine point on this threat when National Counterintelligence and Security Center Director William Evanina released a statement noting that, “at this time, we’re primarily concerned with China, Russia and Iran,” who are all looking to “use influence measures in social and traditional media in an effort to sway U.S. voters’ preferences and perspectives, to shift U.S. policies, to increase discord and to undermine confidence in our democratic process.”4 The statement characterized the Iranian threat as follows: “Iran seeks to undermine U.S. democratic institutions and divide the country in advance of the elections. Iran’s efforts center around online influence, such as spreading disinformation on social media and recirculating anti-U.S. content.”5 The Islamic Republic’s authoritarian toolkit is unlikely to become as sophisticated as that of China or Russia in the near-term. After all, Iran’s economy is in shambles, its capacity restrained, and the model of society and governance it tries to offer profoundly limited in its appeal. And even the flagship tool used by Iran to interfere in democracies, namely its online influence operations, continues to suffer from such basic shortcomings as misspelled names, the repeated use of the same tactics and techniques, and a lack of proper research into the target and familiarity with its behavior.6 However, a perceived existential threat posed by the United States, an inability to match the conventional capabilities of the United States and its allies, and a strong desire to compete with the same, have encouraged Iran to double down on efforts to develop a set of asymmetric tools allowing it to overcome its shortcomings. In this sense, Iran is not dissimilar to Russia. “Authoritarian learning” (including partnerships with both Beijing and Moscow) has likely helped Tehran to overcome challenges and to develop its toolkit quickly and effectively. The result is that Iran is becoming a significant authoritarian actor challenging democracy in the United States and Europe. Tehran’s influence operations span traditional and digital media. The regime has built a sprawling web of traditional media outlets, as well as networks of accounts on all major social media platforms (even as it bans and limits access to these websites at home), allowing it to reach millions of users abroad. The content Iran creates, distributes, and amplifies is multilingual and seeks to adapt to democracies’ social, cultural, and political contexts—with fairly mixed results. Among the objectives of Iran’s information manipulation efforts are sowing tensions in democracies, dividing democratic nations internally and from each other, and alleging hypocrisy in democratic states’ foreign policies, undermining democratization in Iran and elsewhere. Iranian hackers routinely target U.S. persons, academic institutions, companies, non-profit organizations, and government agencies and departments. And Iran’s illicit finance schemes are considerable; although, they are currently focused on sanctions evasion and support of information operations, rather than used as a standalone vector to undermine democracies. Some of these tools and the tactics used by Iran are similar to those employed by both Russia and China—and both Beijing and Moscow have lent Tehran a hand in developing some of its capabilities,7 particularly in the realm of information manipulation. Iranian, Russian, and Chinese state media and associated social media accounts echo and amplify each other’s messaging. But there are also some differences in how Tehran deploys these tactics. This is in part due to differences in the political culture and structure of the country, the Islamic Republic’s own ideology and worldview, and the country’s status in the international system. Another significant set of differences arises from Iran’s shortcomings vis-à-vis both its adversaries (including the United States) and its authoritarian partners in Russia and China. For example, Russia and China can leverage their vast nuclear arsenal and enormous economic weight, respectively, to compete directly with the United States. Iran is ill-equipped to compete with the United States in either of those domains and, as such, sees this set of tools and efforts to undermine democracy as a means to elevate its level of competition rather than an end in itself. Hence, Tehran’s toolkit is more limited than those of Beijing or Moscow, leading the Islamic Republic to be more deliberate and selective in the programs it develops and, perhaps, more forceful in how it deploys them. As a result, though Iran’s growing efforts to undermine democracy should not be ignored and should be addressed adequately, for now, the Islamic Republic remains a lesser threat than China and Russia. This report tries to make sense of these activities and provide a framework for understanding Iran’s intentions and capabilities. It provides one of the first comprehensive discussions of Iran’s authoritarian toolkit, doctrine, and objectives. It must be noted that unlike other key Iranian initiatives—such as its nuclear program, missile activities, support for non-state actors, and regional interventions—Iran’s authoritarian toolkit remains scarcely studied in the academic literature. Understanding Tehran’s objectives in undermining democracy and the means it leverages to do so is important for a few reasons. First, Iranian activities over the past few years have shown that the regime is increasingly active in this space. And as Iran’s objectives and the tools it employs are different from those of other key malign actors, understanding their strengths and weaknesses and developing specific responses to them is a worthy exercise. Second, authoritarians learn from each other, and observing the Iranian case allows us to better identify the trends and comprehend the ways in which less powerful malign actors (as opposed to Russia and China, for example) may engage in similar activities designed to undermine democracy.
Topic:
Authoritarianism, Elections, Cybersecurity, Foreign Interference, Cyberspace, and Influence
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, and Global Focus