Search

Begin New Search Topic Cybersecurity Political Geography North America

11. Sharing Cyber Capabilities within the Alliance - Interoperability Through Structured Pre-Authorization Cyber

Author:
Jan Kallberg, Todd Arnold, and Stephen S. Hamilton
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
Department of Social Sciences at West Point, United States Military Academy
Abstract:
S haring cyber weapon/cyber capabilities requires trust between the member states, becoming a high-end policy decision due to the concerns of proliferation and the investment in designing a cyber-weapon that has a limited ’shelf-life’. The digital nature of cyber weapons creates a challenge. A cyber weapon can spread quickly, either self-propagating such as worms or via disclosure (and subsequent reuse) by malware researchers or malicious actors, raising proliferation concerns. Additionally, a cyber-weapon can be copied by the adversary or reverse engineered. Once the weapon is released, the adversary will eventually address the vulnerability, and the opportunity is gone. These factors raise the threshold between member states to share cyber weapons and cyber capabilities. Alliances, like NATO, prepare for a unified multinational, multi domain fight; meanwhile, the national cyber forces are still operating as solitaires with limited interoperability and sharing. There is a need in the collective defence posture to integrate the multinational cyber force to achieve interoperability.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, NATO, Regional Cooperation, Cybersecurity, and Alliance
Political Geography:
Europe and North America

12. Enabling NATO’s Collective Defense: Critical Infrastructure Security and Resiliency (NATO COE-DAT Handbook 1)

Author:
Carl V. Evans, Chris Anderson, Malcom Baker, Ronald Bearse, and Salih Biçakci
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College
Abstract:
In 2014 NATO’s Centre of Excellence-Defence Against Terrorism (COE-DAT) launched the inaugural course on “Critical Infrastructure Protection Against Terrorist Attacks.” As this course garnered increased attendance and interest, the core lecturer team felt the need to update the course in critical infrastructure (CI) taking into account the shift from an emphasis on “protection” of CI assets to “security and resiliency.” What was lacking in the fields of academe, emergency management, and the industry practitioner community was a handbook that leveraged the collective subject matter expertise of the core lecturer team, a handbook that could serve to educate government leaders, state and private-sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, academicians, and policymakers in NATO and partner countries. Enabling NATO’s Collective Defense: Critical Infrastructure Security and Resiliency is the culmination of such an effort, the first major collaborative research project under a Memorandum of Understanding between the US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute (SSI), and NATO COE-DAT. The research project began in October 2020 with a series of four workshops hosted by SSI. The draft chapters for the book were completed in late January 2022. Little did the research team envision the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February this year. The Russian occupation of the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant, successive missile attacks against Ukraine’s electric generation and distribution facilities, rail transport, and cyberattacks against almost every sector of the country’s critical infrastructure have been on world display. Russian use of its gas supplies as a means of economic warfare against Europe—designed to undermine NATO unity and support for Ukraine—is another timely example of why adversaries, nation-states, and terrorists alike target critical infrastructure. Hence, the need for public-private sector partnerships to secure that infrastructure and build the resiliency to sustain it when attacked. Ukraine also highlights the need for NATO allies to understand where vulnerabilities exist in host nation infrastructure that will undermine collective defense and give more urgency to redressing and mitigating those fissures.
Topic:
Security, NATO, Infrastructure, Cybersecurity, Alliance, Crisis Management, and Risk Assessment
Political Geography:
Europe, Ukraine, North America, and United States of America

13. Of Ships and Cyber: Transposing the Incidents at Sea Agreement

Author:
Alexander Klimburg
Publication Date:
09-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Abstract:
Amid the geopolitical crises caused by Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, it may seem wildly optimistic—or even bad diplomacy—to consider future arms-control scenarios for cyber operations. However, good policy needs to prepare for the day after tomorrow, and smart policy will look at what has gone wrong today and what can be learned from yesterday. Arguably, one element that may have contributed to rising geopolitical tensions over the past decade has been a lack of clear cyber signals among the main adversaries. This makes it even more urgent to consider what can be learned from past arms-control exercises such as the vaunted Incidents at Sea (INCSEA) Agreement—especially as this accord was conceived in the wake of several of its own perilous crises. In 1962, a lack of agreed signaling protocols nearly led to World War III. According to a riveting account in the 2020 book Nuclear Folly, 1 on October 27, 1962—at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis—the U.S. Navy cornered one of the few Soviet submarines unaccounted for off Cuba. In an effort to convince the Foxtrot-class B-59 submarine to surface, the destroyer USS Cony employed practice depth charges—which were not accurately identified as such by B-59’s beleaguered crew. When, in the middle of the night, the submarine did indeed surface, a low-flying anti-submarine aircraft dropped flares and pyrotechnics so it could take better photographs. This seemed like an attack to the submarine, and the exhausted captain of B-59 ordered a crash dive and speculated that perhaps the war had already broken out. He gave orders to prepare to launch a 10-kiloton nuclear torpedo at the U.S. Navy task force. It took a near-mutiny by senior officers to stop him. This close call remained unknown until fairly recently. But several more prominent naval incidents throughout 1960s convinced the Soviet Union and the United States that a basic common agreement was necessary, and the Cold War “thaw” of the early 1970s made this possible.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Cybersecurity, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, North America, and United States of America

14. WHO ATTACKED MONTENEGRO? THE MORAL AND STRATEGIC HAZARDS OF MISASSIGNING BLAME

Author:
Erica Lonergan and Maggie Smith
Publication Date:
09-2022
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Political Violence @ A Glance
Abstract:
A few weeks ago, Montenegro—a NATO member—was hit with a cyber attack that targeted government servers. Montenegro’s outgoing Prime Minister, Dritan Abazovic, initially hedged about potential responsibility for the attack, stating on August 26: “We do not have clear information about the organizers… Security sector authorities couldn’t confirm that there is an individual, a group, a state behind [the attack].” Nevertheless, later that same day officials from Montenegro’s national intelligence agency attributed the attack to Russia. They also implied that the attack was related to Montenegro’s support for Ukraine and push for membership in the European Union. Yet, the extent of Russian involvement in the cyber attack remains ambiguous, which poses significant political and strategic challenges.
Topic:
Security, NATO, European Union, and Cybersecurity
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, North America, Montenegro, and United States of America

15. Behind the rise of ransomware

Author:
John Sakellariadis
Publication Date:
08-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
This issue brief investigates the drivers of the ransomware surge that menaced the United States in the summer of 2021, explains why these attacks remain a persistent threat today, and offers recommendations for mitigating the problem in the future. The 2021 surge in ransomware activity stems from a change in how criminals launch ransomware attacks. Between 2016 and 2019, cybercriminals shifted away from automated ransomware campaigns that emphasized scale to targeted extortion operations against organizations and established businesses. This adaptation made ransomware more disruptive and more profitable, eventually attracting the attention of well-organized cybercrime gangs. The intensification of the ransomware epidemic from that point until the attack on Colonial Pipeline resulted from the growing adoption of this new extortion model among criminals. Though the US government has devoted more attention to ransomware over the ensuing months, ransomware remains a significant and long-term threat to the US economy. Three factors drive the persistence of the problem: the presence of a vast pool of security-poor organizations, the availability of a poorly regulated monetization pipeline in the form of cryptocurrency, and criminals’ ability to evade law enforcement by exploiting jurisdictional boundaries. Mitigating just one of these conditions, let alone all three, will demand years of sustained effort. Because the US government cannot eliminate ransomware overnight, it must begin planning how to manage the problem over the long term. To do so, it should start by investing in new efforts to improve the defenses of small- to medium-sized entities. The ease of compromising these organizations has been key to fueling the appetite for ransomware attacks. Yet, many of these organizations lack the personnel, incentives, and contracting power to secure their own networks. Moreover, the US government should require all US-based organizations to report ransomware payments to the government and publish quarterly reports with anonymized versions of the data. Comprehensive payment transparency offers the best way to measure success against ransomware over the long term. It will ensure that success against targeted ransomware is judged in terms of the overall volume of ransomware payments, not just the absence of attacks on high-risk or high-profile entities.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, and Ransomware
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

16. The Two Technospheres Western-Chinese Technology Decoupling: Implications for Cybersecurity

Author:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Abstract:
Decoupling of digital innovation, systems, and data flows between Western nations and China is a growing global issue with high potential to destabilize the digital world. Through a series of workshops and an analysis of existing efforts, the Multilateral Cyber Action Committee (MCAC) has provided an assessment on the current status of technology decoupling and the growing divergence of the Western and Chinese technospheres. The report provides a set of recommendations for action to mitigate the growing cybersecurity risks posed by technology decoupling.
Topic:
Security, Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, and Rivalry
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Asia, and North America

17. A Shared Responsibility: Public-Private Cooperation for Cybersecurity

Author:
Eugenia Lostri, James Andrew Lewis, and Georgia Wood
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Abstract:
Cybersecurity is a priority for Congress and for the Biden administration as online crime and espionage reach unparalleled heights. To improve cybersecurity in federal agencies and in critical infrastructure, the administration has built a strong team, elevated the positions of White House officials dealing with the issue, and released a series of policy directives. In Congress, 157 pieces of legislation addressing cybersecurity were introduced during 2021, with proposals ranging from capacity building and workforce development to updating federal policy. Crime and espionage have made cybersecurity a national priority, and action on cybersecurity is more likely than ever in 2022. CSIS convened two private roundtables with senior government officials and senior information security executives from major enterprises in a range of U.S. industry sectors. The goals of the roundtables were to identify common challenges, discuss best practices, and outline avenues for cooperation.
Topic:
Security, Infrastructure, Governance, Cybersecurity, and Public-Private Partnership
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

18. Cybersecurity for innovative small and medium enterprises and academia

Author:
Franklin D. Kramer, Melanie J. Teplinsky, and Robert J Butler
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Innovation is fundamental to United States global leadership, critical both for the economy and for national security. Yet the resilience of the US innovation ecosystem against adversary cyber espionage and attack—most specifically from China—has not received the attention required, particularly given the essential innovation roles played by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and by academia. In response to that challenge, this report sets forth a proposal for expert-provided cybersecurity resilient architectures for SMEs and academia that are engaged in the development and operation of key emerging and advanced technologies. Such cybersecurity resilient architectures would be operated by the private sector and funded through the establishment of transferable cybersecurity investment tax credits. The use of such architectures for the protection of emerging and advanced technologies would play a key role in ensuring that the United States maintains its worldwide innovation leadership.
Topic:
Cybersecurity, Innovation, Academia, and Resilience
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

19. What do we know about cyber operations during militarized crises?

Author:
Michael Fischerkeller
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
The Department of Defense (DoD) will soon kick off the drafting of its cyber strategy and cyber posture review to align US cyber capabilities and operating concepts with the foreign policy objectives of the Joseph Biden-Kamala Harris administration. Given that the administration describes China as the “pacing threat,” debates over the best use of cyber operations and campaigns will likely be framed by US-China interaction in day-to-day competition, and by a potential militarized crisis and war over the status of Taiwan. This essay focuses on how cyber operations employed during militarized crises are likely to impact escalation management. Policymakers may be attracted to the idea that cyber operations could serve as de-escalatory offramps in a crisis. Such expectations should be tempered, if not completely set aside, for two reasons. First, there is no experience with cyber operations employed during a militarized crisis between two nuclear-armed peers. Absent direct experience, all one can rely on is academic research. Yet, secondly, deductive and empirical academic research provides no basis for confidence that cyber operations are either de-escalatory or non-escalatory in the context of militarized crises.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Cybersecurity, Crisis Management, and Militarization
Political Geography:
China, Taiwan, Asia, North America, and United States of America

20. A Call to Action: The Federal Government’s Role in Building a Cybersecurity Workforce for the Nation

Author:
Daniel Chenok and Karen S. Evans
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA)
Abstract:
Cybersecurity is a significant concern for governments, businesses, universities, service providers, and citizens throughout the country. Ransomware attacks and other cyber intrusions are featured in the news almost daily, and there is a growing demand for cybersecurity workers who can protect the electronic systems that enable so many aspects of our lives and our economy. In recognition of these vulnerabilities, the Academy identified as one of its twelve Grand Challenges in Public Administration the need to Ensure Data Security and Privacy Rights of Individuals. Yet only recently has the federal government begun to bring together key federal and nonfederal actors to address cybersecurity workforce problems. As part of the FY 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congress directed the Department of Homeland Security to contract with the National Academy of Public Administration (or a similar organization) to review the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) programs (primarily housed within the Cybersecurity Defense Education and Training [CDET] branch) to build a national cybersecurity workforce. The task was to assess the excellence, scalability, and diversity of select CISA/CDET workforce-development programs and to consider alternative models for building a cyber workforce. Our study Panel of Academy Fellows also looked at additional efforts across the government aimed at ensuring the nation’s cybersecurity workforce needs are being met. The Academy’s Study Team staff performed the research and analysis to inform Panel member analysis and recommendations. I deeply appreciate our Panel members, who provided valuable guidance and introductions to federal and nonfederal leaders in the cybersecurity workforce development field. The views expressed in this report are those of the Panel. In addition, I would like to acknowledge the time and contributions as subject matter experts of Academy Fellows Franklin Reeder, Director Emeritus and Founding Chair, Center for Internet Security, and Ronald Sanders, Staff Director, The Florida Center for Cybersecurity at the University of South Florida. Both went above and beyond to provide information, context, contacts, and other guidance to the Study Team and Panel. Last, but far from least, I appreciate the constructive engagement with CISA leaders and experts— including those in CDET—along with current and former federal officials and numerous private sector leaders in related federal, academic, and private sector fields who contributed to the development of this report. The Panel’s report presents findings and recommendations that support the development of an effective cybersecurity workforce for the government and for the nation. The report acknowledges that this can be done only through strong, ongoing national coordination and leadership reaching across federal agencies and the larger economy. I hope these recommendations help build a more robust and resilient cybersecurity workforce to better support the nation’s long-term security posture and capabilities.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Labor Issues, Cybersecurity, and Leadership
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America