Is There a Cyberwar, and Is the US Losing It?

kenblakely writes "BusinessWeek is running a story asserting that the 'US is Losing the Global Cyberwar.' This whole cyberwar thing has been discussed a few times on Slashdot where the Chinese are asserted to be using cyberwarfare to attain military superiority. And, of course, there is the whole Russia-Georgia thing. Even the US military is getting in on the action, and the fear of a cyber Pearl Harbor seems almost palpable. I'm curious what the Slashdot crowd thinks about the growing fascination with 'cyberwar': hype to get more money and create new force structure, source of the next world war, or somewhere in between?"

Comments

Yes

[cyberspittle]

Analayze your own traffic at the point of entry. Wireshark is helpful.

Re:How could we tell?

[Shakrai]

Who do you think would make all of your computer bits, toys and clothes cheaply if you offend china..

Umm, China doesn't have a global monopoly on cheap labor. The plastic stamped toys and cheap clothes could be made almost anywhere -- Latin/South America, Vietnam, Malaysia, etc, etc.

Re:Cyberwar?

[darkmeridian]

If you read the article you'd understand there is a cyber war and it isn't just script kiddies or digital anarchists attacking secure computer systems. Secure NASA systems were rooted by a guy who sent 30 gigabytes of data to a location in Taiwan, where it probably was sent to China. That's not anarchy; it's an attempt to steal confidential data. And so it goes. A hacker got spyware onto a joint government/Lockheed system and stole some info there, but no one knows how much data was stolen.

There may be attacks that are pointless, but that doesn't mean there aren't highly targeted attacks meant to steal confidential information about space missions just as the world is re-entering the Space Race (China going to space, Indians to the moon, Americans to the moon and Mars, etc.)

It's not a binary either/or

[daveschroeder]

BOTH are happening. And it's not just "Chinese hackers". It is a concerted, organized, long-term effort supported through the highest levels of Chinese government to control the information landscape as a tool for superiority over the United States. We've talked about how China is planning to use technology to leapfrog its foes militarily -- including the United States -- and Chinese doctrine on Information Warfare makes this no secret. There are financial concerns, and there are very real concerns about the information realm as well. Human interaction is based on the dissemination, exchange, and interpretation of information. It's not just "hackers" or "cyberwar"; information warfare is much bigger, and it IS happening. This is important enough that a previous comment of mine on this issue bears repeating here:

"Information Warfare" (IW), sometimes called Information Operations (IO), spans several arenas, from the purely technical to the social and psychological. The goals and missions of IO and intelligence in general, particularly against and within non-free societies, will constantly be at odds with the democratic nature of the United States and the West. Even so, the United States currently doesn't appear to acknowledge the scope of the information campaigns China has executed against it. China's motives are strategic rather than tactical in nature; that is, they do not necessarily serve any direct or immediate specific purpose, but rather serve to create influence in its own favor over long periods of time. For this reason, many in the US see China as something of a misunderstood ally, while China simultaneously builds out its military capability.

While cyber warfare is now routinely considered in various analyses of China and other nations, the larger question of why China is so diligently pursuing this path is overlooked. China's activities in this realm are assumed to be part of a natural technological progression. However, a study of literature examining China's efforts in Information Warfare viewed against the backdrop of the importance of the Information Revolution which is sweeping the globe paints a picture of a nation looking to the information realm as a critical and key mechanism to modernize its military capabilities. Similar to how the Industrial Revolution ushered in a new era and greatly enhanced nations' abilities to wage war, the Information Revolution again could change the face of conflict. China's motivations for expanding its cyber warfare capabilities against the United States may transcend that of simple technological evolution, and warrant a deeper examination. Why, then, can China be expected to expand its Information Warfare capabilities, particularly with respect to the United States?

The US Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute encapsulates these findings in one simple thought: to China's leadership, it could mean a pathway to modernization that would obviate the need for costly and time-consuming interim modernization. "IW offers opportunities to win wars without the traditional clash of arms" (Yoshihara 2001). Indeed, China appears to be focused on the notion of such asymmetric warfare. Yoshihara (2001) goes on to explore the current state of Chinese IW and IO philosophy. The focus of Chinese theoreticians appears squarely focused on the possibility of IW offering China a decisive option to defeat a superior adversary by crippling its command and control capabilities. Moreover, Yoshihara (2001) notes that some Chinese military scholars consider the notion of victory without conventional battle; not only via disabling information-based attacks in the electronic realm, but even via more subtle psychological operations (PSYOP) designed to alter and shape an adversary's thinking.

Part of China's motivations for the intense focus on the information realm stems from China's fascination with recent conflicts driven by information. China witnessed the decisive US tactical victory in the

Re:It's not a binary either/or

[daveschroeder]

This is a good summary of China's lines of thinking:

Hypothetical attack on U.S. outlined by China, Air Force Times, January 28, 2008

The democratic Republic of China, commonly called Taiwan -- which America backs and the communist People's Republic of China considers part of its territory -- frequently irritates Chinese leaders with calls for greater independence from the mainland. But while the American military mulls its options, Chinese missiles hit runways, fuel lines, barracks and supply depots at U.S. Air Force bases in Japan and South Korea. Long-range warheads destroy American satellites, crippling Air Force surveillance and communication networks. A nuclear fireball erupts high above the Pacific Ocean, ionizing the atmosphere and scrambling radars and radio feeds.

This is China's anti-U.S. sucker punch strategy.

It's designed to strike America's military suddenly, stunning and stalling the Air Force more than any other service. In a script written by Chinese military officers and defense analysts, a bruised U.S. military, beholden to a sheepish American public, puts up a small fight before slinking off to avoid full-on war.

[...]

Because the American public is "abnormally sensitive" about military casualties, according to an article in China's Liberation Army Daily, killing U.S. airmen or other personnel would spark a "domestic anti-war cry" on the home front and possibly force early withdrawal of U.S. forces.

[...]

The PLA also would likely use less conventional attacks on the American military's vital communications network. The goal, as one Chinese expert put it: leaving U.S. combat capabilities "blind," "deaf" and "paralyzed." Losing early-warning systems designed to detect incoming missiles would be, for the Air Force, the most devastating setback -- one that could force the service to exit the region altogether, according to Rand.

The report that is the subject of this article also discusses options for hardening US military targets and infrastructure. But ultimately, even dedicated military networks have some of the same vulnerabilities as the commodity internet. They are just as sensitive to EM disruption, and some common modes of attack. The other piece you're missing is the more subtle psychological manipulation, which can occur over a much longer term.

This isn't just about DoSing web sites. The attacks that can occur in the information realm span many more areas, and may not even be interpreted or recognized as an attack until it's too late. It pays to be aware of this landscape in a changing world:

A global multipolar system is emerging with the rise of China, India, and others. The relative power of nonstate actors -- businesses, tribes, religious organizations, and even criminal networks -- also will increase.

By 2025 a single "international community" composed of nation-states will no longer exist. Power will be more dispersed with the newer players bringing new rules of the game while risks will increase that the traditional Western alliances will weaken. Rather than emulating Western models of political and economic development, more countries may be attracted to China's alternative development model.

If we place any importance on the positive aspects of Western systems of values and influence (something which moral relativists may find extremely difficult to do), over, say, government and social models in China or Russia, then there should be an awareness about threats against those systems.

See also: Entering the Dragon's Lair: Chinese Antiaccess Strategies and Their Implications for the United States. This entire book is available free and is a great read for those interested in Chinese military strategy.

Re:let me get thsi straight

[egr]

it's not owned apparently, it's pwnd

pearl harbor dot com by Winn Schwartau

[Anonymous Coward]

This has been discussed for years in the security community, It could almost be considered old news..

Either way theres a piece of fiction titled 'Pearl Harbor dot com' http://www.bestwebbuys.com/9780962870064 written by Winn Schwartau http://www.winnschwartau.com/ who is a security expert covering the fields of information warfare and Cyber-Terrorism. It was actually a decent read. There is a preview of the book available for download on his web site.

Re:Cyberwar?

[internerdj]

There are processes and procedures but no process or procedure is 100%. Contractors need access to time-charging websites for their companies. IT folks need access to the internet to patch security flaws. Technical folks of all types need the internet for references, online documentation, online journals, etc. You can't just cut out internet for everyone working for the government. You also have government energy companies like TVA, government health agencies like the CDC. Both of which control sensitive information that could be used against this nation by weaponization of that information.

Re:Cyberwar?

[aaaaaaargh!]

There is no cyberwar. What you and the arrticle describe is just SIGINT. What do you think the NSA is doing all the time?

If there was a real cyberwar, basically all private and most company computers would be wiped out and rendered unoperational within just a few days. Off the shelf PCs are very insecure (drivers, BIOS, processor firmware, etc.) no matter which OS you run on them.

Re:Cyberwar?

[Mister Whirly]

Or you could call it an Information War. (Because if you come down to it, information is what wins or loses wars.) "Wars" are not solely winnable by using military strength and tactics. See also: Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.

Re:Cyberwar?

[Cyrcyr]

Having some experience in hush-hush networks, the situations where a user actually CAN screw up are next to nothing. Even highly trained personnel screw up, and policies are made to prevent even accidental screwups. So yes; that is how it is supposed to work, and DOES work.

Re:Espionage

[mR.bRiGhTsId3]

Intruigingly, so would the rest of the world's economies as well. Thus we have MAD, and everyone is suddenly happy with the status quo.