Tag Archive for: Preemptive

NATO: Time to Adopt a Pre-emptive Approach to Cyber Security in New Age Security Architecture

/in


Introduction

Cyber threats are complex and asymmetrical, particularly because cyberspace is “borderless” and exists digitally. NATO ensures its cyber security through collective action among its permanent members who respond based on the depth of the attack or vulnerability. With the new NATO Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), a cyber security command based in Mons, Belgium, NATO reinforces its capabilities in the cyber ecosystem. NATO seeks to secure its infrastructural digital networks through a centralized allied process. The main stated strategic goal of NATO’s cyber security infrastructure is to collectively counter “the full spectrum of cyber threats at all times.” The key pillars of this deterrence and defense posture include safeguarding vital networks, protecting infrastructures, and supporting cyber security missions. To mitigate the asymmetrical threat of cyberattacks, NATO must remain technologically advanced, agile, and interoperable in military operations to enhance its collective cyber resilience. NATO’s current policy simply responds to cyber attacks and minimizes vulnerabilities. NATO should transition towards preventing such attacks at all levels (from fundamental to complex wired infrastructure).

The Evolution of NATO’s Posture

As a security provider in the Euro-Atlantic region, NATO must ensure protection at all levels to prevent harm and damage from cyberattacks. NATO has long considered cyber defense to be a central defense mechanism. The need for a cyber security space feasibility requirement was first noted in the 2002 NATO Summit meeting in Prague, which discussed the necessity of technological agility and planning on electronic warfare and information systems. The Riga Summit in 2006 reiterated this necessity. Despite this recognition, no cyber security apparatus fully evolved, and interconnected cyber defense capacity remained low. Nevertheless, the summits accurately forecasted that future war operations would be far more complicated due to growing cyber security threats. Battles have occurred over an increasing number of dimensions–whether air, land, sea, or digital–particularly as electronic warfare has become a…

Source…

FBI, Microsoft Strikes Against Hackers Are Harbinger Of More Pre-Emptive Actions

/in


First the FBI. Now Microsoft.

A day after the FBI revealed last week that it had pre-emptively disrupted a Russian-government backed botnet, Microsoft revealed that it had proactively thwarted an attempt by Russian hackers to attack Ukrainian entities.

James Morrison, who spent 22 years with the FBI as a senior computer scientist focused on cybersecurity, cybercrime and ransomware and is now CISO at Spring, Texas-based Ntirety, said he believes that the FBI and Microsoft’s aggressive actions are a harbinger of more pre-emptive strikes to come amid the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine and heightened concerns over cybersecurity in general.

[RELATED: Huntress CEO On FBI Disrupting Russian Hackers: ‘I’m Pumped’]

“It’s not a coincidence,” said Morrison, adding, however, that he’s not saying the FBI and Microsoft collaborated behind the scenes on their separate actions against Russian cyberintruders.

Instead, he said, the actions are more a sign of the tense times—with increasing global cyberattacks and threats against government agencies and private institutions alike. Indeed, he noted that cyberattacks have increased by 800 percent since the start of the Russian-Ukrainian war, based on data from the FBI and Homeland Security.

As for Microsoft’s recent action against Russian hackers, he said it’s a “good thing” for cybersecurity in general. But he said a “little caution” is in order because such strikes must be legally permissible in each case.

In a blog entry posted late Thursday, Tom Burt, a Microsoft corporate vice president, customer security and trust, stressed that Microsoft obtained a court order before it moved against the Russian group, known as Strontium, which has been linked to Russian intelligence services.

In his blog post, Burt said that Strontium, which Microsoft has been tracking “for years,” was attempting to seize control of seven internet domains to launch attacks against Ukrainian institutions, including media organizations.

“[Strontium] was also targeting government institutions and think tanks in the United States and the European Union involved in foreign policy,” Burt wrote.

“We believe…

Source…

Defining democracy down. Preemptive blame for a prospective invasion. The Corpse Bride Diet and other temptations of social media.

/in


At a glance.

  • Defining democracy down.
  • Preemptive blame for a prospective invasion.
  • The Corpse Bride Diet and other temptations of social media.

Pushing a “positive” message (as opposed to merely sowing confusion).

As we saw last week, China has been working to push an alternative picture of democracy, the “whole-process people’s democracy” outlined by the State Council of the People’s Republic white paper, “China: Democracy That Works.” The overarching goal is to contrast China’s mode of social organization with America’s process-bound cynicism, all, of course, to the advantage of China and the disadvantage of America.

Beijing’s news outlet CGTN has been running a multi-part series, “America: War by another name,” which it describes as “a special eight-part series that explores the sinister motivations for [America’s] warmongering.” Part six came out this week, and it’s devoted to “American Cyber Hegemony: Science fiction turned into reality.” The upshot of the article is that US institutional paranoia has led the Americans to become the leading proponents of both cyberespionage and cybersabotage. The US strategy, CGTN explains, has these four phases, roughly strategy, organization, operations, and intelligence:

  • “First, the U.S. has formulated and promoted an increasingly offensive cyber security strategy, rendering cyberspace in perpetuated instability. With strategic competition as the focal point, the four U.S. governments since the 20th century [those would be the Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden Administrations, and CGTN says elsewhere that Washington’s hegemonic ambitions in cyberspace go back to President Clinton] have embarked on a three-phase process of establishing, managing and controlling the cyber network – all in an attempt to write the rules and gain absolute strategic advantages in cyberspace…. From a passive defensive strategy that protected key infrastructure and beefed up the management system, the U.S. has gradually turned to an active defensive strategy that systematically built cyberspace deterrence to fend off threats, and then to a forward defensive strategy that pre-emptively attacks potential targets of threat actors. America’s increasingly expansive…

Source…

Obama, Preemptive Cyberwarfare and the Banks – Huffington Post

/in

Obama, Preemptive Cyberwarfare and the Banks
Huffington Post
Cyber warfare is always compared with real warfare. We talk of invasions, where there is not physical entry, and we count individual attacks as if they are bombs, and not, as they are, automated programs. This leads to politicians with a point, and …

cyber warfare – read more