By Brittany Lamon-Paredes – Contributor
On February 13, 2018, “The Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community” was released to the general public. This report was presented to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence by CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and NSA Chief Mike Rogers. Cyber attacks and cyber espionage topped the lists of concern for all four intelligence agency heads.
Some members of the intelligence community and academia view cyber threats as inconsequential. To date, cyber attacks have not produced a kinetic result with casualties. Cyber espionage has occurred by state actors and non-state actors for over a decade, but espionage is not restricted under international law. Assessing the cyber order-of-battle of a threat is more abstract than asking a commander to plan operations based on an adversarial surface-to-air missile supply. Military operations would assess a course of action based on the composition and disposition of enemy armament. What does a threat force possess and what do they lack? In contrast, cyber warfare may not have known, tangible assets.
The Unknown Assailant
State sponsorship is unnecessary to start the chain of events leading to a cyberwar. Unlike the payload or fallout from a warhead, computer cyber attacks can be impervious to track. Lack of attribution creates an “unknown assailant” or person/persons with an operating system capable of damaging a network. Few requirements are needed to potentially impact a vulnerable network. For one, a threat actor would need to have operating control over a computer. Cybercrime can occur thousands of miles away by one individual or a large group. While prior history has not indicated a physical danger from cyber attacks, malware embedded in a computer system or a breach in network security could yield severe consequences for the critical infrastructure of the U.S.
Precedent: Evolution of Warfare Tactics
WWI marked a deviation in standard rules of war between western states and other nations. This was one of the early evolutions to the nature of the code of conduct in war. This switch introduced chemical agent attacks and trench warfare. Later, the Vietnam War set another standard of Guerrilla warfare. Threat actors from the Gulf War era to today could be matched to be mostly non-combatants that may not even wear military fatigues. These three variances have occurred over the span of a century to alter conventional warfare and standard rules of engagement. The argument inferred is that it would not be too far of a stretch to infer the incorporation of cyber attacks in warfare.
Financial Support
Access to a functioning computer presents a terrorist or a hacker with opportunity. The threshold to enter cyberspace is low. However, financial backing and political support are just as critical to a terrorist’s initiative as the intent to harm. Innovation in the U.S. does not mean that parallel forms of technology exist in areas with a high presence of threat actors. Critics of cyber prioritization for national security could argue that Pakistan and Afghanistan with radical threat actors have limited access to basic communication cables, let alone advanced technology. Dan Coates, the Director of National Intelligence echoes the idea that cyber warfare may yield future deaths if not confronted with a preventive strategy. The would-be renegade hacker receives funds from a terrorist group. The botnet placed in a US computer by this individual collects data from inside the network. This complicit cooperation between cyber-terrorist and terrorist becomes a variation in tactic.
Consequentially, the complex nature of cyber espionage could be the root that starts a kinetic attack or war. How Congress allocates funds to address the cyber threat in the future is an ongoing dilemma.
Intelligence Chiefs Testify at Senate Hearing, February 13, 2018 – Full 2:35:55 hours
CREDIT: NBC NEWS
_______________________________________________________
Brittany Lamon-Paredes is a professional in the defense industry with a master’s degree in Intelligence Studies, with a focus on Intelligence Analysis at American Military University (AMU/APUS). She has a bachelor’s degree from Wellesley College with a political science and anthropology background. She serves on the United States Navy as a reservist.
Leave a Reply