Risk
11/14/2012
01:33 PM
50%
50%

Obama Secret Order Authorizes Cybersecurity Strikebacks

Secret policy details how military units may be used to launch offensive cyber operations in the wake of online attacks against the United States.

Defense Tech: 20 War-Fighting Innovations
Military Transformers: 20 Innovative Defense Technologies
(click image for larger view and for slideshow)
A secret directive, signed by President Obama in mid-October, has authorized the military to help battle cyber attacks launched against the United States.

Known as Presidential Policy Directive 20, the classified document "establishes a broad and strict set of standards to guide the operations of federal agencies in confronting threats in cyberspace," The Washington Post first reported.

The policy reportedly includes privacy and data security safeguards for U.S. citizens and foreign allies, and also requires that any actions comply with international laws of war. Ultimately, the policy -- which updates a 2004 presidential directive -- is meant to make clear exactly what can and cannot be done.

[ Watch out for unintended consequences. Read Cyber Weapon Friendly Fire: Chevron Stuxnet Fallout. ]

"What it does, really for the first time, is it explicitly talks about how we will use cyber operations," a senior administration official told The Washington Post. "Network defense is what you're doing inside your own networks. ... Cyber operations is stuff outside that space, and recognizing that you could be doing that for what might be called defensive purposes."

Legally speaking, there can be a fine line between so-called defensive operations -- such as conducting reconnaissance -- and what constitutes acceptable levels of offensive operations. On the other hand, the existence of the new directive, despite its exact contents being secret, may help private sector organizations attain greater strike-back capabilities themselves.

One notable provision of the White House policy is that law enforcement agencies and in-place information security defenses must remain the first line of defense, and be utilized prior to any military units being authorized to battle a cyber attack. "We always want to be taking the least action necessary to mitigate the threat," a senior administration official told The Washington Post. "We don't want to have more consequences than we intend."

The new policy comes after years of inaction on the cybersecurity front by Congress. Notably, Congress this year failed to pass the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, despite the White House urging legislators to "modernize" the outdated cybersecurity laws that are currently on the books.

As a result, the White House has been drafting an executive order that will reportedly offer voluntary guidelines for critical infrastructure companies in the private sector to share security information with government agencies, to help them battle an ever-increasing volume of online attacks directed at their systems.

Last month, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta warned that hackers have been infiltrating the control systems that run critical pieces of U.S. infrastructure, and likewise called on Congress to pass legislation to help. But in the absence of such legislation, he backed the alternative of a White House executive order on cybersecurity. "We have no choice because the threat that we face is already here," he said.

Many government agencies have been pushing for greater strikeback capabilities. Last year, National Security Agency director and Cyber Command commander Gen. Keith Alexander said that for cybersecurity, "the advantage is on the offense," and argued that government agencies should -- at last in some cases -- be able to take down botnets or other malicious actors.

Since then, the military has been drafting cyber rules of engagement, after being authorized by the annual defense budget in December 2011 to carry out some types of offensive cyber attacks. Likewise, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has begun researching cyber warfare tools.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading December Tech Digest
Experts weigh in on the pros and cons of end-user security training.
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2014-6477
Published: 2014-11-23
Unspecified vulnerability in the JPublisher component in Oracle Database Server 11.1.0.7, 11.2.0.3, 11.2.0.4, 12.1.0.1, and 12.1.0.2 allows remote authenticated users to affect confidentiality via unknown vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-4290, CVE-2014-4291, CVE-2014-4292, CVE-2014-4...

CVE-2014-4807
Published: 2014-11-22
Sterling Order Management in IBM Sterling Selling and Fulfillment Suite 9.3.0 before FP8 allows remote authenticated users to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) via a '\0' character.

CVE-2014-6183
Published: 2014-11-22
IBM Security Network Protection 5.1 before 5.1.0.0 FP13, 5.1.1 before 5.1.1.0 FP8, 5.1.2 before 5.1.2.0 FP9, 5.1.2.1 before FP5, 5.2 before 5.2.0.0 FP5, and 5.3 before 5.3.0.0 FP1 on XGS devices allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary commands via unspecified vectors.

CVE-2014-8626
Published: 2014-11-22
Stack-based buffer overflow in the date_from_ISO8601 function in ext/xmlrpc/libxmlrpc/xmlrpc.c in PHP before 5.2.7 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly execute arbitrary code by including a timezone field in a date, leading to improper XML-RPC encoding...

CVE-2014-8710
Published: 2014-11-22
The decompress_sigcomp_message function in epan/sigcomp-udvm.c in the SigComp UDVM dissector in Wireshark 1.10.x before 1.10.11 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (buffer over-read and application crash) via a crafted packet.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Now that the holiday season is about to begin both online and in stores, will this be yet another season of nonstop gifting to cybercriminals?