11:22 AM

The Case For A Cyber Arms Treaty

In the wake of Stuxnet, could an international 'cyber arms' agreement forestall U.S. cyber warfare with China and other countries?

11 Security Sights Seen Only At Black Hat
11 Security Sights Seen Only At Black Hat
(click image for larger view and for slideshow)
Malware attacks: can't live with them, can't live without them?

That's the curious situation now facing the U.S. government--and by extension, America--which on the one hand finds its networks being attacked more than ever before and, on the other hand, recently claimed credit for launching at a foreign nation some of the most advanced malware attacks in history.

Can this disconnect be resolved? To answer that question, it helps to understand the defensive side of the equation, as the Pentagon reports that it's having a harder time than ever blocking the increasing volume of attacks being launched at U.S. government networks. It's also been sounding the alarm over an increase in attacks against critical infrastructure systems controlled by the private sector.

Accordingly, elements of the Department of Defense (DOD) have been petitioning the Secretary of Defense to allow the military to not just defend its own systems and block malware, as it's currently authorized to do, but also defend critical systems running outside government-controlled networks, the Washington Post recently reported. Currently, the DOD isn't allowed to touch civilian networks in any way, although it does share threat intelligence with some defense contractors and service providers.

[ Are you paying attention to the right things? Read 6 Password Security Essentials For Developers. ]

Gen. Keith Alexander, who's both director of the NSA as well as Cyber Command--which protects DOD networks and oversees federal cyber warfare activities--argued at a recent conference that the government's cyber specialists "need standing rules of engagement and execute orders that allow the government to do defense that is reasonable and proportionate." In the event of a national-level attack, the DOD wants to be able to respond quickly, effectively, and legally.

The Pentagon also wants approval to use more aggressive defenses, such as sinkholing, which involves forcibly rerouting a botnet's command-and-control servers so that malicious code on infected PCs can't be used to launch attacks. Sinkholing is in widespread use by information security researchers, sometimes working in conjunction with technology vendors, including Microsoft.

But as the DOD seeks approval to get more defensive, the White House earlier this year revealed that the "Olympic Games" program begun by President George W. Bush, and continued at his urging by President Obama, launched Stuxnet, Flame, Duqu, Gauss, and no doubt other malware meant to disable parts foreign countries' critical infrastructure, or eavesdrop on people and information of interest.

That program was detailed by David E. Sanger in his recently published Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power. In light of that program, "the United States lost a bit of the moral high ground when it comes to warning the world of the danger of cyberattacks," writes Sanger, in a bit of understatement. Furthermore, the generals sounding alarms over the rise of advanced persistent threats being launched en masse against Pentagon systems by China and other countries work for the same government that's been launching its own malware attacks against other countries.

1 of 2
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
User Rank: Apprentice
8/24/2012 | 6:11:30 PM
re: The Case For A Cyber Arms Treaty
A treaty is a nice idea, but ineffective, since there are too many non-nation-state actors. Building nuclear weapons requires fissile material, which is not sold in every Best Buy or Walmart. Building malware can be done on a laptop, and launched from an Internet cafe.
Perhaps the only effective defense for the US military is to build out private networks that are not visible to other parties, friends or foes.
Leo Regulus
Leo Regulus,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/25/2012 | 5:45:18 PM
re: The Case For A Cyber Arms Treaty
You have made some client-unfriendly changes.
When we hit the 'Print' Icon, we expect to see the entire article as one page and relatively 'free' of garbage.
On this article, it was necessary to go to page 2 to get the whole article.
The result was also littered with garbage.
I will not insult your intelligence by specifically what I define as 'garbage'.
User Rank: Apprentice
8/26/2012 | 1:20:36 PM
re: The Case For A Cyber Arms Treaty
Treaties are only worth something when the partners adhere to them. Just look at the reports about human rights violations and you will see that a treaty for cyber security between US and China is just a waster of paper and resources.
User Rank: Apprentice
8/27/2012 | 3:10:46 PM
re: The Case For A Cyber Arms Treaty
Article states, "Having been the first nation to use it purposefully against the weapons program of another state--to have 'crossed the Rubicon,' as General Michael Hayden, the former Bush intelligence chief, put it--will we eventually be judged to have hastened its spread?"

Has that ever stopped the US Govt or any nation of developing and using a system to its advantage either strategically or operationally? They used firearms against native americans and were the first to use/introduce nuclear weapons. An unknown or unproven weapon system serves little as a detterrent. Treaties are nice, but as others have stated, wholly reliable on the good faith of the parties. As with regulatory guidance and laws, sometimes the value gained may just be worth the penalty imposed for non adherence.
Andrew Hornback
Andrew Hornback,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/28/2012 | 2:03:26 AM
re: The Case For A Cyber Arms Treaty
By developing the most advanced weapons in the world, one can develop the most advanced defenses in the world - I think that's a pretty fair statement.

All throughout history, there have been things going on that the average Joe or Jane on the street don't know about but should be thankful for - things that their country is doing to protect them, whether they approve or disapprove of it.

Kaspersky's a funny guy here - sure, go ahead, ban malware. Doesn't that put him out of business? And as other posters have mentioned, sure, you can have every country on the face of the planet sign a treaty saying that they won't develop or use malware - but that doesn't keep a 14 year old kid from sitting down and learning assembly, C, or any other language and building something that could obliterate a network. No, a treaty, while nice on paper... exists only on paper.

Having malware banned leads to a false sense of security - sure, let's ban it... and forget how to defend against it. Then when the next attack happens, it's magnitudes worse. And the next attack will happen, it's just a matter of when. You have to be ready for it... and a treaty is not going to do much to help prevent an attack or clean up after one.

Andrew Hornback
InformationWeek Contributor
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
E-Commerce Security: What Every Enterprise Needs to Know
The mainstream use of EMV smartcards in the US has experts predicting an increase in online fraud. Organizations will need to look at new tools and processes for building better breach detection and response capabilities.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
Published: 2015-10-15
The Direct Rendering Manager (DRM) subsystem in the Linux kernel through 4.x mishandles requests for Graphics Execution Manager (GEM) objects, which allows context-dependent attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) via an application that processes graphics data, as demonstrated b...

Published: 2015-10-15
netstat in IBM AIX 5.3, 6.1, and 7.1 and VIOS 2.2.x, when a fibre channel adapter is used, allows local users to gain privileges via unspecified vectors.

Published: 2015-10-15
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in eXtplorer before 2.1.8 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests that execute PHP code.

Published: 2015-10-15
Directory traversal vulnerability in QNAP QTS before 4.1.4 build 0910 and 4.2.x before 4.2.0 RC2 build 0910, when AFP is enabled, allows remote attackers to read or write to arbitrary files by leveraging access to an OS X (1) user or (2) guest account.

Published: 2015-10-15
Cisco Application Policy Infrastructure Controller (APIC) 1.1j allows local users to gain privileges via vectors involving addition of an SSH key, aka Bug ID CSCuw46076.

Dark Reading Radio