Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Comments
Nation-State Cyberthreats: Why They Hack
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
David Wagner
50%
50%
David Wagner,
User Rank: Black Belt
1/8/2015 | 11:17:33 AM
Why the Hack Not?
I guess my answer to the question of why countries hack is the same as why countries do anything-- governments tend to do whatever they can get away with unchecked. Until someone checks them, governments will do it. Sure, knowing the reason behind the espionage helps defend against it. But "because we can" is always the best reason. 
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
1/13/2015 | 12:17:48 PM
Re: Why the Hack Not?
Have to respectfully disagree with you @Dave. I think it's fascinating to learn, for instance, that China looks to the West for technology solutions, and doesn't have any ethical problem with stealing intellecctual property to further its aims. I also had no idea that the Chinese were focused on medical technology innovation and that they are invnesting in that sector of their own economy. Looking forward to reading about what's going on in North Korea, Russia and others in the series. 

 

 
David Wagner
50%
50%
David Wagner,
User Rank: Black Belt
1/13/2015 | 12:21:58 PM
Re: Why the Hack Not?
@Marilyn- Well, I find the article interesting, but I don't think the targets of hacking are the "whys" of hacking. If it wasn't medical technology it would be mining or anything else. Evne if the only thing left to take was vacation pictures, a government would take them. 
mwallsedgewave
50%
50%
mwallsedgewave,
User Rank: Author
1/14/2015 | 2:01:17 PM
Re: Why the Hack Not?
I think Nations/governments "do things" for a number of reasons, but usually they are acting out of what they see as their "National Interests."  A question is whether they are justifiable, or "just" "National Interestes."
mwallsedgewave
50%
50%
mwallsedgewave,
User Rank: Author
1/14/2015 | 2:15:40 PM
Re: Why the Hack Not?
Thanks Marilyn.  Your statement about China not having "any ethical problem with stealing intellecctual property to further its aims" really captures the point...Nations will act according to what they see as in their own best interest.
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
1/14/2015 | 2:35:11 PM
Re: Why the Hack Not?
Yes , and, to me, the value of this series, is to better understand the context for various  nation-state actors in the  actions they choose to take. Thanks for enlightening us!
ernesthemmingway
50%
50%
ernesthemmingway,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/14/2015 | 3:10:17 PM
Re: Why the Hack Not?
Excellent article. Understanding the motives and expectations of an adversary is extremely critical to designing a response. As noted, 'ethics', are relative to cultures and are varied depending on your world view. China, Russia and Iran for example have significantly different histories, cultures and world views. Each would likely have diverse agendas for attacking your enterprise, which makes our job quite interesting.

What I might suggest is that while the adversaries are diverse, their means of attack do have a common thread- acquiring credentials from the target in some fashion. Regardless of their goals, our opponents need credentials. Their motivations and capabilities to me mainly become critical post credential compromise... what will they do with those credentials and why?

Doing all we can to make those credentials expensive to obtain seems to be the best solution at this point. I am hopeful that behavior analytics will mature to the extent we can identify anomolous activity to become aware of when the credentials have been compromised. For some highly sensitive accounts this can today be acheived to some degree, however for the most part, most identities are very difficult to recognize as compromised when in the hands of a skilled attacker.
mwallsedgewave
50%
50%
mwallsedgewave,
User Rank: Author
1/16/2015 | 12:26:18 PM
Re: Why the Hack Not?
Great points!  We agree that an understanding of motivation for malicious cyber activity provides insight into what hapopens after a successful attack.  We also agree that it is criitical that we defend against bad actors obtaining credentials.  I think we would also agree that both these points support the notion that we need a more holistic approach to cyber defense.  To truly understand how to defend, we need the complete or "Big" picture.  A little offensive cyber would also help...but we'll have to leave that to the Government.

Again, great points, Thanks!!!
andregironda
50%
50%
andregironda,
User Rank: Strategist
1/26/2015 | 8:49:29 AM
Re: Why the Hack Not?
It is really simple to gauge the intentions of each country leading to cyber indications, based on a sort of personality test.

While the sociocultural theories are still under massive development, starter frameworks such as Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory should be used to explain the intracacies behind what is going on with cyber.

For China, it is merely about the feeling of overpopulation and raising the standard of living. They feel that breaking the rules is ok because of a sort of motherbearing complex.

Iran is surrounded by great countries of power: Oman and Qatar with huge financial success, Saudi Arabia with their GDP, UAE with their flexibility and popularity, and Iran's local enemy, Israel, with their advanced weapons research. So they build a brotherhood with Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and the Caucasus.

Russia wants to take all. They want land and resources especially. There is a narcissism to this country that can't be staved.

North Korea has nothing to lose and everything to gain. There is always power in powerlessness and it comes out in cyber.

Part of the problem we have in the US is that we see things only from our perspective. There are many other players, but they may be sided with popular interests. For example, Taiwan -- an enemy of China or not? How do Europe and Russia relate? What of Central, South America, and the Carribean? Africa? You will see all of these in the foreign-relations-related media but rarely ever spoken of in terms of cyber capabilities or interests.
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
1/26/2015 | 9:25:03 AM
Re: Why the Hack Not?
Good points,@andregironda. If you haven't already, I hope you will take a few minutes to check out and comment on Mike's follow up blogs on why Russia and North Korea hack. Coming up next is Iran, then US & Israel. So stay tuned! 


Why Cyber-Risk Is a C-Suite Issue
Marc Wilczek, Digital Strategist & CIO Advisor,  11/12/2019
Black Hat Q&A: Hacking a '90s Sports Car
Black Hat Staff, ,  11/7/2019
The Cold Truth about Cyber Insurance
Chris Kennedy, CISO & VP Customer Success, AttackIQ,  11/7/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
7 Threats & Disruptive Forces Changing the Face of Cybersecurity
This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at the biggest emerging threats and disruptive forces that are changing the face of cybersecurity today.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-18954
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-14
Pomelo v2.2.5 allows external control of critical state data. A malicious user input can corrupt arbitrary methods and attributes in template/game-server/app/servers/connector/handler/entryHandler.js because certain internal attributes can be overwritten via a conflicting name. Hence, a malicious at...
CVE-2019-3640
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-14
Unprotected Transport of Credentials in ePO extension in McAfee Data Loss Prevention 11.x prior to 11.4.0 allows remote attackers with access to the network to collect login details to the LDAP server via the ePO extension not using a secure connection when testing LDAP connectivity.
CVE-2019-3661
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-14
Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection') in McAfee Advanced Threat Defense (ATD) prior to 4.8 allows remote authenticated attacker to execute database commands via carefully constructed time based payloads.
CVE-2019-3662
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-14
Path Traversal: '/absolute/pathname/here' vulnerability in McAfee Advanced Threat Defense (ATD) prior to 4.8 allows remote authenticated attacker to gain unintended access to files on the system via carefully constructed HTTP requests.
CVE-2019-3663
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-14
Unprotected Storage of Credentials vulnerability in McAfee Advanced Threat Defense (ATD) prior to 4.8 allows local attacker to gain access to the root password via accessing sensitive files on the system.