[ad_1]
NATO has made it clear that a sufficiently serious cyber attack can be treated as a physical attack and trigger a response as such. This means that even nuclear war is not excluded and that an international treaty is urgently needed.
A recent statement by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg highlights the chilling reality that cyberattacks, actual or suspected, have the potential to lead to a nuclear conflict that would make even the worst cyberattack pale in comparison. During a visit to the United States, Stoltenberg said NATO had “decided that a cyber attack can trigger Article 5 …[i]It doesn’t matter if an attack is kinetic or cyber, we will assess as allies when it hits the threshold … and that sends the message that we are cyber allies.
Stoltenberg had previously written an article in August 2019 in which he stated that NATO, by “adjusting to this new reality” (i.e. cyber attacks), was adopting a policy that “a serious cyber attack could trigger article 5 of our founding treaty ”- the collective defense clause of the NATO Charter which states that an attack on an ally is considered an attack on all. “We have designated cyberspace as an area in which NATO will operate and defend itself as effectively as it does in the air, on land and at sea,” Stoltenberg wrote.
Read more
Problems with this declaration aside, Stoltenberg and NATO were taking steps to equate a cyberattack with armed aggression. This dangerous escalation cannot simply be dismissed and dismissed as hyperbole. In February 2018, the Trump administration released its Nuclear Posture Review document, which authorized the use of nuclear weapons to respond to devastating non-nuclear attacks on US infrastructure, including crippling cyber attacks of the type envisioned by the US when they target Russia and other nations, such as Iran. Given that there is a record of US cyber weapons reused for use against US targets, it is not inconceivable that the US could be hit by a devastating cyber attack using its own US-made cyber weapons, and that this attack could prompt an American nuclear response.
There has never been more of a need or urgency than now for a cybersecurity treaty or agreement between the United States and Russia. The White House has said President Biden plans to make alleged Russian cyber activity a topic when he next meets with President Putin. Washington accuses Russia of harboring the perpetrators of a recent wave of ransomware attacks – either by instigating them directly or by failing to crack down on criminal groups.
For his part, President Putin is expected to respond to any discussion of cyberattacks with a list of his own grievances, as well as a proposed solution in the form of a “comprehensive program of practical four-point measures to revive our relations on field”. security in the use of information and communication technologies ”that Putin raised for the first time last September.
For more than a decade now, Russia has been pushing for a cyber treaty modeled on the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). In a 2009 speech, Vladislav Sherstyuk, deputy secretary of the Russian Security Council, laid out Russia’s basic conditions for such a treaty, namely the ban on any country secretly incorporating malicious codes or circuits that could be activated remotely in wartime.
Read more
Russia’s concerns were far from moot – classified documents released by whistleblower Edward Snowden show that as of June 2010, the National Security Agency’s Custom Access Operations (TAO) unit , in charge of offensive cyber operations, would intercept “shipments of computer network devices (servers, routers, etc.) delivered to our targets around the world”, which would then be diverted to a secret location where they would install “beacon implants directly into the electronic devices of our targets ”. Photographs in the documents showed NSA employees opening the shipping box of a Cisco router and installing the beacon’s firmware.
Cisco was a major supplier of high-tech Internet equipment at the time, supplying sophisticated Internet switches similar to those modified by the NSA to Russian customers, allegedly including the Federal Security Service and the Ministry of Defense.
The activities of the NSA BAT appear to be part of a comprehensive offensive cyber program launched under President Obama that targeted Russia in two ways: first, by implementing operations designed not to cause significant damage and intended to be detected. , thus sending a signal on the potential reach of US cyber capabilities. The second cyber route was more ambitious, involving the use of the type of “implants” mentioned in the Snowden documents, penetrating critical Russian networks “which would cause … pain and discomfort if disturbed”. These implants were designed so that they can be triggered remotely in response to any Russian cyber attack.
Read more
It goes without saying that the United States resisted Russia’s proposal for a CAC-type e-treaty, because if it had been implemented in the direction proposed by Russia, the United States would have seen all its undermined cybersecurity strategy, since it is firmly anchored in the principle that the best defense is a good attack. In short, if offensive cyber operations were prohibited by international law, the United States would suddenly find entire organizations and tens of thousands of dedicated cyber spies and warriors unemployed. It is for this reason that the United States’ position regarding international cooperation on cyberattacks has been to treat the issue as a law enforcement issue, with the United States Department of State endorsing the Council Convention as a model. the 2004 Europe on Cybercrime, which was signed by 22 nations, including the United States – but not Russia. Russian objections were based on notions of sovereignty, in particular that the convention allows law enforcement agencies in other countries to investigate suspected cyber criminal activity originating from inside Russia without inform the Russian authorities in advance. But the real reason could be as practical as the US hesitation over a CWC-type cyber treaty – by entering into a convention that would require Russia to work with outside agencies regarding cyber criminal activities originating in Russia, Russia would hamper the work of private companies. hacking groups that would attack rivals from within, whether directly affiliated with the state or not.
When the two presidents meet in Geneva on June 16, one can only expect Putin to give as much as he gets when it comes to cybersecurity. Hopefully the two world leaders will be able to avoid the temptation to repeat Biden’s theatrical “Putin is a killer” moment from the start of the year, and realize that the threat of a cyberattack is real and mutual, and, if left unresolved, could lead to instability that could quickly escalate into things far more devastating than cyberattacks.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
[ad_2]
picture credit