The ‘Rules’ Of Modern Warfare Are Being Rewritten

Governments are becoming ever more reliant on digital technology, making them more vulnerable to cyber-attacks. 
In 2007, Estonia was attacked by pro-Russian hackers who crippled government servers, causing havoc. 

Cyber-attacks in Ukraine targeted the country’s electricity grid, while Iran’s nuclear power plants were infected by malware that could have led to a nuclear meltdown. In the US, president Trump recently declared a “national emergency” to recognise the threat to US computer networks from “foreign adversaries”.

Politically-motivated cyber-attacks are becoming increasingly commonplace but unlike traditional warfare between two or more states, cyberwarfare can be launched by groups of individuals. On occasion, the state is actually caught in the crosshairs of competing hacking groups. 

In most cases, cyberwarfare operations have been conducted in the background, designed as scare tactics or displays of power. But the blending of traditional warfare and cyberwarfare seems inevitable and a recent incident added a new dimension.

How to respond to Cyber Attacks
Israeli Defence Forces bombed a building allegedly housing Hamas hackers, after they had attempted to, according to the IDF, attack “Israeli targets” online. This is the first time a cyber-attack has been met with physical force by a state’s military. But who is to blame and how should states respond when defending against cyber-attacks?

Cyber-attacks are a serious challenge for established laws of armed conflict. Determining the origin of an attack isn’t impossible, but the process can take weeks. Even when the origin can be confirmed, it may be difficult to establish that a state was responsible. This is especially true when cyber operations could be perpetrated by hackers in other countries routing their attacks through different jurisdictions. 

NATO experts have highlighted the issue in the Tallinn Manual on International Law Applicable to Cyberwarfare. There is no consensus on whether a state is responsible for a cyber-attack originating from its networks if it did not have explicit knowledge of the attack. 

‘Cyber operations began to draw the attention of the international legal community in the late 1990s. Most significantly, in 1999 the United States Naval War College convened the first major legal conference on the subject. 

‘In the aftermath of 911 and ensuing conflicts diverted attention from the topic until the massive cyber operations by ‘hacktivists’ against Estonia in 2007 and against Georgia during its war with the Russian Federation in 2008, as well as cyber incidents like the targeting of the Iranian nuclear facilities with the Stuxnet worm in 2010’. 

Failure to take appropriate measures to prevent an attack by a host state could mean that the victim state is entitled to respond through proportionate use of force in self defence. But if there’s uncertainty around who is to blame for the attack, any justification for a counter-attack is diminished. 

Even if the problem of attribution is resolved, a state’s right to respond with force to a cyber-attack would normally be prohibited. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter protects the territorial integrity and political structures of states from attack. This can be lawfully bypassed if a state can claim they’re defending themselves against an “armed attack”.

The International Court of Justice explains that: 

‘It will be necessary to distinguish between the most-grave forms of the use of force (those constituting an armed attack) from other less grave forms’.

So a cyber-attack would justify force as self-defence if it could be considered an “armed attack”. But is that possible? Only when the “scale” and “effect” of a cyber-attack are comparable to an offline “armed attack”, such as attacks that lead to deaths and widespread damage to infrastructure. If so, self-defence is justified.

But what about when a cyber-attack has been successfully defended against? Then, its effects can only be guessed at. This makes deciding a proportional response even trickier. Physical force used as self-defence after the cyber-attack has already been successfully defended against could be considered unnecessary and therefore, illegal. 

An exception, however, might be made for a preemptive defence against an imminent or possible attack. When self-defence is considered reasonably necessary, the nature of the force permitted can vary. Proportionate counter-attacks with conventional military weapons can be acceptable responses to cyber operations under international law.

These issues are only the start of the challenges posed by cyberwarfare, which will get more complicated as technology develops. The intellectual challenges this will generate are numerous, but we still can’t help but be fearful.

Societies face potentially devastating consequences from cyberwarfare as we become more reliant on information technologies and communication networks for everyday life, and we’re only just starting to ask questions about it. 

The Conversation:       CSEF

You Might Also Read: 

NATO Could Go To War In Response To A Cyber Attack:

 

« Banks Investing Serious Money In Blockchain
Career Opportunities In Cybersecurity »

Infosecurity Europe
CyberSecurity Jobsite
Perimeter 81

Directory of Suppliers

Syxsense

Syxsense

Syxsense brings together endpoint management and security for greater efficiency and collaboration between IT management and security teams.

Alvacomm

Alvacomm

Alvacomm offers holistic VIP cybersecurity services, providing comprehensive protection against cyber threats. Our solutions include risk assessment, threat detection, incident response.

CYRIN

CYRIN

CYRIN® Cyber Range. Real Tools, Real Attacks, Real Scenarios. See why leading educational institutions and companies in the U.S. have begun to adopt the CYRIN® system.

DigitalStakeout

DigitalStakeout

DigitalStakeout enables cyber security professionals to reduce cyber risk to their organization with proactive security solutions, providing immediate improvement in security posture and ROI.

North Infosec Testing (North IT)

North Infosec Testing (North IT)

North IT (North Infosec Testing) are an award-winning provider of web, software, and application penetration testing.

CyTech Services

CyTech Services

CyTech provides unique services and solutions complemented with professional subject matter experts to both the Federal and Commercial sectors.

Mako Group

Mako Group

The Mako Group specializes in protection - providing security through auditing, testing, and assessments. And, we do it all with the highest quality standards possible.

Cyber adAPT

Cyber adAPT

Cyber adAPT offers a leading network threat detection platform (NTD) to the enterprise and ODM/OEM markets.

Perspective Risk

Perspective Risk

Perspective Risk provides penetration testing, security assessments, risk management & compliance solutions, InfoSec training and consultancy services.

Inseego

Inseego

Inseego provides Enterprise SaaS solutions and IoT & Mobile solutions, which together form the backbone of intelligent, reliable and secure IoT services with deep business intelligence.

Osirium

Osirium

The Osirium PxM Privileged Access Management platform addresses both security and compliance requirements by defining who gets access to what and when.

Quintillion Consulting

Quintillion Consulting

Quintillion Consulting is a strategic risk based consulting firm. We help companies safeguard the core business and IT capabilities that deliver competitive advantage.

Constella Intelligence

Constella Intelligence

Constella Intelligence provides digital risk protection services to quickly and efficiently disrupt cyber attacks and data breaches before they occur.

AnaVation

AnaVation

AnaVation is a trusted partner delivering high-value, cost-effective solutions that solve the most complex technical and analytical problems for our customers.

Elisity

Elisity

Elisity Cognitive Trust is a new security paradigm that combines Zero Trust Network Access and an AI-enabled Software Defined Perimeter.

Northdoor

Northdoor

Northdoor provides a comprehensive set of services around information security and works with leading global technology vendors to deploy and manage cyber security solutions.

NetScout Systems

NetScout Systems

NetScout assures digital business services against disruptions in availability, performance, and security.

Versent

Versent

Versent is an Australian-born technology company, focused on architecting, building & operating cloud native applications, data streams, platforms, and services.

NewEvol

NewEvol

Don’t React, Evolve! Outsmart threats with real-time AI-powered dynamic defense capability of NewEvol all-in-one cybersecurity platform.

Secure Domains

Secure Domains

Secure Domains is the first company in the GCC to offer cloud-based DNS firewall services and security through its flagship SaaS product, DNS Armor.

Lattica

Lattica

Lattica provides a cryptography solution for privacy-preserving interaction with AI services.