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 »

CyberSecurity Jobsite
Perimeter 81

Directory of Suppliers

ZenGRC

ZenGRC

ZenGRC - the first, easy-to-use, enterprise-grade information security solution for compliance and risk management - offers businesses efficient control tracking, testing, and enforcement.

Practice Labs

Practice Labs

Practice Labs is an IT competency hub, where live-lab environments give access to real equipment for hands-on practice of essential cybersecurity skills.

CSI Consulting Services

CSI Consulting Services

Get Advice From The Experts: * Training * Penetration Testing * Data Governance * GDPR Compliance. Connecting you to the best in the business.

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.

FT Cyber Resilience Summit: Europe

FT Cyber Resilience Summit: Europe

27 November 2024 | In-Person & Digital | 22 Bishopsgate, London. Business leaders, Innovators & Experts address evolving cybersecurity risks.

Exclusive Networks

Exclusive Networks

Exclusive Networks accelerate market entry and growth for innovative cybersecurity, networking and infrastructure technologies.

Waterfall Security Solutions

Waterfall Security Solutions

Waterfall Security is focused on protecting critical infrastructure and industrial control systems from remote online cyber attacks,

CERT-MU

CERT-MU

CERT-MU is the Mauritian National Computer Security Incident Response Team.

Texplained

Texplained

Texplained specializes in security audits of microchips to identify vulnerabilities and protect against invasive cyber attacks.

CyberDefcon

CyberDefcon

CyberDefcon is an independent organization dedicated to the pursuit of making the internet a safer place.

Enosys Solutions

Enosys Solutions

Enosys Solutions is an IT security specialist with a skilled professional services team and 24x7 security operations centre servicing corporate and public sector organisations across Australia.

JobStreet.com

JobStreet.com

JobStreet is one of Asia’s leading online employment marketplaces in Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Indonesia and Vietnam.

Redwall Technologies

Redwall Technologies

Redwall provides cybersecurity expertise and technology to prevent and respond to emerging threats against mobile applications and connected infrastructures.

SecureStack

SecureStack

SecureStack helps software developers find security & scalability gaps in their web applications and offers ways to fix those gaps without forcing those developers to become security experts.

Partners in Regulatory Compliance (PIRC)

Partners in Regulatory Compliance (PIRC)

Partners in Regulatory Compliance provides an array of cybersecurity services including cybersecurity policy management, risk assessments and regulatory compliance consulting.

blueAllianceIT

blueAllianceIT

blueAlliance IT is an investment and growth platform that unites local MSP and IT companies around the nation, helping them to grow and operate competitively.

IMQ Group

IMQ Group

IMQ is one of Europe’s top players in the field of conformity assessment. We offer certification services to support all the major sectors of the manufacturing and service industries.

Spotit

Spotit

Spotit offers a wide-ranging portfolio of technologies and services, from consultancy, assessments and pentesting to the set up of completely new security and network infrastructures.

SK Shieldus

SK Shieldus

SK shieldus are a converged security provider with business capabilities in both cybersecurity and physical security based on Big-Tech.

Core to Cloud

Core to Cloud

Core to Cloud provide consultancy and technical support for the planning and implementation of sustainable security strategies.

Google Safety Engineering Center (GSEC)

Google Safety Engineering Center (GSEC)

GSEC Málaga is an international cybersecurity hub where Google experts work to understand the cyber threat landscape and to create tools that keep users around the world safer online.