Downloaded 13 times
Uploaded byGautham Reddy
OTI Cyber warefare
Cyber warfare involves actions by a nation to penetrate another nation's computers or networks to cause damage or disruption across military, economic, political and social systems. While some experts argue for counterattacks in response to cyber harm, attribution of attacks is challenging due to spoofing of technical data. Existing international law does not fully cover cyber warfare. Other-than-internet attacks using vectors like USB devices or altered hardware present new ethical issues for policymakers seeking to prevent attacks while maintaining legitimacy of responses. A workable international treaty on cyber warfare will likely not be possible for over a decade.
More Related Content
OTI Cyber warefare
- 1. OTHER-THAN-INTERNET (OTI) CYBERWARFARE: CHALLENGESFOR ETHICS, LAW, AND POLICY By K.Gautham Reddy 2011A8PS364G
- 2. Cyber warfare Actionsby a nation to penetrate another nation’s computers or networks for the purposes of causing damage or disruption Military, Economic, Political, Social and Physical planes of society Non-kinetic warfare(less violent and more high-tech)
- 3. Moral justification forgoing to cyber- or kinetic counter attack by some legal experts, including in the United States Cyber Command -When the cyber-harm is commensurable Lesser intentional harmful actions would count as ‘actions’ in cyberspace, but not cyber-attacks Article 51 (UN Charter)-An attack may morally be countered through a counter- attack by the country first attacked.
- 4. Legal and Ethicalconsiderations Traditional Warfare Cyber warfare 1. Wounding or killing of human beings (persons and agents) and the permanent destruction of physical entities 1. The damage will be to the functioning of information, and of connected control 2. Intrusion on sovereignty 2. Invasion of photons and electrons Existing international law does not completely cover some important aspects of cyber warfare.
- 5. Major cyber-powers:United States, China, Russia, and other former Soviet republics. Don’t tend to attack each other due to likelihood massive cyber- or kinetic counter-attack. Uses of cyber-weapons far less informationally sophisticated nations.
- 6. Attribution Problem Whom toethically counter-attack ? -Technical means alone(IPs and ISPs) but they can be easily spoofed -Information about capabilities, means of malware production, and hostile intent. This problem is causing hindrance to any possible deterrent policy for cyber warfare. It is also at the core of most objections to cyber warfare treaties.
- 7. Scenario: Nation Aattacks Nation B using the cyber resources of Nation C Is it ethical for Nation B to counter-attack Nation C? -Doctrine of necessity Alternatives: -Offering assistance - Counter attack but limited
- 8. OTI Cyber warfare Vectors – which are the means by which data infiltration or exfiltration takes place. OTI vectors: storage devices, operating systems, altered hardware chips etc. Internet vector-Low entry cost OTI vector-High entry cost
- 9. OTI Cyber warfare Iran -Stuxnet -Vector: USB storage device -attacking modern SCADA and PLC systems -one-fifth of Iran's nuclear centrifuges Syria -OTI attack on the air defense networked radar system -Disabled Syrian air defense temporarily -Likely vector: Buried optical cables
- 10. Ethical and PolicyIssues of OTI Cyberwarfare OTI cyber attacks-large and sophisticated players (cyber powers) Players ∝ Sophistication of the technology
- 11. Moral Measures: -Supervisionof its information systems -Prohibition of all personal electronic devices in the vicinity -Redundancy
- 12. Normative considerations To preventattack: Trade barriers with cyber hostile nations If attacked: Increasing one’s own cyber-espionage against the ‘attacking’ nation.
- 13. Cyber powers-Worldmanufacturers and fabricators of information systems Legitimacy of OTI attack of cyber hostile nation by cyber power as a caution -analogous to placing explosive charges
- 14. Conclusions Going tobe more frequent than genuine acts of cyberwarfare in future. Even among the more optimistic commentators admit that a workable treaty will probably not be possible for a decade or more.