The Issue Of Counter Cyber Terrorism

The most recents detections of how cyber warfare is inevitably coming was the accusations of Russia hacking the the Democratic National Committee and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email’s releasing damaging evidence against them which ultimately lead to Donald Trump being named the President of The United States (Diamond, 2016). The effects of cyber warfare have leaked over in to televise series, forming shows such as CSI cyber, and the gaming world, Call Of Duty Infinite Warfare. Neglect regarding cyber security can: undermine the reputation of both the government and elected officials; force unacceptable expenditures associated with the cost of cleaning up after security breaches; cripple governments' abilities to respond to a wide variety of homeland security emergency situations or recover from natural or man-made threats; and disable elected officials' ability to govern (Lohrmann, 2010). Classified information such as overseas operators and attacks, missile locations, response plans and weaknesses, and much more cripples America’s ability to defend itself from enemies both foreign and domestic. To combat cyber terrorism is the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, or CISA. In an article titled “Why Cybersecurity Information Sharing Is A Positive Step for Online Security” it is discussed that under CISA, the Department of Homeland security will have more responsibility for domestic cybersecurity. CISA’s fundamental purpose is to better enable cybersecurity information to be shared between the private and public sectors (2016). The sharing of threat information between public and private sectors can give the the United States a head start by allowing them to share information rapidly and more often to combat enemy threats while still providing safety for privacy and civil

The practical application of the defence power in an age of terrorism is difficult to determine, as it is reliant upon a set of circumstances that can have a plethora of different interpretations from a range of variant perspectives. Unlike some other powers, the defence power is purposive and elastic; it waxes and wanes, and its application “depends upon the facts, and as those facts change so may its actual operation as a power”[1]. Recent developments, such as the Thomas case, have led some theorists to comment that “the elastic of the defence power has become stretched all out of proportion”[2]. In its present interpretation, the defence

In the sixth week of CIS610 – Information Warfare, we continued looking at the policies, governance, and operation of nation state information and cyber warfare. Since week five and six were combined I had already completed the readings which were required for week five and six. Along with this in week five I also completed the discussion board post and the rough draft for the major assignment. Last week in my journal I discussed the discussion board post which I created and the reading assignment and chose to leave the major assignment out of my week five journal so I would have something to discuss in week six.

Pfleeger, S. Pfleeger, and Margulies (2015) outline possible examples of cyber warfare between Canada and China (p. 844). According to Pfleeger, S. Pfleeger, and Margulies (2015), “the Canadian government revealed that several of its national departments had been victims of a cyber attack…” (p. 844). Eventually, the attack was unofficially traced to a computer in China (p. 844). Cyber warfare can be used negatively and positively. It is evident that China was seeking to gain protected information form Canada. Although a purpose of cyber warfare, it is not a conventional way of obtaining information. Additionally, cyber warfare can be used to collect intelligence on an enemy. Anyone seeking to gather intelligence on another individual or group can launch a cyber attack that gains access to protected files. This could be used to help future militant operations or expose critical information. Lastly, cyber warfare can be used to test systems internally. Acting with no malicious intent, “insiders” can utilizing cyber warfare tactics to attack their own cyber security barriers in order to test the strength of their systems. Seeking to expose the vulnerabilities in a system that contains important assets without actually harming the assets provides the system a diagnosis of what needs to be strengths and fixed. Identifying the problem or threats before an actual attack can ultimately save the protected

"All states possess an inherent right to self-defense, and we recognize that certain hostile acts conducted through cyberspace could compel actions under the commitments we have with our military treaty partners," says the report. "We reserve the right to use all necessary means—diplomatic, informational, military, and economic—as appropriate and consistent with applicable international law."

Cyber-terrorism is the convergence of terrorism and cyberspace. It is generally understood to mean unlawful attacks and threats of attack against computers, networks, and the information stored therein when done to intimidate or coerce a government or its people in furtherance of political or social objectives.

John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt published a paper in 1993 declaring that “Cyberwar is coming!” (Rid, 2016, p1) Rid says, “Since then, it seems to have arrived—at least by the account of the U.S. military establishment, which is busy competing over who should get what share of the fight.” (Rid, 2016, p.1) Fueling his argument Rid defines an act of war by stating “it has to be potentially violent, it has to be purposeful, and it has to be political.” (Rid, 2016, p.1) Furthermore, he says “There is no known cyberattack that has caused the loss of human life. No cyber offense has ever injured a person or damaged a building. And if an act is not at least potentially violent, it 's not an act of war. Separating war from physical violence makes it a metaphorical notion; it would mean that there is no way to distinguish between World War II, say, and the "wars" on obesity and cancer” (Rid, 2016, p.1) Rid reinforces his argument by presenting evidence such as analogies of past cyber-attacks and acts of war. He recounts cyberattacks on Estonia in April

Defining cyber-warfare is also important but suffers from the same lack of continuity between United States military branches and government agencies. Schaap lists varying terminology used ranging from the Department of Defense’s definition which states, “the employment of cyber capabilities where the primary purpose is to achieve military objectives or effects through cyber-space” to the Air Force’s definition, “the integrated planning and employment

Cyberterrorism is generally understood to refer to highly damaging computer-based attacks or threats of attack by non-state actors against

A cyber attack was made on Estonia in 2007, on 26 April 2007 at sharp 10'o clock; government of Estonia was made the target for a preplanned cyber attack by some secret foe (Stacy Prowell, 2010).

Richard A. Clark, an expert in security sector governance in his book Cyber War (May 2010), defines Cyber War as an act of penetration of a country against other computer network with the intent of causing damage and disruption. The Economist magazine explained that cyber war is the fifth domain of warfare, after land, sea, air and space. Cyber warfare, (also known as cyber war and Cyber warfare), is a war with the use of computer networks and the Internet in cyberspace (cyber space) in the form of defense and attack information. Cyber warfare is also known as cyber warfare refers to the use of the World Wide Web and computer to conduct warfare in cyberspace. Although sometimes relatively minimal and lightweight, so far cyber warfare could potentially cause a serious loss of data and information systems, military activity and other service disruptions, cyber warfare means can pose as disaster risk worldwide.

The branches of the military, for a couple generations, have always been the Army, Navy, Air force, Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard; however, in an ever evolving digital world, the notion that outer space would be the next military front is being rapidly replaced by the idea that cyber space will be the next arms race. The United States has been defending attacks on their infrastructure day after day, night after night, when one hacker on one side of the world sleeps, another takes their place to attempt to compromise the US government. The motives may range from a political ‘hacktivist’ trying to prove a point, to an economic spy, trying to gain a competitive edge on its more upstart rivals, to an attempt to control the United States

From the advent of the Internet, there came with it the opportunity for any of its users to have access to any information they seeked right at their fingertips. With this access; entertainment, market opportunities, educational information, productivity, and global communication were able to grow and flourish, however with these gains seen came with it the weakening of the once secure national strength seen in nations. In the last two decades cyberspace has been defined as the 'fifth battleground’ for international relations, with the aspects of cyber war, cyber terrorism, and cybercrime as some of the largest threats to the security of the national and international community. (Popović, 2013) With this ‘fifth battleground’ of the cyberspace thrown into the international battlegrounds of old, its effectiveness and effect on the both the modern state and the international bodies of the world, posing the question of how will this increased accessibility to the cyberspace will affect national security in the coming years?

In the future of violence, law and security experts detailed the myriad possibilities, challenges, and risks present in the modern world. Consequently, governments, companies, and citizens must rethink their security efforts to protect lives and liberty. Maintaining security in this world where anyone can attack anyone will also mean taking a global perspective, with more multinational forces and greater action to protect weaker states that do not yet have the capability to police their own people. From this book they are letting us know by making clear that they are aimed to sound the alarm about inevitable catastrophic attacks advanced technologies. One of the subjects I will focus on what we believe to be the somewhat broader essence of

Current International Law permits a limited response to what is defined as “use of force” from Article 2(4) of the UN charter as an “act of war” for cyber-attacks that involve damage or death that would be similar in nature to a kinetic attack. The problem that arises is when a cyber-attack is considered an unlawful use of force.1 and what that means for when the victim state can respond and to what level are they allowed under international law. As cyberattacks continue to change and increase in nature the US government needs a coordinated and well thought out approach that is able to deter future cyber-attacks that are considered an act of war and setting precedence. The US state department took an active stance on this in 2012 where Mr.Koh as Department of State Legal Advisor laid out what it considers to be a use of force, “ Cyber activities that proximately result in death, injury, or significant destruction would likely be viewed as a use of force”. The issue that arises is how to respond, and when to respond. Interpol can take from 3 to 6 months to pass a request over to local police agencies for following up. This timeline plus the time for attribution leaves a gap for attackers to cover their tracks. Additionally the US needs to develop a policy that follows Mr.Koh’s position by giving clarity to certain markers that can be used in determining what is considered a use of force, as an example the difference