The BBC reports that cybercrime rose by 9% in Britain. This is according to Online Identity firm Garlik which release its 2008 Cybercrime Report. The report contains interesting statistics. Among others, identity theft drop from 92 000 offenses in 2006 to 84 700, a 8% drop. Financial fraud rose by 24% and is expected to increase for 2008-2009, mainly due to the financial crisis going on. The report cites the leaked letter from the Home Office indicating a possible rise in crime. This is really no surprise.
Always according to the report, the top three stolen documents for identity theft were non-UK passports, utility bills and UK passports. As for financial cybercrimes, losses from UK victims amounted to £535million (1 billion $CAN, 869 millions $US), up 25% from 2006. The reports further states this interesting bit of information:
“… personal details and identity information are traded online with the 15 Research conducted by Garlik’s team of researchers investigating the presence of illegal trading networks on the Internet, number of trading networks more than doubling (from 27 to 57) over the past nine months. In a typical day, around 520 individual information traders are identified with 19,217 traders being identified this year. Of these, around 700 are ‘long term’ traders …“
That’s 57 trading network and around 20 000 traders, which, at least for me, is a big number. But the report doesn’t specify how those traders were identified though. The 700 “long-term” traders are seemed to be identified only with their online alias. Therefore if the “20 000 traders” is counted using aliases, this number might be higher than the actual number of traders.
The reports do not goes into great details on how the criminals get the information, but it does mention Trojans, phishing and SQL injections as a way to retrieve the information. As for the damage caused by these for UK companies, 830 000 companies report a computer-related incident last year. Viruses accounted for 21% of those incidents and are on the decline.
Fortunately, the report also mention lack of data protection from the government but fail to give any number, since it’s outside the scope of the document. But shouldn’t it be considered so? Shouldn’t this be considered as criminal negligence? After all, lost data impact lives and can lead to disaster for the victims of this negligence…
Yesterday the ISIQ (Institut de la Sécurité de l’Information du Québec) launched its new campaign to educate citizens computer security and protection of personal information over the Internet. The ISIQ launched a new portal, MonIdentité (in French) containing lots of information for users on how to protect their identity and to identify risks such as phishing, spyware, Trojans and weak passwords. The campaign has been launch by Pierre Arcand, deputy of the Mont-Royal district in Montreal.
“We want the citizens to become their own artisans of their security on the Internet, by adopting a secure behavior.” said M. Pierre Arcand.
This is exactly the kind of initiative we need. Humans are always the weakest link in any security network, therefore educating the population about security is essential. My only fear is that this campaign will largely be ignored by the media and the population, since elections are looming in the province and economic news are still the main topic.
Today the U.S Army discovered something called Twitter, and realized that, as MySpace, Facebook, Google Earth and many other sites, it could be used by terrorists to plan attacks on landmarks or other targets. Although the Army report admits it has no proofs that Twitter is currently used by individuals for terrorism. The report details many interesting scenarios described in the report:
Scenario 1: Terrorist operative “A” uses Twitter with… a cell phone camera/video function to send back messages, and to receive messages, from the rest of his [group]… Other members of his [group] receive near real time updates (similar to the movement updates that were sent by activists at the RNC) on how, where, and the number of troops that are moving in order to conduct an ambush.
Scenario 2: Terrorist operative “A” has a mobile phone for Tweet messaging and for taking images. Operative “A” also has a separate mobile phone that is actually an explosive device and/or a suicide vest for remote detonation. Terrorist operative “B” has the detonator and a mobile to view “A’s” Tweets and images. This may allow “B” to select the precise moment of remote detonation based on near real time movement and imagery that is being sent by “A.”
Scenario 3: Cyber Terrorist operative “A” finds U.S. [soldier] Smith’s Twitter account. Operative “A” joins Smith’s Tweets and begins to elicit information from Smith. This information is then used for… identity theft, hacking, and/or physical [attacks]. This scenario… has already been discussed for other social networking sites, such as My Space and/or Face Book.
Although this is true, for anyone having a clue about technology, this shouldn’t be any news. Any social networking site offers the opportunity to criminals and terrorists extensive information about someone. This can only by solved by educating people about privacy, and why it’s important. This is especially true for security and military personnel.
As more and more of the infrastructure of modern societies gets inter networked, the more the authorities are taking notice of the possible disasters that ought to happen if those networks would be attacked and controlled by malicious individuals. Based on that, the U.S Secretary of the Air Force announced the creation of the AFCYBER, the Air Force Cyber Command, whose mission “will be to provide combat ready forces trained and equipped to conduct sustained global operations in and through cyberspace, fully integrated with air and space operations“. Let’s go deeper into that interesting new agency and try to see if it can actually matches the challenges of this century.
The United States government released in February 2003 a 76 pages document titled “The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace”. This document recommended numerous solutions and actions to better protect the American cyberspace. Among these actions, one of them recommends to “Improve coordination for responding to cyber attacks within the U.S. national security community”. Based on that recommendation, the former U.S Secretary of the Air Force, Michael W. Wynne decided to establish a cyberspace command. He also stated:
“The aim is to develop a major command that stands alongside Air Force Space Command and Air Combat Command as the provider of forces that the President, combatant commanders and the American people can rely on for preserving the freedom of access and commerce, in air, space and now cyberspace“
It then has been decided that the 67th Network Warfare Wing and some elements of the 8th Air Force would serves as the core of the new command. It’s interesting to note that the goal of the 67th is “organizes, trains, and equips cyberspace forces to conduct network defense, attack, and exploitation.” Therefore, the Air Force already had an unit trained to conduct cyberspace operations, and more interestingly, this unit was also train to conduct attacks, not only defensive operations. Thus, in 2006 the Air Force Cyberspace Command (Provisional) unit was put into place. but faced many difficulties. The first came as to define the term “cyberspace”, define the command’s operations, find a location to base the unit, then find the personnel and define all their functions, train them and organize the unit. Those challenges were perfectly summarized when Maj. Gen. William T. Lord answered a Slashdot user about the location of the new command:
“I would hope that no matter where it was located, we would still be able to attract the talent needed to work in this exciting command and that all communities see the need to protect this domain.”
Attracting specialists and talented individuals is getting harder and harder. The private sector in technology is still offering, for now at least, good opportunities for graduated students. Maybe that’s why the AFCYBER touted is creation and development with TV ads and advertisement all over the web. A great mistake, as it opened it to greater scrutiny from the public and observers, which would now be able to witness the success or the failure of the new command…
And not only did it have difficulties organizing itself, it was in competition with other similar services of the military, with the Navy (Naval Network Warfare) and Army already having such organizations, without forgetting about organizations such as the National Security Agency (NSA).
Even with the fore mentioned difficulties, “We’ve figured all that out” said General Lord in October this year, “We’ve outlined how to organize cyber forces, i.e., what capabilities fall into, or not into, a cyber organization“.
The optimism expressed in Lord’s comment was hard to share. One month earlier, the establishment of the Cyber Command was suspended and the transfers of units were halted. In June, different actors were still discussing if the command should concentrate on defense and protection or if it should also conduct offensive operations. The ever growing size of the command and the confusion about which operations of the unit was to conduct were slowing any progress and all this amid numerous other Air Force scandals about nuclear management, which later caused Wynne to resign from his post.
As by October 8, 2008, the Air Force decided that the Cyber Command will finally be a numbered unit under the Air Force Space Command as told by Staff Gen. Norton A. Schwartz (see previous post “U.S Air Force Cyber Command is Working on a new Roadmap“, October 24, 2008). After 2 years, it seems that very little has been accomplish. We still have no idea of the structure, the size and not even the mission of the unit. Although Colorado Springs is apparently the preferred location, still no official location have been designated.
Will it work?
To be successful any cyber unit must first emphasize on constant research of new vulnerabilities in order to take the lead. It’s not just about looking at logs and waiting for an attack to occur. Any
serious cyber warfare unit must cooperate with every actor of the computer security field, not only corporations or universities, but also with hobbyist groups, hackers and phreakers in order to always have the initiative. As information is always distributed at blazing speed through out the net, and that nothing stays secret for long, constant research is needed to discover new vulnerabilities and detailed analysis. Yet, all those actors have been, as far as I know, ignored or forgotten.
Also, offensive is the best defense. Why should a military organization concentrate only on defensive operations? It even goes against American principles of war, as it ignores the “Offensive” principle, letting the initiative to the enemy. This is clearly not a sound decision. It ignores the basic concepts or warfare. I believe this is mostly due to a certain mentality in the military leadership, which still regards technology as support for troops instead of a fully fledge battlefield. This reasoning needs to change if we are to develop real cyber warfare operations. This is certainly something the Chinese understood.
I believe it will, if this unit becomes reality, become an administration bloated unit that will miss the point. Quantity is never a remedy to the lack of quality. A small but highly trained and skilled unit of hackers can do a lot more than a legion of technicians. The important part of cyber warfare is always to stay ahead, since that as soon as a hole or exploit is found, the enemy will patch it thus making it obsolete. and therefore, the need to find the next security vulnerability. Therefore, we don’t need a bigger bureaucracy, but more research, more cooperation with existing similar units and agencies and to develop a strong offensive capacity as the Chinese government seemed to have developed. The 67th Network Warfare unit and the Naval Network Warfare Command would be able to implement those capacities with the appropriate funding and support.
This command, which seemed like an important toward cyber warfare, now seems to have become a botched concept that will unlikely be of any use, except for other to look upon and learn from their mistakes. As the U.S Navy also has plans for a Naval Cyber Command, they have been a lot quieter about their project, maybe so they won’t suffer the same humiliation as their colleagues.
As governments are realizing the potential threats from a cyber war, agencies are organizing themselves to protect and defend their cyberspace. The U.S Air Force was based on this premise and would have been a good idea…if anyone had any idea of what they were talking about. Instead, it became or will become an administrative burden that failed and that will give no ror little results. In the end, the “Cyber Command” or what’s left of it, will be another organization which goals will be the same as the other agencies already in place, with no new value or innovative ideas…While western nations are struggling to grasp the concept of cyber warfare, others are developing a very well organized and effective effort to disrupt our systems. Cyber war is won by being a step ahead…and we’re not…
A new roadmap will be written for the reorganization of what was once the U.S Cyber Command. The project was downgraded from a major command to a numbered unit on October 8 by Staff Gen. Norton A. Schwartz. The cyberspace mission of the Air Force will be part of the Air Force Space Command. Both organizations are now working at ways of working together to fulfill the Air Force commitment to protect the cyberspace.
“This is not an additional duty for us,” General Kehler said. “We are in this 100 percent, and we will dedicate the manpower and resources needed to make this transition work. This is not just building a cyber numbered Air Force. This is establishing a robust cyberspace capability for our Air Force, and there won’t be a huge difference in what was being presented originally — cyber being its own command — with what will be done under Air Force Space Command’s umbrella.
There more I read about the Air Force Cyber Command, the more I believe it’s going to end up as it started. In the end, this is about the 67th Network Warfare unit transferring under the Air Force Space Command from the 8th Air Force. This is a wasted opportunity from the Air Force.
For anyone reading the news on a daily basis and being careful to the state of world affairs, one can’t help but feel some kind of tension between world nations. Whether it’s for resources, land, religious or ideological beliefs, these tensions are transforming or will transform into conflicts one day or another.
For centuries these conflicts, crisis and wars have been fought on the battlefield: warriors of two or more factions were crossing the blade until a victorious side emerged. This has been true for ages and will probably go on for a long time, as human nature doesn’t evolve easily. What will change thought is the battlefield, and we are currently witnessing a new and fast-paced battlefield, which isn’t on land, air or sea, but rather on copper wires, in air and computer networks. With the emergence of the Internet, the cyberspace has now become a new world were a new generation of soldiers and warriors will fight.
Previous events, although few, are a clear sign that more and more militaries are becoming aware of the new possibilities of exploring the cyberspace as a new field where battles can and will be fought. Whether our enemies are terrorists, criminals or opposing nations, we can see that more and more interest is put toward cyber warfare. Recent events are all pointing to that fact. Some may be familiar with the recent conflict in Georgia, where Russia is suspected of having used denial-of service attacks against Georgian servers and against Estonia also. The U.S announced the creation of the Air Force Cyber Command; an unit entirely devoted to cyber warfare. Let’s not forget previously suspected Chinese attacks on various western nations in 2005 and 2007.
Let it be clear though. This magazine is about cyber warfare, not electronic warfare (EW), although cyber warfare is usually considered part of the EW field, the inverse is not true. EW is fairly well documented, but it’s not the case for cyber warfare. This magazine intends to cover the following topics:
In our days and age, we can’t forget about terrorism and counter-insurgency. Therefore it would be unbelievable not discussing about cyber-terrorism and cyber-crime. All those topics are going to be covered in future articles.
Our time offers us a great new aspect of war to study and explore. Among information, psychological and economical warfare, cyber warfare is one of the most fasting growing and fascinating method of conducting war. More research and analysis needs to be conduct on this kind of war, and this is what this magazine will achieve.