clydeiii/cybersecurity · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 4 429
Volume 11, 2009
the ability to conduct a cyber attack than the cyber attacks on Estonia
s IT
infrastructure. (Secure Works Press Release, 2008)
Georgia received considerable assistance in countering the cyber attacks
and in communicating internally and internationally. Google provided
domain space to protect the websites of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
and Civil.ge, a Georgian Daily online news service. A private American
internet service provider (the head of the company is an ethnic Georgian)
assisted the Georgian government by hosting the Georgian President
website. The President of Poland also assisted the Georgian government
by placing official press releases on his website. Estonia even sent two
information security specialists from its Computer Emergency Response
Team to assist Georgia in countering the cyber attacks. According to
outside investigators there is no direct proof of any Russian government
involvement in the cyber attacks. But what is undeniable is that even
without proven Russian government involvement it remains clear that the
Russian government benefited from the cyber attacks. (Melikishvili,
2008/2009)
4.2. Lithuanian cyber attack
Lithuania faced its own attacks in June 2008 three days after it passed a law
outlawing the use of Soviet and communist symbols; over 300 websites
were attacked. Some were denial of service attacks while other sites were
vandalized with the Soviet hammer and sickle. Prior to the attacks and the
passage of the law, Russian and Lithuanian ties had deteriorated because of
Russia
s refusal to compensate Lithuanian victims of Soviet labour camps,
and Russia
s leveraging of energy resources for political gain. Lithuania also
blocked talks on an EU-Russia partnership. The animosities between the
two countries have provided observers with a clear motive that the attacks
were by the Russians. The reason for the cyber attacks against Lithuania
was similar to the cyber attacks against Estonia, both attacks were in
response to a government action that was unpopular to the Russian
people. (McLaughlin, 2008)
4.3. Kyrgyzstan cyber attack
The latest country that has come under a cyber attack from computers in
Russia is Kyrgyzstan. On January 18th, 2009 Kyrgyzstan
s two main
internet servers came under a denial of service attacks shutting down
Volume 11, 2009
Baltic Security & Defence Review
websites and email within the country. The originators of the attacks were
traced back to Russia (Rhoads, 2009). The attacks occurred on the same
day that the Russian government was pressuring Kyrgyzstan to stop U.S.
access to the airbase at Bishkek at Manas. The airbase is a key logistics
centre that supports the U.S. war efforts in Afghanistan. According to Don
Jackson, a senior security researcher at SecureWorks 4, the distributed denial
of service attacks are believed to be directed towards any opposition that is
not in favour of the closure of the airbase. While it is unproven whether
the government was behind the attacks the implication is that cyber attacks
will be used against any opposition to the Russian government (Bradbury,
2009).
The cyber attacks on Georgia, Lithuania and Kyrgyzstan have two
characteristics in common. The first characteristic is that the cyber attacks
were initiated because of opposition to the Russian government and
secondly that there is no proof that the Russian government was involved
in the cyber attacks. Regardless of who is initiating the attack it is clear that
opposition to the Russian government could result in a cyber attack which
could disrupt critical government infrastructure.
5. Compelling realities for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Cyber defence is a critical issue for NATO. U.S. General James Mattis,
NATO
s Supreme Allied Commander for Transformation, articulates the
importance of cyber defence for NATO by stating,
We cannot say that
we are not going to defend the Web that everybody needs
(Tanner &
Peach, 2008). Nations that are party to the North Atlantic Treaty agree on
Article 5
that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or
North America shall be considered an attack against them all
(The
North Atlantic Treaty, 1949). Does a cyber attack fit the requirement of an
armed attack? A senior NATO official asked,
If a member state
communications centre is attacked with a missile, you call it an act of war.
So what do you call it if the same installation is disabled with a cyberattack?
(The Economist, 2007). However, the current political reality is
that they are not the same. Prior to the cyber attacks on Estonia, NATO
cyber strategy was focused on NATO
s ability to protect its own IT
infrastructure. Now, the current reality is, is that the NATO
s strategy
must focus on assisting allies as they protect their own IT infrastructure
during an attack (North Atlantic Treaty Organization, undated a).
Baltic Security & Defence Review
Volume 11, 2009
Members of NATO have taken several steps in defining a cyber strategy
and implementing a cyber defence. As early as 2002, at the Prague Summit,
cyber defence appeared on NATO
s agenda. At the Prague Summit
NATO leaders agreed to the implementation of a NATO Cyber Defence
Program. The program consisted of a NATO Computer Incident
Response Capability and for NATO to use the latest cyber defence
measures (North Atlantic Treaty Organization, undated a). In the spring of
2006 cyber defence was made a priority for NATO during the Riga
Summit. The issue of cyber security gained even more attention when
Estonia, a NATO member, was cyber attacked in 2007 (EU News, Policy
Positions & EU Actors online, 2008).

Volume 11, 2009

the ability to conduct a cyber attack than the cyber attacks on Estonia

s IT

infrastructure. (Secure Works Press Release, 2008)

Georgia received considerable assistance in countering the cyber attacks

and in communicating internally and internationally. Google provided

domain space to protect the websites of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

and Civil.ge, a Georgian Daily online news service. A private American

internet service provider (the head of the company is an ethnic Georgian)

assisted the Georgian government by hosting the Georgian President

website. The President of Poland also assisted the Georgian government

by placing official press releases on his website. Estonia even sent two

information security specialists from its Computer Emergency Response

Team to assist Georgia in countering the cyber attacks. According to

outside investigators there is no direct proof of any Russian government

involvement in the cyber attacks. But what is undeniable is that even

without proven Russian government involvement it remains clear that the

Russian government benefited from the cyber attacks. (Melikishvili,

2008/2009)

4.2. Lithuanian cyber attack

Lithuania faced its own attacks in June 2008 three days after it passed a law

outlawing the use of Soviet and communist symbols; over 300 websites

were attacked. Some were denial of service attacks while other sites were

vandalized with the Soviet hammer and sickle. Prior to the attacks and the

passage of the law, Russian and Lithuanian ties had deteriorated because of

Russia

s refusal to compensate Lithuanian victims of Soviet labour camps,

and Russia

s leveraging of energy resources for political gain. Lithuania also

blocked talks on an EU-Russia partnership. The animosities between the

two countries have provided observers with a clear motive that the attacks

were by the Russians. The reason for the cyber attacks against Lithuania

was similar to the cyber attacks against Estonia, both attacks were in

response to a government action that was unpopular to the Russian

people. (McLaughlin, 2008)

4.3. Kyrgyzstan cyber attack

The latest country that has come under a cyber attack from computers in

Russia is Kyrgyzstan. On January 18th, 2009 Kyrgyzstan

s two main

internet servers came under a denial of service attacks shutting down

Volume 11, 2009

Baltic Security & Defence Review

websites and email within the country. The originators of the attacks were

traced back to Russia (Rhoads, 2009). The attacks occurred on the same

day that the Russian government was pressuring Kyrgyzstan to stop U.S.

access to the airbase at Bishkek at Manas. The airbase is a key logistics

centre that supports the U.S. war efforts in Afghanistan. According to Don

Jackson, a senior security researcher at SecureWorks 4, the distributed denial

of service attacks are believed to be directed towards any opposition that is

not in favour of the closure of the airbase. While it is unproven whether

the government was behind the attacks the implication is that cyber attacks

will be used against any opposition to the Russian government (Bradbury,

2009).

The cyber attacks on Georgia, Lithuania and Kyrgyzstan have two

characteristics in common. The first characteristic is that the cyber attacks

were initiated because of opposition to the Russian government and

secondly that there is no proof that the Russian government was involved

in the cyber attacks. Regardless of who is initiating the attack it is clear that

opposition to the Russian government could result in a cyber attack which

could disrupt critical government infrastructure.

5. Compelling realities for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Cyber defence is a critical issue for NATO. U.S. General James Mattis,

NATO

s Supreme Allied Commander for Transformation, articulates the

importance of cyber defence for NATO by stating,

We cannot say that

we are not going to defend the Web that everybody needs

(Tanner &

Peach, 2008). Nations that are party to the North Atlantic Treaty agree on

Article 5

that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or

North America shall be considered an attack against them all

(The

North Atlantic Treaty, 1949). Does a cyber attack fit the requirement of an

armed attack? A senior NATO official asked,

If a member state

communications centre is attacked with a missile, you call it an act of war.

So what do you call it if the same installation is disabled with a cyberattack?

(The Economist, 2007). However, the current political reality is

that they are not the same. Prior to the cyber attacks on Estonia, NATO

cyber strategy was focused on NATO

s ability to protect its own IT

infrastructure. Now, the current reality is, is that the NATO

s strategy

must focus on assisting allies as they protect their own IT infrastructure

during an attack (North Atlantic Treaty Organization, undated a).

Baltic Security & Defence Review

Volume 11, 2009

Members of NATO have taken several steps in defining a cyber strategy

and implementing a cyber defence. As early as 2002, at the Prague Summit,

cyber defence appeared on NATO

s agenda. At the Prague Summit

NATO leaders agreed to the implementation of a NATO Cyber Defence

Program. The program consisted of a NATO Computer Incident

Response Capability and for NATO to use the latest cyber defence

measures (North Atlantic Treaty Organization, undated a). In the spring of

2006 cyber defence was made a priority for NATO during the Riga

Summit. The issue of cyber security gained even more attention when

Estonia, a NATO member, was cyber attacked in 2007 (EU News, Policy

Positions & EU Actors online, 2008).