clydeiii/cybersecurity · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 4 429
concentrate on protecting vital sites by coordinating government and
public efforts. They were also able to create diversions which caused
hackers to attack sites which were already disabled or not very important.
(Collier, 2007)
The cyber attack on Estonia demonstrated the importance of legal
obligations for the U.S. in rendering support to its allies during a cyber
attack (Gee, 2008). The cyber attack also showed the vulnerability of an IT
system, raising the question, if it could happen to Estonia could another
trans-national cyber attack of this magnitude happen in the U.S. (Griggs,
2008)? The convention on cybercrime, which the U.S. is a party to,
outlines principles for providing mutual assistance regarding cybercrime
(Council of Europe, 2001). The convention does not mention cyber
attacks or cyber war but treats such activities as crimes (Korns &
Kastenberg, 2008/2009). Because only 23 countries have agreed to this
treaty, its force in the international community is limited (Gee, 2008).
Several members of NATO are participating in the Cyber Defence Centre
of Excellence that was established in Estonia, but the U.S. only agreed to
the creation of the cyber defence centre as an observer. The cyber defence
centre is working on issues of cyber security that affect NATO along with
the U.S (The Associated Press, 2008). What will the U.S.
s response be if a
cyber attack destroys infrastructure and kills citizens in an allied country,
and then that ally declares war because of the attack? The plausibility of
such an attack was demonstrated in 2007 when scientists from the Idaho
Baltic Security & Defence Review
Volume 11, 2009
National Laboratory demonstrated how a cyber attack could cause a power
plant to overload its system, begin to smoke, and then break down which
caused physical damage to equipment. Currently, both international law
and NATO
s framework lack coherent responses that are legal in the event
of such an attack. The cyber attackers could limit options for the U.S.
under such a scenario by routing their cyber attack through countries
which do not have laws or agreements to cooperate with the U.S. The
cyber attacker could remain completely anonymous if the country where
the attack was routed through refused to hand over information identifying
the cyber attackers. (Gee, 2008)
Cyber attacks on the U.S. government IT infrastructure are not new. In
March 1998 a cyber attack was launched against computer systems of the
U.S. government, private universities and research labs computer systems
that lasted for over three years. Government investigators named the
attacks
Moonlight Maze.
The cyber attacks targeted gaining access to
sensitive but unclassified information (Abreu, 2001). John Adams, a
National Security Agency (NSA) consultant says that government
investigators have identified seven internet addresses involved in the cyber
attacks that originated in Russia. Dion Stempfley, a former Pentagon
computer analyst, believes that the U.S. prove that the Russian Federation
government is sponsoring the attacks but there is evidence that they are
allowing or otherwise permitting the cyber attacks. The cyber attacks
which resulted in the theft of technical defence information were serious
enough that the U.S. State Department issued a formal complaint to the
Russian Federation. (Loeb, 2001)
In Global Trends 2025, a study conducted by the National Intelligence
Council, states over the next two decades non-military aspects of warfare,
including cyber, will be prominent (National Intelligence Council, 2008).
According to Secure Works, a cyber security company, in 2008 over 20
million attacks originated from computers within the United States (Secure
Works Press Release, 2008). In 2008 the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security created the National Cybersecurity Centre to counter these threats
(Griggs, 2008). The threats to the U.S. infrastructure and technology are
moving at a much faster pace than the creation of government structures
to counter the threat.
Even a casual observer can see that there is a cyber threat to the U.S., but
how is that connected to any Russian involvement in cyber attacks? There
Volume 11, 2009
Baltic Security & Defence Review
are three recent examples of how cyber attacks, that may have allegedly
originated in Russia, that demonstrate danger for U.S. and Russian
relations. These examples show how attacks against an IT structure were
used as cyber pressure to influence nations or organizations.
The first example is when Radio Free Europe
s internet sites in April 2008
in Eastern Europe were shut down because of a denial of service attack.
The attack lasted two days and coincided with the planned coverage of the
anniversary of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. The attacks effectively shut
down the websites which stopped the flow of information from Radio
Free Europe, a U.S. sponsored program (America.gov, 2008).
Another example is the malware (malware is a term used to identify illegal
computer access including computer viruses) attack on U.S. Department of
Defence computer systems in November 2008. According to WMD
Insights 6 the computer attacks are thought to have originated from Russia.
The attacks seemed to target military computer systems and affected the
U.S. central command along with computers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The
attacks led to a ban on the use of external computer flash drives on
military computers throughout the world. (Melikishvili, 2008/2009)
The latest example of an attack that may have originated in Russia is the
January 2009 denial of service attack that was directed at the government
websites of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan. One theory on why the attack was
started was because of Kyrgyzstan
s support of the U.S. in its war on terror
in Afghanistan. This shows the significance of a cyber attack not directed
against the U.S. but against one of its allies. (Rhoads, 2009)
One senior fellow at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in
Washington, D.C. believes there is no adversary that can defeat the U.S. in
cyber space. A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
commented that the U.S. government is able to protect itself from cyber
attacks, but the U.S. IT system is not completely impenetrable. The
director of a non-profit research institute, the United States Cyber

concentrate on protecting vital sites by coordinating government and

public efforts. They were also able to create diversions which caused

hackers to attack sites which were already disabled or not very important.

(Collier, 2007)

The cyber attack on Estonia demonstrated the importance of legal

obligations for the U.S. in rendering support to its allies during a cyber

attack (Gee, 2008). The cyber attack also showed the vulnerability of an IT

system, raising the question, if it could happen to Estonia could another

trans-national cyber attack of this magnitude happen in the U.S. (Griggs,

2008)? The convention on cybercrime, which the U.S. is a party to,

outlines principles for providing mutual assistance regarding cybercrime

(Council of Europe, 2001). The convention does not mention cyber

attacks or cyber war but treats such activities as crimes (Korns &

Kastenberg, 2008/2009). Because only 23 countries have agreed to this

treaty, its force in the international community is limited (Gee, 2008).

Several members of NATO are participating in the Cyber Defence Centre

of Excellence that was established in Estonia, but the U.S. only agreed to

the creation of the cyber defence centre as an observer. The cyber defence

centre is working on issues of cyber security that affect NATO along with

the U.S (The Associated Press, 2008). What will the U.S.

s response be if a

cyber attack destroys infrastructure and kills citizens in an allied country,

and then that ally declares war because of the attack? The plausibility of

such an attack was demonstrated in 2007 when scientists from the Idaho

Baltic Security & Defence Review

Volume 11, 2009

National Laboratory demonstrated how a cyber attack could cause a power

plant to overload its system, begin to smoke, and then break down which

caused physical damage to equipment. Currently, both international law

and NATO

s framework lack coherent responses that are legal in the event

of such an attack. The cyber attackers could limit options for the U.S.

under such a scenario by routing their cyber attack through countries

which do not have laws or agreements to cooperate with the U.S. The

cyber attacker could remain completely anonymous if the country where

the attack was routed through refused to hand over information identifying

the cyber attackers. (Gee, 2008)

Cyber attacks on the U.S. government IT infrastructure are not new. In

March 1998 a cyber attack was launched against computer systems of the

U.S. government, private universities and research labs computer systems

that lasted for over three years. Government investigators named the

attacks

Moonlight Maze.

The cyber attacks targeted gaining access to

sensitive but unclassified information (Abreu, 2001). John Adams, a

National Security Agency (NSA) consultant says that government

investigators have identified seven internet addresses involved in the cyber

attacks that originated in Russia. Dion Stempfley, a former Pentagon

computer analyst, believes that the U.S. prove that the Russian Federation

government is sponsoring the attacks but there is evidence that they are

allowing or otherwise permitting the cyber attacks. The cyber attacks

which resulted in the theft of technical defence information were serious

enough that the U.S. State Department issued a formal complaint to the

Russian Federation. (Loeb, 2001)

In Global Trends 2025, a study conducted by the National Intelligence

Council, states over the next two decades non-military aspects of warfare,

including cyber, will be prominent (National Intelligence Council, 2008).

According to Secure Works, a cyber security company, in 2008 over 20

million attacks originated from computers within the United States (Secure

Works Press Release, 2008). In 2008 the U.S. Department of Homeland

Security created the National Cybersecurity Centre to counter these threats

(Griggs, 2008). The threats to the U.S. infrastructure and technology are

moving at a much faster pace than the creation of government structures

to counter the threat.

Even a casual observer can see that there is a cyber threat to the U.S., but

how is that connected to any Russian involvement in cyber attacks? There

Volume 11, 2009

Baltic Security & Defence Review

are three recent examples of how cyber attacks, that may have allegedly

originated in Russia, that demonstrate danger for U.S. and Russian

relations. These examples show how attacks against an IT structure were

used as cyber pressure to influence nations or organizations.

The first example is when Radio Free Europe

s internet sites in April 2008

in Eastern Europe were shut down because of a denial of service attack.

The attack lasted two days and coincided with the planned coverage of the

anniversary of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. The attacks effectively shut

down the websites which stopped the flow of information from Radio

Free Europe, a U.S. sponsored program (America.gov, 2008).

Another example is the malware (malware is a term used to identify illegal

computer access including computer viruses) attack on U.S. Department of

Defence computer systems in November 2008. According to WMD

Insights 6 the computer attacks are thought to have originated from Russia.

The attacks seemed to target military computer systems and affected the

U.S. central command along with computers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The

attacks led to a ban on the use of external computer flash drives on

military computers throughout the world. (Melikishvili, 2008/2009)

The latest example of an attack that may have originated in Russia is the

January 2009 denial of service attack that was directed at the government

websites of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan. One theory on why the attack was

started was because of Kyrgyzstan

s support of the U.S. in its war on terror

in Afghanistan. This shows the significance of a cyber attack not directed

against the U.S. but against one of its allies. (Rhoads, 2009)

One senior fellow at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in

Washington, D.C. believes there is no adversary that can defeat the U.S. in

cyber space. A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

commented that the U.S. government is able to protect itself from cyber

attacks, but the U.S. IT system is not completely impenetrable. The

director of a non-profit research institute, the United States Cyber