April 22, 2009 2:36 PM PDT

The Cold War moves to cyberspace

by Charles Cooper
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 11 comments

This story was originally published at CBSNews.com.

Somewhere deep in Washington's national security apparatus, more than a few old-timers surely pine for the clarity of the Cold War. Black versus white, American versus Russian, spy versus spy--the good old days.

Now, however, they face more ephemeral threats from shadowy foes that prefer to cloak their identities.

"There's a cyberwar going on," said Ed Giorgio, who spent nearly 30 years with the National Security Agency before starting an IT security consultancy in 2007. The problem, he says, is that identifying an online adversary isn't as easy as pinpointing an enemy tank formation.

"Adversaries are just as likely to be nationalists as they are likely to be countries," said Giorgio, echoing a theme that cybersecurity experts say is likely to shape the Pentagon's approach to building Internet defenses in an increasingly networked world.

The extent of the problem was hinted at earlier in the day by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. In an upcoming 60 Minutes interview, Gates told CBS News anchor Katie Couric that the United States is "under cyberattack virtually all the time, every day" and that his department will more than quadruple the number of experts to battle cyber attacks.

Gates' comments came only hours after The Wall Street Journal reported that cyberspies had breached the DOD's Joint Strike Fighter project and also had penetrated the Air Force's air-traffic-control system. The Journal did not have details on the identities of the intruders but many industry experts are pointing fingers at China.

If true, that should not surprise anyone, says security analyst Richard Stiennon. In fact, he says, cyber probes from China have become more frequent since a U.S. Navy EP-3 was forced down by a Chinese fighter plane over the South China sea in 2001.

That incident led to a brief diplomatic row as well as a surge in of cyberattacks against U.S. Web sites. What's more, only a couple of years earlier, Chinese hackers attacked private and government Web sites in the U.S. in retaliation after NATO accidentally struck the Chinese embassy in Belgrade during the Kosovo crisis.

But finding out who orchestrated the attacks remains a mystery.

"I talked to IT administrators who said that if you were running Microsoft IIS, (server software for the Internet) then you were getting hacked," Stiennon said. "That was the beginning of the Chinese attacks...but it had plausible deniability. That's the beautiful thing about attributing the source of the attacks."

Dmitri Alperovitch, who specializes in threat research at the software security firm, McAfee, offers a more blunt assessment of what's happening on the ground. He says the U.S. is "in the midst of a cyber Cold War" and that the roster of potential foes could lengthen as more countries acquire more sophisticated knowledge about how to conduct cyberwarfare.

He said that Russia defines cyberwar as a force multiplier while China views cyber war as a way to get control of an enemy without the need for engaging on a physical field of battle. "It's straight out of Sun Tzu," he said.

That's the rub. Even in cases where a hack attack seems clearly linked to a government sponsor, experts say it's still hard to conclude the identity beyond a shadow of a doubt. In March 2007, Estonian Web sites got knocked out after the regime decided to move a Soviet statue from one park to another. Last August, when Russian tanks rolled across the border, Georgia's government ministries also got overwhelmed by a coordinated cyberattack.

U.S. and NATO officials don't seem to have any confusion about who was behind the attacks. In fact, NATO has since created a cyber defense center in Tallinn, Estonia. But in the absence of a smoking gun, this remains an unanswered question. Indeed, defenders of Russia attribute the brief cyberwar to nationalists acting independently.

Same goes for the Chinese, who are assumed to be behind the recent "GhostNet" attacks involving targets in the Tibetan community.

"Even if an attack comes from Beijing, it doesn't mean that it comes from the Chinese government," said Ed Skoudis, the founder of the security consultancy, InGuardians. "You can't jump to that automatic conclusion."

The only clear conclusion is that this sort of activity is likely to become increasingly common. That's why Secretary Gates and his team are about to wade through lots of resumes in the coming weeks and months.

Charles Cooper has covered technology and business for more than 25 years. Before joining CNET News, he worked at the Associated Press, Computer & Software News, Computer Shopper, PC Week, and ZDNet. E-mail Charlie.
Recent posts from Security
Q&A: Researcher Karsten Nohl on mobile eavesdropping
RockYou sued over data breach
Hacker Gonzalez pleads guilty in Heartland breach
Microsoft rebuts IIS vulnerability claims
More attacks expected on Facebook, Twitter in 2010
GSM crypto code cracked, engineer says
Web-based Lookout protects mobile devices, data
Hackers claim to crack Kindle copyright armor
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (11 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by monkeyfun14 April 22, 2009 2:44 PM PDT
Disconnect your **** from the internet problem solved..

What reason is there for a air traffic controller to be connected to the public internet and not a private network.
Reply to this comment
by monkeyfun14 April 22, 2009 2:44 PM PDT
Disconnect your **** from the internet problem solved..

What reason is there for a air traffic controller to be connected to the public internet and not a private network.
Reply to this comment
by ktswami April 22, 2009 3:31 PM PDT
Did you ask any of those "security consultants", Charles, whether the DOD has finally added network passwords to their IT policy checklist yet...?

I'm asking because the obviously, innocent Scottish programmer, Gary McKinnon, accessed open US military computers and networks that had NO admin passwords assigned. (Or really HIGH-security passwords such as, "password.") Apparently, spending money on the US military than the next 48 countries PUT TOGETHER, can't get us competent network administrators...

And, he was only looking for UFO info and photos, anyway.....oooohhhh, BIG national security threat. (Especially since the UK military has just declassified their own UFO info.)
Reply to this comment
by ewalsh69 April 22, 2009 3:42 PM PDT
Its right out of Battle Star Galactica, No networks, Dis-connect-works!
Military built Arpnet, why not do it again, completely separate from Public Internet
Reply to this comment
by shootthecops April 22, 2009 4:23 PM PDT
private, secure networks duh. fire these bozo's who cant figure that out
Reply to this comment
by n3td3v April 22, 2009 4:29 PM PDT
Propaganda for RSA Conference.
Reply to this comment
by Joetwopointoh April 22, 2009 4:37 PM PDT
It was moronic to start utilizing publicly available bandwidth for anything of a sensitive nature in the first place. Doubly so to continue the practice. It wasn't that long ago there were intelligent enough people in charge who understood the justification for the expense of moving corporate, government and otherwise essential data via completely antonymous means.

Then everyone got greedy, cheap and just plain stupid.
Reply to this comment
by Joetwopointoh April 22, 2009 4:49 PM PDT
Should have read autonomous (too quickly clicked the wrong word in spell check) but come to think of it, antonymous works too!

What's the reasoning behind configuring blogs so that people are allowed to comment but not edit/delete said posts?
Reply to this comment
by Jjesse285 April 23, 2009 5:22 PM PDT
Well it just show us that there are some evil people's out there, to much time on he brain!
Reply to this comment
by Fire Balls April 25, 2009 9:28 AM PDT
There is nothing that is completely secure... yes I know that thought is kind of scary but it's true. The only thing you can do it make it difficult enough that they will go somewhere else..or in this case build enough layers so that you can see them trying to get in and block them as they are doing it. I don't care what it is.. it can be hacked.
Reply to this comment
by aaasolanki April 27, 2009 10:11 PM PDT
How about putting your defense network & data on a mainframe rather than the 'other stuff'?
I heard that Big Blue machines are almost impossible to hack into, even though you need to pay through your nose to afford (and maintain) one and have to live without the eye-candy (and user friendliness) of the modern day web. :-)
Reply to this comment
(11 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

15 sites that went kaput in 2009

Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.

Top 10 news stories of the decade

Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.

About Security

Online security is threatened by more than hacking and phishing attempts. Check here for the latest updates on software vulnerabilities, data leaks, and rapidly spreading viruses--and learn how to protect your systems.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Security topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right