Information Warfare: What Is It Good For?

In this case, the best offense is a good defense

By Simson Garfinkel

June 01, 2003 — CSO — The sky hasn't fallen yet, but it soon may. At least that's been the message repeated for more than a decade by computer security professionals, military planners and multiple blue-ribbon commissions. All have warned of an impending "Digital Pearl Harbor" in which U.S. computers will be hit hard by foreign governments or terrorists employing a variety of electronic attacks. The result, we're told, will be damage to critical infrastructures, massive economic loss and perhaps worse.

Let's face it: Cyberattacks are easy. In August 2000, an employee at an Internet news service published a fake press release for Emulex and caused the company's market capitalization to drop by $2.5 billion. SQL Slammer used a vulnerability that had been known about for months, causing significant damage, and it could have wiped the hard drive of every infected systemif only its author had been more vindictive.

Since the early 1990s, it's been clear that an organized attack over the Internet or other data networks could seriously disrupt not just civilian but military targets as well, thanks to increased interconnections. In the 1980s, a group of West German hackers broke into more than 40 sensitive computer systems at the departments of Defense and Energy, and NASA. During the first Gulf War, hackers from the Netherlands broke into 34 DoD systemsincluding the computers that abort ships in the theater of operations. In 1995, an Argentinean hacker broke into DoD, NASA and Los Alamos National Labs systems that contain information on aircraft design, radar technology and satellite control systems. In February 1998, two teenagers from California, tutored in the art of hacking by an 18-year-old Israeli, broke into other DoD systems. In each of these cases, had the hackers been suitably motivated, they could have caused substantial damage to U.S. national security.

Given all that, why didn't the Iraqi military start attacking us in cyberspace when we started bombing their country? At the very least, why didn't Iraqi sympathizers and angry youths walk in from the Arab Street and start pounding us from their keyboards? When I called my friends in Washington and asked them that question, their answer was simple: The nation's digital security has gotten a lot better in the past two years.

Lines of communication that did not exist even two years ago have opened between law enforcement, the military, commercial providers and businesses. Administrators and software providers have become far more aggressive about deploying security technology like virus scanners and applying security patches. As a result, those running the national information infrastructure are now in a much better position to deal with current attacks. Yes, we're still vulnerable to worms and viruses, but those attacks are less likely to jeopardize lives. The Hoover Dam is secure.

• Print

• Department of Justice: Steps Toward Mitigating Risk