The Recent State Sanctioned Chinese Cyber Attacks Against United States Organizations And Agencies

Secondly, I will be using examples to demonstrate how nation states use these types of warfare in cyberspace to fight its enemies. Thirdly, I will be investigating into how sub state groups use this type of warfare to launch attacks on states and corporations e.g. the rise of hacktivists and ‘cyber terrorist’. And finally conclude with a summary of my findings and the impact of war in cyberspace and the consequences in the tangible world. According to Arquilla and Ronfeldt1, war in cyberspace is of two kinds Netwar and Cyberwar.

The book “Conquest in Cyberspace” went in depth on the United States’, Russia’s, and China’s views on information warfare and cyber warfare. It also discussed the areas where their policies, guidance, and operations differ and are the same. One of the most interesting things which I noticed in the completion of this assignment is how the United States has the most well defined and in depth policies and governances regulating their information warfare and cyber warfare operations and how both China and Russia has taking the policies and governances created by the United States and mimicked them in the creation of their own policies and governances for information

Each viewpoint, the hawk, the dove, and the internationalist base their consequent arguments on the perceived current political and moral position of the United States regarding international cybersecurity. Similar to relations between the USSR and the US, the rhetoric between the United States and China draws from the tensions surrounding superpower military supremacy and moral imperatives. Between the hawkish, dovish, and internationalist perspectives, the themes of American military and moral power persist.

Pfleeger, S. Pfleeger, and Margulies (2015) outline possible examples of cyber warfare between Canada and China (p. 844). According to Pfleeger, S. Pfleeger, and Margulies (2015), “the Canadian government revealed that several of its national departments had been victims of a cyber attack…” (p. 844). Eventually, the attack was unofficially traced to a computer in China (p. 844). Cyber warfare can be used negatively and positively. It is evident that China was seeking to gain protected information form Canada. Although a purpose of cyber warfare, it is not a conventional way of obtaining information. Additionally, cyber warfare can be used to collect intelligence on an enemy. Anyone seeking to gather intelligence on another individual or group can launch a cyber attack that gains access to protected files. This could be used to help future militant operations or expose critical information. Lastly, cyber warfare can be used to test systems internally. Acting with no malicious intent, “insiders” can utilizing cyber warfare tactics to attack their own cyber security barriers in order to test the strength of their systems. Seeking to expose the vulnerabilities in a system that contains important assets without actually harming the assets provides the system a diagnosis of what needs to be strengths and fixed. Identifying the problem or threats before an actual attack can ultimately save the protected

Guns, knives, and conventional explosives have so far remained the weapons of choice for most terrorists; however, recently terrorist have gone to the tactics of using vehicles as well, since such weapons can cause many casualties and are relatively easy to acquire and use. But some terrorist groups now show interest in acquiring the capability to use chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) materials [Federal Emergency Management Agency, (July 2002)]. It is difficult to predict the likelihood of a CBRN attack, but most experts agree that today's terrorists are seeking the ability to use such agents in order to cause mass casualties [Federal Emergency Management Agency, (July 2002)]. Cyber-attacks are often considered in the same context with CBRN. Respectable experts have published sobering scenarios about the potential impact of a successful cyber-attack on the United States. Already, hackers and criminals have exploited some of our vulnerabilities [National Research Council. (2007)]. Terrorists are making extensive use of the new information technologies, and a conventional terrorist attack along with a coordinated cyber-attack could exponentially compound the damage [National Research Council. (2007)]. This changing nature of the terrorist threat raises the stakes in getting American counterterrorist policies and practices

Tomorrow’s terrorist may be able to do more damage with a keyboard than with a bomb (National Research Council1). The United States Department of States defined terrorism as: “…premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents.” Terrorism not only occurs on the real life today but also on the internet. As the technology rapidly developed, there is an increase in the usage of internet, the threat comes along the way. Due to the occurrence of internet terrorism-generating fears to the public, the term “Cyberterrorism” was coined by Barry Collin in the 1980’s (Cyberterrorism Defined). The definition of cyberterrorism differs from various legal systems and government

cyber policy has embraced this idea. “The Plan declared that in order for it to succeed, government and the private sector must work together in a partnership. However since the regulation has been in place it has failed to provide the security necessary to protect U.S. critical infrastructure from a cyber attack. Even Congress has been slow to act regarding almost all aspects of cyber policy (Wolf, J. 12 July, 2012).” One of the problems facing a comprehensive cyber security bill is that computers have become so omnipresent in our daily lives that they cross every sector of the economy. It is not surprising that application of the laws of war to cyber attacks has recently been a popular topic in politics. Some have even analyzed whether a cyber attack can constitute an armed attack, it can but, whether a cyber attack with a specified effect constitutes a use of force. An example, if the U.S. could prove that Iran absolute sent a computer virus that infected a Wall Street, would dropping a bomb on Iran be justify? A responsible nation must always consider the possibilities of collateral damage in deciding whether an act of self defense is justified, be it cyber or kinetic. While the United States must undoubtedly increase its cyber defense capabilities, the nation cannot retreat behind a Line of firewalls. As in the fight against terrorism, the United States must be vigilant and aggressive in the face of both cyber attacks and

The difference in the perceptions of cyber attack is rather complicating because it makes the nature of the operative term “cyber” all the more ambiguous, causing serious vagueness in any use-of-force or armed attack analysis. This becomes particularly problematic when applying any leading models on the assessment of use of force because these models employ instrumentality, target and effects as the basis for analysis. Moreover, there must be an understanding of what exactly is a cyber attack before discussing whether it falls under the use of force notion or not because it will not only affect the value and

Understanding the situation of Information Warfare and Cyber-Terrorism requires the acknowledgement and discussion of relevant facts. The United States has spied on other countries in the past, currently spies on other countries, and will spy on other countries for a long time to come. One example is our current situation with China. As China grows economically and militarily they present a possible future threat to the United States. "More fundamentally, there is a question about the long-term future of the U.S.-China relationship as China actualizes its enormous economic potential and becomes an ever stronger regional power. There are some basic incompatibilities between our two countries, and these are a source of tension” (Davidson). Another fact is that the United States uses Information Warfare techniques to spy on other countries. “Of all forms of intelligence collection, aerial surveillance from international airspace is among the most benign and non-intrusive. It is quite different from bribing officials or literally stealing secrets”

The cyber domain crosses both physical and logical borders across the globe. No longer is every aspect of a domain clearly part of a single nation. Occurrences within cyberspace has far reaching effects. 15 million T-Mobile customer’s data stolen via Experian server compromise, massive cyberattacks on Estonia and Georgia networks (2007 and 2008 respectively), and over $1 trillion reportedly lost due to cybercrime. These are just a few concerns facing global and state level security demonstrating significant concern and requirement for action. Criminal syndicates as well as other non-state and state actors use cyberspace to conduct illegal activities. In this, a common core of countries

Since 2000, internet use has rapidly increased to more than 2.4 billion users worldwide, with 70% of those users using the World Wide Web every day (The Culturist, 2013).These days it simply takes minutes for news to travel around the globe. In the twenty first century, cyber security is an international topic. The threat of cyber warfare is existent and would be devastating beyond any weapon imaginable. With the entire world becoming more interconnected, a cyber-attack could: control information access, ground airplanes, hijack nuclear facilities, and perhaps most importantly, bring the global economy to a stop, creating mayhem from Wall Street to China, London, and Paris. What is different and challenging about cyber security is that it is not only relevant to just one nation like national defense or economic policy may be, but somewhat a global concern that requires a global response.

While China, in particular organs of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), has historically and will likely continue conducting cyber espionage and network exploitation for information gathering and related purposes, for reasons nested in the individual, state, and international levels, and assuming the classic rational-actor paradigm of decision making, it is increasingly likely that offensive cyber operations (OCO) will be preferred elements of China’s military strategy in the coming years. For reasons including an increasing American ability to detect, counter, and reciprocate OCO as well as cost efficiency and regional factors and regional power dynamics, China will increasingly choose to target U.S. allies vice U.S. interests directly. This will consequently create a requirement

Cyber Security is a growing concern for governments around the world. Cyber-attacks pose a direct threat to the security of the nations’ critical infrastructures and Information Technologies (IT) as a low-cost asymmetric warfare element. Most of these nations are aware of the vulnerability of the information technologies and the significance of protecting critical infrastructures. To counteract the threat of potentially disastrous cyber-attacks, nations’ policy makers are increasingly pondering on the use of deterrence strategies to supplement cyber defense. Nations create their own national policies and strategies which cover cyber security countermeasures including cyber defense and deterrence against cyber threats. But it is rather hard to cope with the threat by means of merely ‘national’ cyber defense policies and strategies, since the cyberspace spans worldwide and attack’s origin can even be overseas. This essay emphasizes establishing international legal measures and cooperation between nations against cyber-attacks in order to maintain the international stability and prosperity.

Scholars such as David E. Graham perceive that the threat is still low, it is rising and there is a question of much force in terms of cyber or purely military responses is legal or necessary. What Graham points to is that there may be a distinct difference between a matter of criminal hacking and a military attack. As a specialist in international law,

Both Russia and China differ from the U.S. in their approaches to information security by holding the mind and information systems to be essential components in their perception of information security. This is key to understanding the fundamental differences of Russian and Chinese approaches to information security as being distinct from cybersecurity while the U.S. view combines the two, not considering the mind as directly part of the “information space.”