TO:

Connie Douglas

FROM:

Lucas Plath

SUBJECT:

Cyber Attacks and International Relations

DATE:

13APR2016

Note: Graded B+, changed citiation

format. Previous one was based off
book example instead of MLA. Also
several Grammatical corrections

Introduction
The widespread use and integration of the internet into so many aspects of everyday life
has created a world that is increasingly connected. This allows immediate communication of
enormous amounts of information and enables countries at opposite ends of the globe to interact
in trade, politics, and social issues. Unfortunately, the development of technology has far
outpaced the ability of humans to adapt existing international laws and norms to a quickly
changing landscape of threats in the cyber domain. While borders of countries can be tangible
and certain, cyberspace is a realm of ambiguity with infinitely complex and competing interests.
There have been incalculable benefits to humanity from the development of the internet, but
there are also many unforeseen in the form of cyber attacks and espionage. This report seeks to
define those risks, explore possible solutions, and attempt to reduce the vagueness found in the
world of digital conflict.

Defining Terms
A fruitful discussion on cyber threats is problematic due to ambiguity more than any
other factor. This ambiguity exists on a number of levels, from the anonymous nature of actors
on the internet to the language used to describe their acts. A technologically misinformed and
undereducated public can quickly find itself confused by the technical and political aspects of
cyberspace. To reduce such misunderstanding within the context of this report it is best to begin
with a definition of terms critical to it:
Cyberspace: essentially refers to the world wide web and all interactivity within it. This includes
legal, illegal, public, anonymous, and intentionally concealed activity. Cyberspace is the sum
total of all the known and unknown activity occurring, and that has occurred on the internet.
Cyber Attack: a malicious or criminal act in cyberspace. This is a general term and does not
reflect disposition or intent. A well-meaning act of cyber activism would still be a cyber attack,
but would not necessarily be cyber terrorism.

Cyber Terrorism: a cyber attack with the intention of causing disruption or damage online that
may or may not extend to real world consequences. To consider an act cyber terrorism depends
considerably on the status of the organization(s) involved, the monetary or physical impact of the
attack, and the perpetrators goals (Chen, Cyberterrorism: Understanding). Cyber terrorism is a
term so vague it should always be accompanied by a qualifying explanation.
Cyber Activism (hacktivism): a cyber attack with a
political or ideological agenda (Chen, Cyberterrorism:
Understanding). What typically separates this from
terrorism is the severity of the attack. Activism tends to
be aimed at raising awareness through cyber space
without causing real world harm.
Cyber Warfare: cyber attack with military goals
conducted or sponsored by an internationally recognized
government. Definitive examples of this are hard to
come by as nations are understandably reluctant to make
known any activity that could be construed as an act of
war (Hilkfer, Responding to Cyber Attacks).
Industrial Espionage: cyber spying with the goal of
stealing trade secrets for profit or advancement in
production and research.

What Is The Issue

The problem with understanding cyber attacks is two-fold. The first is a matter of
language and how we talk about cyberspace. Even reading through the preceding attempt to
define a few major terms probably brings up a number of questions to the individual trying to
make clear distinctions between various types of nefarious cyber activity. If a country conducts a
cyber attack against another country, but it is not particularly damaging, is this significant
enough to label it cyber warfare? There may be a number of unintended consequences that
would follow such a label as well. If an organization conducts industrial espionage, but is
sponsored by a recognized government, is this an act of crime or war?
The second problem is similar to the first. Rather than struggling to define terms,
however, the difficulty lies in defining/identifying perpetrators of cyber attacks. Whether it is
low level hacktivism or state-sponsored cyber warfare, the internet provides a realm of
anonymity for its participants (Mirielle, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction). The source of a cyber

attack can commonly be deduced with a fair degree of probability. Certainty, however, remains
elusive.
Issues in cyberspace are rarely black and white. It is a vast landscape of grey and a
difficult one for any individual government or organization to navigate. It is even more difficult
for numerous countries and organizations to manage and keep safe in a cooperative manner. It is
a realm where potentially anyone can interact or influence others, yet no one is clearly
identifiable. There are no walls or agreed upon borders to mark what is off limits and to whom.
Attempts to regulate cyberspace are made by politicians who do not understand it and are usually
too slow to keep pace with technology (Congressional Hearing, 2015). There is also the question
of what level (if any) regulation is acceptable in a world largely thought of as a last bastion for
true freedom and democracy (Mirielle, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction).

Possible Solutions
1. Attaining information on the source of a cyber attack is a difficult task in and of itself.
Accumulating data regarding cyber attacks for analysis and investigation is key to
accomplishing this, but such efforts are hampered by a lack of information sharing.
Organizations and governments are reluctant to reveal information that may be exploited
to make them appear weak and unable to secure themselves. However, sharing cyber
attack data has been shown to increase security among organizations that cooperate with
one another (Esther, Economic Incentives for Sharing Security Information).
a. Challenge: Organizations involved in this sort of sharing raise legitimate concerns
that sharing such data could be used by competing interests to steal proprietary
security systems (Kshetir, Recent US Cybersecurity Initiatives).
2. Binding international agreement on what defines and constitutes varying degrees of cyber
attacks is necessary to prevent potentially disastrous confrontation. It is also necessary to
establish how a government may reasonably retaliate (legally or militarily) if it can be
shown that a particular organization is responsible for an attack (Segal, The Code Not
Taken; Warner, Notes on the Evolution of Computer Security). Currently, there is
hardly any agreement even within any given nation, about how to define the severity of
different type of malicious cyber activity.
a. Challenge: Governments and private organizations conduct cyber espionage even
on their friends. This overwhelming level of suspicion, combined with the ability
to covertly look into those suspicions, offers little incentive towards transparency.
3. So long as the internet is maintained as a generally free and anonymous environment,
educating the public is critical to keeping it safe. The most devastating cyber attacks
almost always begin with human error (Power, Information Age Espionage). A
network might have the advanced safeguards available, but, an individual with poor

awareness can still be a vulnerability that no amount of software can overcome. Security
experts have demonstrated that even top secret facilities can be breached simply because
the people responsible for enforcing policy are reluctant to get involved in confrontation
with a potential threat (Talbot, Cyberespionage Nightmare).
a. Challenge: This is only one of many necessary steps to making cyberspace more
secure. Also it does not address the strain cyber attacks place on international
relations.
4. In the online world it is easy to conceal ones
identity and even ones location. Barring an effort
to require all users to be identifiable in order to
access the internet, cyber attacks may simply be a
new reality that can only be kept in check, but
never be even close to eliminated. That also
means the mutual distrust between competing
entities online may be here to stay as well. What
can be done, however, is to develop defensive
strategies that keep pace with attack trends rather
than lag behind. Organizations could implement
deception and denial methods. For deception, I mean that in cyberspace, an organization
could reveal non-essential factual information and misleading fictional information to
confuse attackers and also tip administrators off to potential intrusions (Heckman,
Denial and Deception in Cyber Defense). By denial I mean essential information
would be concealed but false information would also be concealed but in such a way as to
lure attackers (Heckman, Denial and Deception in Cyber Defense). Most methods
currently in place are vulnerable to social engineering and user error and are not creative
enough to handle modern cyber attacks.
a. Challenge: This is not so much a solution as it is a step for risk mitigation. It is
also a pessimistic acceptance that if the internet is to remain free, its users are to
remain mutually suspicious of one another.

What Is Currently Being Done

Current initiatives within the United States seek to require disclosure to individuals
affected by cyber attacks, increase information sharing between the federal and private sectors,
and amend outdated acts related to corruption and computer fraud (Kshetir, Recent US
Cybersecurity Initiatives). These initiatives would address the gap between government and

corporate cyber capabilities and increase public trust (Kshetir, Recent US Cybersecurity
Initiatives). It could be argued, however, that initiatives may cause government overreach and
are concerned about whether such a diversity of organizations can trust one another with
potentially sensitive information (Hilkfer, Responding to Cyber Attacks). Even within the
United States, organizations struggle with the possibility of sharing information regarding cyber
security. This is significant to explaining more global issues. The freedom and anonymity
offered by the internet is a difficult, and maybe impossible, thing to let go of and if one nation
cannot do it, it is unlikely that multiple nations will be able to.

Conclusion
Cyberspace is a virtual realm with a continually growing number of participants, and
malicious actions within it can have significant real world consequences. Unfortunately, those
actions are difficult to define and, even if defined, are even more difficult to attribute to a
particular source. This inability to pinpoint the source of attacks causes users, organizations, and
nations to be suspicious of one another. So long as the internet continues to allow users a
considerable degree of anonymity, these suspicions will persist. The more pessimistic view is
probably the more realistic one for the foreseeable future. International agreement in defining
cyber attacks and enforcing consequences is not possible and would likely only protect those
countries advanced enough to find ways around such safeguards. In cyberspace, technological
knowledge is the prerequisite to maintaining security. Those who educate themselves will be
somewhat reassured, those who do not will get left behind, and everyone will remain mistrustful
in the digital world.

References
Esther Gal-Or, Anindya Ghose. The Economic Incentives for Sharing Security
Information. Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences
(INFORMS). 2005. E-Text.
Hilkfer, Joseph (Lieutenant Colonel). Responding to Cyber Attacks and the Applicability of
Existing International Law.U.S. Army War College, March 2013. E-Text.
Kristin Heckman, Frank Stech, and Roshan Thomas. Denial and Deception in Cyber
Defense. CYBERSECURITY. The MITRE Corporation. Computer, v48 n4 (201504): 3644. E-text.
Kshetir, Nir. Recent US Cybersecurity Initiatives: Challenges and Implications. Computer, v48
n7 (201507): 64-69. 2015. E-text.

Mireille, Hildebrandt. Extraterritorial Jurisdiction to Enforce in Cyberspace? University of

Toronto Law Journal, Volume 63, Number 2, pp. 196-224, 2013. E-Text.
Power, Richard and Forte, Dario. Information Age Espionage: Debriefing a Real-World, TopClass Cyber Sleuth.Computer Fraud and Security. May 2007. E-text.
Segal, Adam. The Code Not Taken: China, the United States, and the Future of Cyber
Espionage. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Sage Publishing. 2007. E-text.
Talbot, David. Cyberespionage Nightmare. MIT Technology Review. Vol 118 no. 4
Thomas Chen, Lee Jarvis, Stuart Macdonald. Cyberterrorism: Understanding, Assessment, and
Response. Springer Science and Business Media. New York, 2014. eBook
Warner, Michael. Notes on the Evolution of Computer Security Policy in the US Government,
1965-2003. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, v37 n2 (201504): 8-18. 2015. Etext.
The Expanding Cyber Threat: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Research and Technology,
Committee On Science, Space and Technology, House of Representatives. U.S.
Government Publishing Office. Washington. January 27, 2015. E-Text.