Washington Post
July 14, 2011 
Pg. 6

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/pentagon-to-unveil-cybersecurity-strategy/2011/07/12/gIQADG4ADI_story.html

Pentagon To Outline Cybersecurity Strategy That Offers More Tools

But officials will stress that thrust of U.S. policy is defensive

By Ellen Nakashima

The Pentagon is set to unveil Thursday a strategy for protecting its computer 
systems that goes beyond erecting firewalls and stresses the use of sensors, 
software and data collected by U.S. intelligence, U.S. officials said.

At the same time, officials have labored to make their “Cyber 3.0” strategy not 
appear too bellicose in an effort to counter perceptions that the United States 
is militarizing cyberspace, according to people briefed on the process.

Those perceptions have been driven by the creation of U.S. Cyber Command, a 
military organization that is allied with the government’s largest and most 
technologically sophisticated spy agency, the National Security Agency. The 
Pentagon also has declared that cyberspace is a new “domain” of warfare — 
alongside air, land, sea and space.

But drafts of a speech introducing the policy, set for delivery Thursday by 
Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III, suggest that officials want to 
tamp down criticism that U.S. cybersecurity policy is more offensive than 
defensive. “Far from militarizing cyberspace, our strategy of securing networks 
to deny the benefit of an attack will help dissuade military actors from using 
cyberspace for hostile purposes,” reads one section of a draft obtained by the 
online publication Nextgov.

The strategy’s rollout was delayed by more than six months, in part to avoid 
preempting the White House’s release of a global cybersecurity strategy and in 
part to work through concerns that the language could fuel perceptions of 
military dominance, said experts briefed on the strategy who spoke on the 
condition of anonymity because the briefings were confidential. The State 
Department and other agencies argued that defining cyberspace as a war-fighting 
domain would complicate relationships with international partners wary of U.S. 
military domination of cyber security policy, they said.

In the end, according to U.S. officials, the Pentagon agreed to refer to 
cyberspace as a domain strictly in terms of defending military networks rather 
than as a full-fledged arena of warfare.

The strategy, which has been two years in the making, is expected to emphasize 
that officials consider a military response to current cyber intrusions 
unlikely.

“Although it is certainly possible that a destructive or disruptive cyber 
attack could have an impact analogous to physical hostilities and therefore 
constitute an act of war, the vast majority of malicious cyber activity today 
would not cross this threshold, or justify a military response,” says another 
draft of Lynn’s speech.

In fact, the strategy does not specify how the United States might use 
computers in a direct attack, said several military officials, who said the 
document missed an opportunity to delineate how and when offensive means should 
be used.

The Pentagon’s strategy builds on the White House’s May release of its global 
cybersecurity strategy, which declared that the United States would “oppose 
those who seek to disrupt networks and systems, dissuading and deterring 
malicious actors, and reserving the right to defend these vital national assets 
as necessary and appropriate.”

The Pentagon strategy’s five “pillars” have been outlined in speeches before 
and include the establishment of “active defenses” such as sensors and software 
that can make networks more resilient. Such technologies have prompted debate 
within the Pentagon over whether they may be used to neutralize potentially 
malicious code in an adversary’s system — a course of action that could cross 
the line into offense.

The U.S. military has developed cyber weapons that can be used to deter an 
adversary from using its computer systems to attack the United States. They 
include viruses that can sabotage an opponent’s critical networks, similar to 
the Stuxnet virus, which damaged an Iranian nuclear facility, military 
officials said. Outside war, such weapons require presidential authority to be 
used, the officials said.

In March, in response to concerns from various departments and agencies, the 
White House prepared draft guidance that discussed use of the word “domain” to 
refer to cyberspace. The unclassified document, which was never formally issued 
but was obtained by The Washington Post, noted that “the lack of public 
understanding about the nature and parameters of U.S. military activity in 
cyberspace mandates messaging on this issue be precise.”

The guidance included the directive that “Cyberspace . . . is not to be 
characterized as a ‘warfighting,’ ‘military’ or ‘operational’ domain.” The 
phrase “cyber domain,” it continued, “is to be replaced with ‘cyberspace’ 
whenever possible.”

 
_______________________________________________
Infowarrior mailing list
[email protected]
https://attrition.org/mailman/listinfo/infowarrior

Reply via email to