August 14, 2018
Battlefield Internet
A Plan for Securing Cyberspace
Cyberspace has been recognized as a new arena for competition among states ever since it came into existence. In the United States, there have long been warnings of a “cyber–Pearl Harbor”—a massive digital attack that could cripple the country’s critical infrastructure without a single shot being fired. Presidential commissions, military task force reports, and congressional investigations have been calling attention to such a risk for decades. In 1984, the Reagan administration warned of the “significant security challenges” of the coming information age. And just this year, Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, said of such threats, “the lights are blinking red.”
Yet the Internet has always been much more than a venue for conflict and competition; it is the backbone of global commerce and communication. That said, cyberspace is not, as is often thought, simply part of the global commons in the way that the air or the sea is. States assert jurisdiction over, and companies claim ownership of, the physical infrastructure that composes the Internet and the data that traverses it. States and companies built the Internet, and both are responsible for maintaining it. Actions taken in the public sector affect the private sector, and vice versa. In this way, the Internet has always been hybrid in nature.
So, accordingly, is the real cyberwar threat. It turns out that for all the increasingly vehement warnings about a cyber–Pearl Harbor, states have shown little appetite for using cyberattacks for large-scale destruction. The immediate threat is more corrosive than explosive. States are using the tools of cyberwarfare to undermine the very foundation of the Internet: trust. They are hacking into banks, meddling in elections, stealing intellectual property, and bringing private companies to a standstill. The result is that an arena that the world relies on for economic and informational exchange has turned into an active battlefield.
Read the Full Article at Foreign Affairs
More from CNAS
-
Commentary
Technology & National Security
CNAS Insights | Bridging Washington and Silicon ValleyThe recent friction between Anthropic and the Pentagon has made me reflect on the painful chasm that opened between Washington and Silicon Valley following leaks from Edward S...
By Anne Neuberger
-
Video
Technology & National Security
The Geopolitics of 6G with Vivek Chilukuri, Michael Calabrese, and Lindsay GormanVivek Chilukuri, senior fellow and program director at the Center for a New American Security, joined POLITICO Policy Outlook to discuss the geopolitical implications of 6G, t...
By Vivek Chilukuri
-
Commentary
Technology & National Security
Two Illegal Biolabs Reveal Gaps in U.S. BiosecurityThis article was originally published in Lawfare.Last month, law enforcement officials launched an investigation into a suspected biolab in the Las Vegas home of Chinese natio...
By Sam Howell
-
Commentary
Technology & National Security
CNAS Insights | America’s AI Cyber Defense Gap Needs Congress to ActTwice in the past five months, the U.S. Congress has allowed the authorization for U.S. cyber threat intelligence sharing to lapse. In each case, it managed only short-term ex...
By Spencer Michaels, Janet Egan & Michael Daniel
