Advertisement

From Cyber War to Cyber Peace

  • Thomas ReinholdEmail author
  • Christian Reuter
Chapter

Abstract

The encompassing trend of digitalisation and widespread dependencies on IT systems triggers adjustments also in the military forces. Besides necessary enhancements of IT security and defensive measures for cyberspace, a growing number of states are establishing offensive military capabilities for this domain. Looking at historical developments and transformations due to advancements in military technologies, the chapter discusses the political progress made and tools developed since. Both of these have contributed to handling challenges and confining threats to international security. With this background, the text assesses a possible application of these efforts to developments concerning cyberspace, as well as obstacles that need to be tackled for it to be successful. The chapter points out political advancements already in progress, the role of social initiatives, such as the cyber peace campaign of the Forum of Computer Scientists for Peace and Societal Responsibility (FifF), as well as potential consequences of the rising probability of cyber war as opposed to the prospects of cyber peace.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

Recommended Reading

  1. Neuneck, G. (2001). Präventive Rüstungskontrolle und Information Warfare. In Rüstungskontrolle im Cyberspace. Perspektiven der Friedenspolitik im Zeitalter von Computerattacken (pp. 47–53). Berlin: Dokumentation einer Internationalen Konferenz der Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung am 29./30. Juni 2001.Google Scholar
  2. UNIDIR. (2013). The Cyber Index - International Security Trends and Realities. Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  3. Forum of Computer Scientists for Peace and Societal Responsibility. (2014). No military operations in the Internet! Retrieved from https://cyberpeace.fiff.de/Kampagne/WirFordernEn.

Bibliography

  1. Appelbaum, J., Horchert, J., Reißmann, O., Rosenbach, M., Schindler, J., & Stöcker, C. (2013, December 30). Neue Dokumente: Der geheime Werkzeugkasten der NSA. Spiegel Online. Retrieved from www.spiegel.de
  2. Bright, A. (2007, May 17). Estonia Accuses Russia of “Cyber Attack.” Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from https://www.csmonitor.com
  3. Bronk, C., & Tikk-Ringas, E. (2013). The Cyber Attack on Saudi Aramco. Survival, 55(2), 81–96.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2013.784468
  4. Brown, G. D., & Tullos, O. W. (2012, December 11). On the Spectrum of Cyberspace Operations. Small Wars Journal. Retrieved from http://smallwarsjournal.com
  5. Clark, D. D., & Landau, S. (2010). The Problem Isn’t Attribution; It’s Multi-Stage Attacks. In Proceedings of Workshop on Re-Architecting the Internet (ACM ReArch 2010) (pp. 1–6). New York, NY: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1921233.1921247
  6. Council of Europe. (2001). Convention on Cybercrime. Budapest, Hungary. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/1680081561
  7. Danchev, D. (2008, August 11). Coordinated Russia vs Georgia Cyberattack in Progress. Zero Day. Retrieved from www.zdnet.com
  8. Dekker, D. M., & Karsberg, C. (2014). Technical Guideline on Incident Reporting Technical guidance on the incident reporting in Article 13a. Enisa.Google Scholar
  9. Ehrenfeld, J. M. (2017). WannaCry, Cybersecurity and Health Information Technology: A Time to Act. Journal of Medical Systems, 41(7), 10916.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-017-0752-1
  10. ENISA. (2011). Cyber Europe 2010 Evaluation Report, 1–47.  https://doi.org/10.2824/218244
  11. ENISA. (2018). ENISA - European Agency for Network and Information Security. Retrieved from https://www.enisa.europa.eu/
  12. Falliere, N., Murchu, L. O., & Chien, E. (2011). W32.Stuxnet Dossier. Mountain View, CA, USA: Symantec Security Response. Retrieved from http://www.symantec.com/content/en/us/enterprise/media/security_response/whitepapers/w32_stuxnet_dossier.pdf
  13. Fayi, S. Y. A. (2018). What Petya/NotPetya Ransomware Is and What Its Remidiations Are. In S. Latifi (Ed.), Information Technology – New Generations. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (Vol. 738, pp. 93–100). Cham, Germany: Springer International Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77028-4_15
  14. FiFf. (2017). Cyberpeace statt Cyberwar!Google Scholar
  15. Forum of Computer Scientists for Peace and Societal Responsibility. (2014). No military operations in the Internet! Retrieved June 28, 2018, from https://cyberpeace.fiff.de/Kampagne/WirFordernEn
  16. Fruhlinger, J. (2017a). Petya ransomware and NotPetya malware: What you need to know now. Retrieved June 28, 2018, from https://www.csoonline.com/article/3233210/ransomware/petya-ransomware-and-notpetya-malware-what-you-need-to-know-now.html
  17. Fruhlinger, J. (2017b). What is WannaCry ransomware, how does it infect, and who was responsible? Retrieved June 28, 2018, from https://www.csoonline.com/article/3227906/ransomware/what-iswannacry-ransomware-how-does-it-infect-and-who-was-responsible.html
  18. Fulghum, D. A. (2007, October 3). Why Syria’s Air Defenses Failed to Detect Israelis. Aviation Week & Space Technology. Retrieved from https://www.csmonitor.com
  19. German Federal Government. (2016). Weißbuch 2016 - Zur Sicherheitspolitik und zur Zukunft der Bundeswehr. Berlin, Germany. Retrieved from https://www.bmvg.de/de/themen/weissbuch
  20. German Federal Ministry of Defence. (2016). Abschlussbericht Aufbaustab Cyber- und Informationsraum. Berlin, Germany. Retrieved from http://docs.dpaq.de/11361-abschlussbericht_aufbaustab_cir.pdf
  21. German Federal Ministry of Defence. (2018). Bundeskabinett beschließt Cyberagentur. Berlin, Germany. Retrieved from https://www.bmvg.de/de/aktuelles/bundeskabinett-beschliesst-cyberagentur-27392
  22. German Federal Ministry of the Interior. (2009). Nationale Strategie zum Schutz Kritischer Infrastrukturen (KRITIS-Strategie). Berlin, Germany. Retrieved from https://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/downloads/DE/publikationen/themen/bevoelkerungsschutz/kritis.html
  23. German Federal Parliament Defence Committee. (2016). Wortprotokoll der 61. Sitzung. Berlin, Germany. Retrieved from www.bundestag.de/blob/417878/d8a5369a9df83e438814791a2881c5ef/protokoll-cyber-data.pdf
  24. Holtom, P., & Bromley, M. (2010). The International Arms Trade: Difficult to Define, Measure, and Control. Retrieved April 25, 2018, from https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2010_07-08/holtombromley
  25. Hopkins, N. (2012, April 16). US and China Engage in Cyber War Games. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com
  26. Lin, H. (2011). On Attribution and Defense. In International Conference on Challenges in Cybersecurity – Risks, Strategies, and Confidence-Building. Geneva, Switzerland: UNIDIR.Google Scholar
  27. Mandiant Corporation. (2013). APT1 - Exposing One of China’s Cyber Espionage Units. Alexandria, WA, USA. Retrieved from https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-www/services/pdfs/mandiant-apt1-report.pdf
  28. Mohurle, S., & Patil, M. (2017). A brief study of Wannacry Threat: Ransomware Attack 2017. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science (IJARCS), 8(5), 1938–1940. http://dx.doi.org/10.26483/ijarcs.v8i5.4021
  29. Nakashima, E., & Mufson, S. (2015, September 25). The U.S. and China Agree not to Conduct Economic Espionage in Cyberspace. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com
  30. Nakashima, E., & Warrick, J. (2012, June 2). Stuxnet Was Work of U.S. and Israeli Experts, Officials Say. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com
  31. NATO CCDCOE. (2013). Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare. Cambridge, MA, USA. Retrieved from https://ccdcoe.org/research.html
  32. NATO CCDCOE. (2014). Responsive Cyber Defence: Technical and Legal Analysis. Tallinn, Estonia.Google Scholar
  33. NATO CCDCOE. (2017). Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations. (M. N. Schmitt & L. Vihul, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univeristy Press.Google Scholar
  34. Neuneck, G. (2001). Präventive Rüstungskontrolle und Information Warfare. In Rüstungskontrolle im Cyberspace. Perspektiven der Friedenspolitik im Zeitalter von Computerattacken (pp. 47–53). Berlin: Dokumentation einer Internationalen Konferenz der Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung am 29./30. Juni 2001.Google Scholar
  35. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Reinhold, T. (2014, April 22). Die neuen digitalen Waffenhändler? Retrieved April 25, 2018, from https://cyber-peace.org/2014/04/22/die-neuen-digitalen-waffenhaendler/
  37. Reinhold, T. (2015). Militarisierung des Cyberspace - Friedens- und sicherheitspolitische Fragen. Wissenschaft & Frieden, 2, 31–34. Retrieved from http://wissenschaft-und-frieden.de/seite.php?artikelID=2043
  38. Reinhold, T. (2018). Maßnahmen für den Cyberpeace.Google Scholar
  39. Sanger, D. E. (2014, February 24). Syria War Stirs New U.S. Debate on Cyberattacks. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/25/world/middleeast/obama-worried-about-effects-of-waging-cyberwar-in-syria.html
  40. Sommer, P., & Brown, I. (2011). Reducing Systemic Cybersecurity Risk. OECD/IFP Project on »Future Global Shocks«. OECD document IFP/WKP/FGS(2011)3. Paris, France: OECD. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/gov/risk/46889922.pdf
  41. The Guardian. (2013, June 7). Obama Tells Intelligence Chiefs to Draw up Cyber Target List – Full Document Text. The Guardian. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com
  42. The Wassenaar Arrangement on export controls for conventional arms and dual-use goods and technologies - List of dual-use goods and technologies and munitions list. (2017). Wassenaar Arrangement Secretariat.Google Scholar
  43. Tikk-Ringar, E. (2012). Developments in the field of information and telecommunication in the context of international security: Work of the UN first Committee 1998—2012. Geneva, Switzerland: ICT4Peace Publishing. Retrieved from https://citizenlab.ca/cybernorms2012/ungge.pdf
  44. Tikk, E., & Kerttunen, M. (2017). The Alleged Demise of the UN GGE: An Autopsy and Eulogy. Cyber Policy Institute, Jyväskylä, Finland. Retrieved from http://cpi.ee/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/2017-Tikk-Kerttunen-Demise-of-the-UN-GGE-2017-12-17-ET.pdf
  45. UN General Assembly. (1988). Special Report of the Disarmament Commission to the General Assembly at Its Third Special Session Devoted to Disarmament. New York, NY, USA. Retrieved from http://www.undocs.org/A/S-15/50
  46. UN General Assembly. (2011). Letter dated 12 September 2011 from the Permanent Representatives of China, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General. Retrieved from https://ccdcoe.org/sites/default/files/documents/UN-110912-CodeOfConduct_0.pdf
  47. UNIDIR. (2013). The Cyber Index - International Security Trends and Realities. Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  48. US White House. (2016, April 13). Statement by the President on Progress in the Fight Against ISIL. Retrieved April 25, 2018, from www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/04/13/statement-president-progress-fight-against-isil

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TU Darmstadt, Science and Technology for Peace and Security (PEASEC)DarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.Science and Technology for Peace and Security (PEASEC) Department of Computer ScienceTechnische Universität DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations