Years ago, I held senior leadership positions in the U.S. military focused on cyber-operations, policy and strategy. What kept me up at night was the concern that a loosely controlled third-party actor or organization — operating with suspicious motivations or questionable skills at the behest of an adversary — might initiate a cyberattack that could escalate to a physical conflict.
The warning signs are there. Consider the NotPetya attack, which was described by Wired Magazine as “an act of cyberwar… that was likely more explosive than even its creators intended.” This nation-sponsored attack demonstrated the dangers that could lead to conflict.
While part of the challenge is technological, it also comes down to establishing and adhering to behaviorial norms. In cyberspace, there are no rules that describe and govern what type of behavior is and isn’t acceptable.
There have been several efforts in this direction, notably the U.S.-China Cyber Agreement and work from the United Nations. Unfortunately, the U.N. initiative faltered when several key countries backed out from the original agreement. Similarly, gaps in trust have led to concerns about a breakdown of the U.S.-China Cyber Agreement.
Despite stumbles, these efforts provide a valuable starting point for creating a set of norms. The U.N. addressed a number of unacceptable actions for nations to take agai ..
Support the originator by clicking the read the rest link below.
