Search results

Although cyber conflict is no longer considered particularly unusual, significant uncertainties remain about the nature, scale, scope and other critical features of it. This study addresses a subset of these issues by developing an internally consistent framework and applying it to a series of 17 case studies. We present each case in terms of (a) its socio-political context, (b) technical features, (c) the outcome and inferences drawn in the sources examined. The profile of each case includes the actors, their actions, tools they used and power relationships, and the outcomes with inferences or observations. Our findings include: • Cyberspace has brought in a number of new players – activists, shady government contractors – to international conflict, and traditional actors (notably states) have increasingly recognized the importance of the domain. • The involvement of the private sector on cybersecurity ("cyber defense") has been critical: 16 out of the 17 cases studied involved the private sector either in attack or defense. • All of the major international cyber conflicts presented here have been related to an ongoing conflict ("attack" or "war") in the physical domain. • Rich industrialized countries with a highly developed ICT infrastructure are at a higher risk concerning cyber attacks. • Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) is by far the most common type of cyber attack. • Air-gapped (not connected to the public Internet) networks have not been exempt from attacks. • A perpetrator does not need highly specialized technical knowledge to intrude computer networks. • The potential damage of a cyber strike is likely to continue increasing as the Internet expands. • The size of the actor under attack could have an influence on its ability to deter the attackers with actions in the physical world. • The entrance barriers (including the monetary cost) for any actor to get involved in a conflict seem to be much lower in the cyber domain than in the physical domain. • Accountability on the Internet is difficult, and gets further obscured when the attacks transcend national borders. This fact has probably made cyber attacks desirable for major military powers such as China, Russia and the United States. In many ways, this paper is a re-analysis of the case studies set presented on A Fierce Domain: Conflict in Cyberspace, 1986 to 2012 recently published by the Atlantic Council. In addition, we draw upon other materials (academic and media) to expand our understanding of each case, and add several cases to the original collection resulting in a data set of 17 cyber conflict, spanning almost three decades (1985-2013). Cuckoo's Egg, Morris Worm, Solar Sunrise, Electronic Disturbance Theater, ILOVEYOU, Chinese Espionage, Estonia, Russo-Georgian war, Conficker, NSA-Snowden, WikiLeaks and Stuxnet are some of the major cases included. ; This material is based on work supported by the U.S. Office of Naval Research, Grant No. N00014-09-1-0597. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations therein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Naval Research.

Abstract
Recent years have seen an increase in governmental interference in digital communication. Most research on this topic has focused on the application level, studying how content is manipulated or removed on websites, blogs, or social media. However, in order for governments to obtain and maintain control of digital data flows, they need to secure access to the network infrastructure at the level of Internet service providers. In this paper, we study how the network topology of the Internet varies across different political environments, distinguishing between control at the level of individual Internet users (access) and a higher level in the hierarchy of network carriers (transit). Using a novel method to estimate the structure of the Internet from network measurements, we show that in autocratic countries, state-owned (rather than privately owned) providers have a markedly higher degree of control over transit networks. We also show that state-owned Internet providers often provide Internet access abroad, with a clear focus on other autocratic countries. Together, these results suggest that in autocracies, the network infrastructure is organized in a way that is more susceptible to the monitoring and manipulation of Internet data flows by state-owned providers both domestically and abroad.