Cyber war poses challenge for Americans who contract with foreign nations
By The Washington Post
Published: Friday, Nov. 23, 2012, 6:30 p.m.
In the spring of 2010, a sheik in the government of Qatar began talks with the American consulting company Booz Allen Hamilton about developing a plan to build a cyber-operations center. He feared Iran's growing ability to attack its regional foes in cyberspace and wanted Qatar to have the means to respond.
When Booz Allen was preparing their proposal in Tysons Corner, Va., J. Michael McConnell, a senior vice president at Booz Allen and former director of national intelligence in the George W. Bush administration, learned that Qatar wanted U.S. personnel at the keyboards of its proposed cyber-center, potentially to carry out attacks on regional adversaries.
“Are we talking about actually conducting these operations?” McConnell asked, according to several people at the meeting. When someone said that was the idea, McConnell uttered two words: “Hold it.”
Calls were made to U.S. government officials and experts in the elite world of defense consulting. It became clear to McConnell that the notion of conducting attacks was a deal-killer.
“We can't have Americans at the keyboard running offensive operations,” said McConnell, a retired admiral who also ran the top-secret National Security Agency, according to those present. “It could be interpreted as an act of war.”
The Qatar incident highlights the reality of a new arms race — the worldwide push to develop offensive and defensive cyber-capabilities.
The potential worldwide market means that U.S. companies must walk a fine line between selling their products and staying within export controls that are struggling to keep pace with the rapid technological advances in the field.
But countries in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere need help. In August, a cyberattack shut down the website at RasGas, a major producer of liquid natural gas in Qatar. A similar attack destroyed computer data at Saudi Aramco, the Saudi national oil and natural gas operator. In both cases, the U.S. intelligence community concluded Iran was the aggressor.
U.S. officials note that they can regulate only American companies. “There's a lot more to be worried about when it comes to firms, organized crime, and others outside the United States who may recognize there are certain countries and organizations willing to pay quite a lot of money” for destructive malware, said a senior U.S. defense official.
Benjamin Powell, a former national security official, said the uncertainty of the new terrain means companies are treading carefully. “It's a sensitive thing for a company to go down the path of training for offense, even with approval,” said Powell. “You're closer to the pointy end of the spear.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.