Experts: Nukes an option for computer attack
The United States should be prepared to use every military option, including nuclear retaliation, in response to a huge computer attack, an independent Department of Defense task force said.
But the nation must determine whether its nuclear arsenal can withstand computer hackers, the Defense Science Board warns in a newly declassified report obtained by the Tribune-Review. In a full-scale cyber war, the board's experts say, the United States' weapons could be disabled or turned against its troops.
“It would have to be extreme,” Paul Kaminski, chair of the Science Board and a member of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, said about the kind of attack that might trigger a nuclear response. “It would have to be the kind of attack that we would judge would be threatening our survival.”
The United States must assume that computer attacks will be part of conflicts, said the report from the task force made up of civilian experts with government advisers. Yet, the report said the country cannot be confident that its military's computer systems would still work under attack from a sophisticated adversary nation with a full range of military and intelligence options.
The report Resilient Military Systems and the Advanced Cyber Threat” presents a bleak assessment of the Defense Department's ability to withstand basic attacks from simulation “red teams” used to test the system.
The report points out that “much work remains” despite efforts to secure networks and protect the nation from computer attacks, said Lt. Col. Damien Pickart, a Defense Department spokesman. Military leaders have reviewed the report and believe it will serve as a “positive catalyst,” he added.
“We recognize the serious nature of these threats and are urgently working to improve our capabilities to defend the nation, deter adversaries — and if called upon — take decisive action in all domains, to include cyberspace,” Pickart told the Trib.
All options should be on the table, but threatening a nuclear response might go too far, said Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founding chief technology officer of CrowdStrike, a security technology company in Irvine, Calif.
“I cannot, for the life of me,” he said, “imagine a scenario in which a realistic cyber attack could do that.”
Briefed about “widespread intrusions” and the theft of technical information, task force members said they believe adversaries are planning high-end attacks. “The benefits to an attacker using cyber exploits are potentially spectacular,” the task force warns.
Most attackers have limited capabilities, but a sophisticated nation state could “impose gradual wide-scale loss of life and control of the country” by attacking critical infrastructure such as power, water and financial systems.
In a full-scale fight with a “peer adversary” such as China or Russia, attackers could begin hacks to prevent weapons from firing or to cause confusion in supply lines.
Impacts on civilian targets could be “even greater,” making police and medical responders “barely functional” at first and dysfunctional over the long term. Physical destruction to manufacturing plants or utilities could take months, if not years, to repair, the report said.
Some steps to increase computer defenses could be done “relatively inexpensively,” said Brian Hughes, the Science Board's executive director.
The report suggests the military segregate some weapons — such as 20 bombers out of a fleet of hundreds — from integrated computer networks. The planes would lose some capability but remain operational if a computer attack grounded the rest of the fleet.
Other proposals include adding to the number of “cyber warriors,” which Defense plans to do, and spending more time playing war games with launching and defending computer attacks. The military must be ready to launch potentially hundreds of simultaneous, synchronized computer attacks even as it defends against them.
“People are starting to understand that if the bad guys break into their software, they can have more access to things than they wanted them to,” said Albert Whale, a Pittsburgh-based consultant for Cigital Federal, which works with the Air Force and others to identify and fix software vulnerabilities.
Andrew Conte is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7835 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Add Andrew Conte to your Google+ circles.
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.