Share This Page

Pentagon warfare rules go high-tech

| Thursday, April 4, 2013, 8:39 p.m.

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is putting the finishing touches on rules that will give military commanders clearer authority if they have to respond to an enemy cyber-attack, military officials and cyber-security experts said.

Defense Department officials have started talking more openly about offensive cyber-capabilities, including the development of 13 teams capable of offensive operations if the United States is attacked.

“This is all putting the world on notice, particularly the Chinese, that we're tired of them breaking into private companies,” said Richard Bejtlich, chief security officer at Mandiant, a computer security company.

The so-called rules of engagement will “provide a defined framework for how best to respond to the plethora of cyber-threats we face,” said Lt. Col. Damien Pickart, a Pentagon spokesman.

The rules will be secret and cover more conventional combat as well.

The cyber-warfare rules are the most contentious because it is a new domain.

“The technologies and capabilities are developing so rapidly that sometimes policies have to catch up,” said Terry Roberts, a vice president at TASC, an engineering services company that works with the intelligence community and the Defense Department.

The Pentagon said the military has existing rules that allow it to defend the nation, but analysts say the new rules will give military commanders clearer guidance and make it easier to take action without clearing it at the presidential level.

The need to create a new set of rules reflects how muddled the cyber-world is. Even what constitutes an act of war is difficult to determine.

Gen. Keith Alexander, head of Cyber-Command, said recently the bulk of cyber-attacks are espionage and commercial theft, not an act of war. “If the intent is to disrupt or destroy our infrastructure, I think you've crossed a line,” he said.

NATO is struggling with similar issues. A new NATO report that attempts to apply international law to cyber-warfare concludes that a state can retaliate in a proportional way against a country that attacks it.

It also said that determining where the attack originated is difficult. Even if investigators determine where an attack originated, it could have been the work of a hacker who routed it through a third nation.

Last month, when hackers triggered an attack on South Korean companies, investigators initially identified China as the source of the attack. Investigators then backed off the accusation and said it was unclear where it originated.

“The item that makes cyber-warfare more difficult … is the issue of attribution,” Roberts said.

There are other murky issues. China regularly attempts to steal corporate secrets in an effort to assist its own economy, which isn't traditionally a military issue.

Alexander said the theft of corporate data by criminals and nations is “the greatest unwilling transfer of wealth in history.”

The Pentagon works with the intelligence community, the Justice Department and other government agencies on cyber-issues, Alexander said.

Military officials expect the cyber-threat will worsen.

“When you look at the strategic landscape from our perspective, it's getting worse,” Alexander told Congress recently.

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.