Cyberattacks: The war of the machines

What's happened?

Due to their timing, following the imposition of further sanctions against Russia, there has been speculation that these cyberattacks have been sponsored or sanctioned by Moscow a scenario that (by most definitions) would mean that they amount to an act of cyberwarfare.

What is cyberwarfare?

Many countries, notably China and America, have invested heavily in both defensive and offensive cyberwarfare capabilities. The term, however, is contested even by those who are part of the US security establishment.

Howard Schmidt, Barack Obama's former cybersecurity czar, argues that routine economic espionage conducted via the internet has frequently beenmischaracterised as "cyberwar". What's more, the people who talk up the threat include defence industry figures who have lots to gain by doing so.

Subscribe to MoneyWeek

Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE

Get 6 issues free

Sign up to Money Morning

Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter

Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter

Sign up

What counts as war?

(The revelation that the National Security Agency was spying on Angela Merkel's phone was an embarrassment for Washington, but didn't mean the US was at war with Germany.) Rid also argues that to qualify as an act of cyberwar, an attack would have to lethally disrupt a country's critical infrastructure in a way that hasn't happened to date.

So we can stop worrying?

According to a study by the Centre for Strategic Studies, the estimated global cost to business of cybercrime is at least $375bn a year.

Large firms face particular challenges due to the fact that military power in cyberspace is normally projected via computer networks that are provided by private enterprise. As a recent article in The Diplomat pointed out, both Chinese and US firms have become the targets of suspicion and retaliation from the (presumed) enemy state.

Revelations that the US was using private firms to help its espionage programme triggered Chinese reprisals against Microsoft this summer.

Who's behind the latest attackson banks?

The bank spends about $250m a year on cybersecurity and employs 1,000 staff in this area (compared to Google's 400). Again, that implies a level of sophistication that suggests a state actor. On the other hand, it's unclear how Russia benefits from attacking Western banks: Moscow would gain more by keeping them onside and encouraging them to lobby their governments for an easing of sanctions.

What does that imply?

"But they will often carry out cyberattacks that allow them to profit, while still falling in line with what they perceive to be Russia's interests," Borg told the Financial Times.

Earlier in the summer, security firm Symantec warned that one such group of organised Russian hackers known as "Energetic Bear" was targeting grid operators, fuel pipeline operators, electricity generation firms and other "strategically important" energy companies.

The biggest cyberattack yet

Stuxnet destroyed perhaps a tenth of the Iranian centrifuges at the Natanz nuclear facility and delayed uranium enrichment for a few months, but the vulnerabilities it exposed were quickly repaired by Iranian scientists.

According to Martin Libicki of think tank the Rand Corporation, if that's the best that two first-rate, lavishly funded state powers can do against a third-rate industrial power, then it puts into perspective the more alarmist predictions of what others might achieve when it comes to attacking the West.