[iwar] Historical posting


From: Fred Cohen
From: fc@all.net
To: iwar@onelist.com

Mon, Jan 1, 1999


fc  Mon Jan 1, 1999
Received: (from fc@localhost) by all.net (8.9.3/8.7.3) id FAA15269 for iwar@onelist.com; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 05:21:43 -0700
To: iwar@onelist.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list iwar@egroups.com; contact iwar-owner@egroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: 
Date: Mon, Jan 1, 1999
From: Fred Cohen 
Reply-To: iwar@egroups.com
Subject: [iwar] Historical posting

          

 Pentagon Cites Cyberwarfare
By Robert Burns
AP Military Writer
Tuesday, Nov. 9, 1999; 2:29 a.m. EST

 WASHINGTON -- The United States and other nations capable of waging
information warfare - the use of computer electronics to attack another
state - are unlikely to be guided by a coherent body of international
law anytime soon, the Defense Department's top lawyers argue in an
internal report. 

 Because of these uncertainties, U.S.  government officials should take
a cautious approach to cyberwarfare, the lawyers concluded in a detailed
assessment of the international legal implications. 

 The report, written in May by the Pentagon's Office of General Counsel
and released to reporters Monday, concluded "there are no
'show-stoppers'" in international law for cyberwarfare operations now
contemplated by the Pentagon.  It did not mention any such operations,
which would be closely guarded secrets. 

 Last month, Army Gen.  Henry H.  Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, acknowledged for the first time that the U.S.  military
conducted a form of computer warfare against Yugoslavia as part of
NATO's air war last spring. 

 Asked broadly if U.S.  information "weapons" were used against
Yugoslavia during the Kosovo campaign, Shelton replied, "You can assume
that we in fact employed some of our systems, yes." He said the
"systems" were offensive in nature, but he would not be more specific
about how they were used. 

 The Washington Post reported Monday that the Pentagon considered
hacking into Serbian computer networks to disrupt military operations
and basic civilian services, but officers decided not to because of
legal uncertainties of the kind described in the general counsel's
report of last May. 

 The Pentagon report concluded: "It is by no means clear what
information operations techniques will end up being considered to be
'weapons.'"

 The report said its compilers found "no particularly good reason" for
the United States to support negotiations for new international treaty
obligations on information warfare, except in a few instances.  It said
the United States might find it useful to negotiate a treaty to suppress
"information terrorism," but it is hard to see how such an agreement
would work. 

 The report's basic conclusion was that the laws of warfare as applied
to traditional conflicts is a useful, but not comprehensive, guideline
for determining what kinds of cyberwarfare would be legal. 

 The law of warfare prohibiting the use of indiscriminate weapons may
apply to information warfare, the report said.  One example would be the
use of computer "logic bombs," or viruses, against a military
information system that spreads to other information systems used to
provide essential services to noncombatants. 

 This prohibition in traditional armed conflict might apply indirectly
if the consequence of a computer network attack is to release dangerous
forces such as opening the floodgates of a dam, causing an oil refinery
in a populated area to explode in flames or instigating release of
radioactivity, the report said. 

 Under traditional laws of warfare, an attack must pass the test of
"military necessity." Thus purely civilian systems must not be attacked
unless the attacking force can demonstrate that a definite military
advantage is expected from the attack.  "Stock exchanges, banking
systems, universities and similar civilian infrastructure may not be
attacked simply because a belligerent has the ability to do so," the
report said. 

 Another example would be perfidy, or treachery.  "It may seem
attractive for a combatant vessel or aircraft to avoid being attacked by
broadcasting the agreed identification signals for a medical vessel or
aircraft, but such actions would be a war crime," the report said. 

 "Similarly, it might be possible to use computer 'morphing' techniques
to crease an image of the enemy's chief of state informing his troops
that an armistice or cease-fire agreement had been signed.  If false,
this would also be a war crime."

                (c) Copyright 1999 The Associated Press 

---
Fred Cohen at Sandia National Laboratories at tel:925-294-2087 fax:925-294-1225
  Fred Cohen & Associates: http://all.net - fc@a... - tel/fax:925-454-0171
      Fred Cohen - Practitioner in Residence - The University of New Haven
				Have a great day!!!
 Per the official policy of Sandia National Laboratories, the reader should be
 ware that:
  - Fred Cohen of Fred Cohen & Associates is the same Fred Cohen who is a
    Principal Member of Technical Staff at Sandia National Laboratories.
  - Fred Cohen & Associates - is owned and operated by Fred Cohen and is
    separate and independent from the work done by Fred Cohen at Sandia
    National Laboratories.