In 2003, I founded my company, with the help of the federal government’s Small Business Initiative Research (SBIR) program, to develop products to counter these advanced unknown, stealth cyberthreats today often referred to today within the security community as Advanced Persistent Threats (APT).
While the APT threat is significant, the attacker can take months or even sometimes years to steal the information. However, the recent attacks made by small hacking groups illustrate a highly more tangible, immediate, and potentially more severe form of economic damage. It is appropriate to classify these acts as asymmetric warfare, and possibly as a type of cyberterrorism.
In contrast to APT threat actors and other traditional cyber criminals, cyberterrorists are not motivated by monetary gain. Instead, the cyberterrorist wants to cause grave harm or economic damage as quickly as possible, and to get attention for it. Attacks may be economic, political, or even shutting down the power in the dead of winter. The technical aspects of the attack may be similar to APT, but the intent and goal is wholly different.
Cyberterrorism first was a buzzword in the late 90’s associated with power outages and explosions orchestrated over computer networks. These types of attacks seemed like the digital equivalent of IED’s. While traditional terrorists clearly use the Internet to recruit and communicate, we operate under the assumption that the ‘ground of action’ is still the physical world – think suicide bombers. But, recent events have shown that attacks don’t have to be kinetic to cause damage. The ground of action can be entirely in cyberspace and damages can be measured in billions of dollars of stock value and the threats to persons are very real.
Edit: There are different views on the definition of cyberterrorism. In 'Computer Attack and Cyberterrorism: Vulnerabilities and Policy Issues for Congress', Clay Wilson defines two forms of cyberterrorism:
Effects-based: Cyberterrorism exists when computer attacks result in effects that are disruptive enough to generate fear comparable to a traditional act of terrorism, even if done by criminals.
Intent-based: Cyberterrorism exists when unlawful or politically motivated computer attacks are done to intimidate or coerce a government or people to further a political objective, or to cause grave harm or severe economic damage.
Since the early 2000’s, ‘electronic jihadists’ (i.e., Younes Tsouli, Mohammad Peerbhoy, etc) and other hacking groups (many can be researched on www.zone-h.org) have been content with web defacement and the occasional DDOS. But, these actions never gained the media attention like the recent spree of hacks in 2011. This is, in part, due to the advent of social networking. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once stated “Publicity is the oxygen of terrorism”. Anyone studied in matters of terrorism knows that the primary goal of terrorism is media attention. The act is secondary to the message.
In the words of William Gibson, “Terrorism is ultimately about branding”. Every press release, tweet, and claim is part of that brand to raise awareness for their cause or message. And, the media can function as an extension of the group’s propaganda machine. As TechCrunch columnist Paul Carr recently pointed out in his piece on the media coverage of the now defunct LulzSec group, most journalists were all too happy to hop aboard the ‘Lulz Boat’ and parrot propaganda verbatim without a hint of criticism and provide ‘celebrity fluff’ reporting. Paul especially calls out online journalists and bloggers as “downright shameful” for showing support for these criminal hackers. Gene Spafford, the professor and director at Purdue University and a leading security expert, has also objected to how reporters romanticize criminal hackers, drawing a parallel to computer virus authors in the early 90’s portrayed as “swashbuckling, electronic pirates” (pointing out that their legacy is now costing billions in damages).
Even in recent days, reporters have used lofty, inconsistent terms such as “masked crusaders,” a “loose hacker movement” and an “online activist group” to describe Anonymous. The fear of retribution by the criminal hackers within this group is real. No one wants to become a target. News organizations need to take a step back and take a close look at how they are covering these incidents and make sure they aren't enabling these groups’ propaganda machine.
Edit: as a case in point, notice the significant lack of the word 'criminal' when media reports on Anonymous/Lulzsec. To illustrate, here is how reporters/bloggers described Anonymous in the 24 hours following the Monsanto/Booz Allen Hamilton attacks:
"Online activist collective" - CNET
"hacker group" -- IT Business Edge
"Hactivist collective" -- The Inquirer
"Hacking Group" -- MSNBC
"Hacktivist Group" -- SC Magazine
"Hacker Group" -- WSJ
"Hacker Group" -- Network World/IDG
"Notorius Hactivist Collective" -- The Register
"Group of hactivist computer-savvy hackers" -- Economist
"Loose-hacker movement" -- Forbes
"Masked crusaders" -- Time
"Cyber-activist group" -- Financial Times
"Hacker Group" -- Dark Reading
"Online Activist Group" -- Associated Press
"Hacker Group" -- BBC News
"Hacking collective" -- NY Times
"Hacker Group" -- Washington Post
While the threat landscape is always changing, we must continue to highlight that a real criminal is at the other end of the keyboard, and that he is persistent and will keep coming back. While the DoD outlines some important initiatives for a more secure cyberspace, we, as citizens, also have a role. Just as we all participate in our local neighborhood watch to keep our physical community safe, we, as Internet users, need to be vigilant and work together to ensure our cyberspace remains safe.