Trust Amidst Threats: A Defender's Approach to Navigating the Cybersecurity Dilemma

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2, 78 - 92, 30.12.2023

Juma Mdimu Rugina

Öz

This paper is based on the defenders' perspective on a crucial point often overlooked in cybersecurity: not every cyber intrusion is meant for attacking purposes. Some intrusions are truly defensive, providing justifications for a nation to protect its networks. The paper aims to reveal the strategies, challenges, and subtleties defenders use to build trust among nations while defending their digital networks against cyber threats. It discusses the enduring nature of defenders' creativity, skilled adversaries, the obstacles presented when gathering useful threat intelligence, and the importance of having capable network architecture and defenders. The main argument is that achieving maximum network security sometimes requires intruding into other nation’s networks, especially for advanced defenders like well funded intelligence agencies. Top-tier defenders enhance their cybersecurity by infiltrating the digital networks of potential adversaries and the networks of targets for those adversaries. Through these intrusions, they acquire valuable information that may be inaccessible through other means. Therefore, conducting network intrusions becomes exceptionally beneficial for advancing a state's cybersecurity posture.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Cybersecurity, Digital Networks, Defenders, Cybersecurity Dilemma

Tehditlerin Ortasında Güven: Bir Savunmacının Siber Güvenlik İkilemini Gidermeye Yaklaşımı

Öz

Bu makale, siber güvenlikte sıklıkla gözden kaçırılan çok önemli bir noktaya ilişkin savunucuların bakış açısına dayanmaktadır: Her siber saldırı, saldırı amaçlı değildir. Bazı izinsiz girişler gerçekten savunma amaçlıdır ve bir ulusun ağlarını koruması için gerekçeler sağlar. Makale, savunucuların dijital ağlarını siber tehditlere karşı korurken ülkeler arasında güven oluşturmak için kullandıkları stratejileri, zorlukları ve incelikleri ortaya çıkarmayı amaçlıyor. Savunucuların yaratıcılığının kalıcı doğasını, yetenekli rakipleri, yararlı tehdit istihbaratı toplarken karşılaşılan engelleri ve yetenekli ağ mimarisine ve savunuculara sahip olmanın önemini tartışıyor. Ana argüman, maksimum ağ güvenliğine ulaşmanın bazen, özellikle de iyi finanse edilen istihbarat teşkilatları gibi gelişmiş savunucular için, diğer ulusların ağlarına izinsiz girmeyi gerektirmesidir. Üst düzey savunucular, potansiyel rakiplerin dijital ağlarına ve bu rakiplerin hedef ağlarına sızarak siber güvenliklerini artırır. Bu izinsiz girişler aracılığıyla, başka yollarla erişilemeyecek değerli bilgileri elde ederler. Bu nedenle, ağa izinsiz girişlerin gerçekleştirilmesi, bir devletin siber güvenlik duruşunu geliştirmek için son derece faydalı hale gelir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Siber Güvenlik, Dijital Ağlar, Savunucuların Bakış Açısı, Siber Güvenlik İkilemi

Kaynakça

• Agbogun, J. B., & Ejiga, F. A. (2013). Network security management: solutions to network intrusion related problems. International Journal of Computer and Information Technology, 2(4), 617-625.
• Alberts, D. S., Garstka, J., & Stein, F. P. (1999). Network centric warfare: Developing and leveraging information superiority (p. 167). Washington, DC: National Defense University Press.
• Amoroso, E. (2012). Cyber-attacks: protecting national infrastructure. Elsevier.
• Andress, J., & Winterfeld, S. (2013). Cyber warfare: techniques, tactics and tools for security practitioners. Elsevier.
• Aoyama, T. (2019). Control Systems Security and Communication-Achieving Organizational Resilience through Exercise.
• Betts, R. K. (2009). Enemies of intelligence: Knowledge and power in American national security. Columbia University Press.
• Bonfanti, M. E. (2022). Artificial intelligence and the offence-defence balance in cyber security. Cyber Security: Socio-Technological Uncertainty and Political Fragmentation. London: Routledge, 64-79.
• Bronk, C. (2016). Cyber Threat: The Rise of Information Geopolitics in US National Security: The Rise of Information Geopolitics in US National Security. ABC-CLIO.
• Buchanan, B. (2016). The cybersecurity dilemma: Hacking, trust, and fear between nations. Oxford University Press.
• Case, D. U. (2016). Analysis of the cyber-attack on the Ukrainian power grid. Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC), 388(1-29), 3.
• Chevalier, R. (2019). Detecting and Surviving Intrusions: Exploring New Host-Based Intrusion Detection, Recovery, and Response Approaches (Doctoral dissertation, CentraleSupélec).
• Donaldson, S., Siegel, S., Williams, C. K., & Aslam, A. (2015). Enterprise cybersecurity: how to build a successful cyberdefense program against advanced threats. Apress.
• Falco, G. J., & Rosenbach, E. (2021). Confronting Cyber Risk: An Embedded Endurance Strategy for Cybersecurity. Oxford University Press.
• Gaitan, J. P. (2017). Strategic Counterintelligence: An Approach To Engaging Security Threats To American Security (Doctoral dissertation, Johns Hopkins University).
• Gartzke, E., & Lindsay, J. R. (2015). Weaving tangled webs: offense, defense, and deception in cyberspace. Security Studies, 24(2), 316-348.
• Gill, T. D., & Ziolkowski, K. (2013). Non-intervention in the cyber context. Peacetime Regime for State Activities in Cyberspace International Law. International Relations and Diplomacy. NATO CCDCOE, Tallinn, 217-238.
• Goldsmith, J. (Ed.). (2022). The United States' Defend Forward Cyber Strategy: A Comprehensive Legal Assessment. Oxford University Press.
• Harber, J. R. (2009). Unconventional spies: The counterintelligence threat from non-state actors. International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, 22(2), 221-236.
• Healey, J. (2019). The implications of persistent (and permanent) engagement in cyberspace. Journal of Cybersecurity, 5(1), tyz008.
• Heath, T. R., & Lane, M. (2019). Science-Based Scenario Design: A Proposed Method to Support Political-Strategic Analysis (p. 59). RAND.
• Hood, L. M. (2019). US-German Defense Burden-Sharıng Sınce 2014: Collectıve Defense Or Free Rıder? (Doctoral dissertation, Monterey, CA; Naval Postgraduate School).
• Hutchins, E. M., Cloppert, M. J., & Amin, R. M. (2011). Intelligence-driven computer network defense informed by analysis of adversary campaigns and intrusion kill chains. Leading Issues in Information Warfare & Security Research, 1(1), 80.
• Jasper, S. (2018). US strategic cyber deterrence options (Doctoral dissertation, University of Reading). Johnston, A. I., & Ross, R. S. (Eds.). (2005). Engaging China: The management of an emerging power (Vol. 10). Routledge.
• Kaur, S., & Randhawa, S. (2020). Dark web: A web of crimes. Wireless Personal Communications, 112, 2131-2158.
• Kesan, J. P., & Hayes, C. M. (2014). Creating a circle of trust to further digital privacy and cybersecurity goals. Mich. St. L. Rev., 1475.
• Kuipers, D., & Fabro, M. (2006). Control systems cyber security: Defense in depth strategies (No. INL/EXT-06-11478). Idaho National Lab.(INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States).
• Larson, D. W. (1997). Trust and missed opportunities in international relations. Political Psychology, 18(3), 701-734.
• Lavorgna, A. (2020). Cybercrimes: Critical issues in a global context. Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Leeds, B. A. (2003). Do alliances deter aggression? The influence of military alliances on the initiation of militarized interstate disputes. American Journal of Political Science, 47(3), 427-439.
• Levine, J., LaBella, R., Owen, H., Contis, D., & Culver, B. (2003, June). The use of honeynets to detect exploited systems across large enterprise networks. In IEEE Systems, Man and Cybernetics SocietyInformation Assurance Workshop, 2003. (92-99). IEEE.
• Liaropoulos, A. (2016). Exploring the complexity of cyberspace governance: state sovereignty, multi-stakeholderism, and power politics. Journal of Information Warfare, 15(4), 14-26.
• Lin, H. S. (2010). Offensive cyber operations and the use of force. J. Nat'l Sec. L. & Pol'y, 4, 63.
• Lindsay, J. R. (2015). Tipping the scales: the attribution problem and the feasibility of deterrence against cyberattack. Journal of Cybersecurity, 1(1), 53-67.
• Lindsay, J. R. (2021). Cyber conflict vs. Cyber Command: hidden dangers in the American military solution to a large-scale intelligence problem. Intelligence and National security, 36(2), 260-278.
• Lindsay, J. R., Cheung, T. M., & Reveron, D. S. (Eds.). (2015). China and cybersecurity: Espionage, strategy, and politics in the digital domain. Oxford University Press, USA.
• Lord, K. M. (2012). The perils and promise of global transparency: Why the information revolution may not lead to security, democracy, or peace. State University of New York Press.
• Lucas, G. R. (2017). Ethics and cyber warfare: the quest for responsible security in the age of digital warfare. Oxford University Press.
• Malagutti, M. A. (2016). State-sponsored cyber-offences. Revista da EGN, 22(2), 261-290.
• Mitnick, K. D., & Simon, W. L. (2009). The art of intrusion: the real stories behind the exploits of hackers, intruders and deceivers. John Wiley & Sons.
• Porch, D. (2013). Counterinsurgency: Exposing the myths of the new way of war. Cambridge University Press. Prieto, D. (2006). Information sharing with the private sector. Seeds of Disaster, Roots of Response. How Private Action Can Reduce Public Vulnerability, 404-428.
• Rattray, G. J. (2001). Strategic warfare in cyberspace. MIT press.
• Riordan, S. (2018). The Geopolitics of Cyberspace: A Diplomatic Perspective. Brill Research Perspectives in Diplomacy and Foreign Policy, 3(3), 1-84.
• Rudner, M. (2013). Cyber-threats to critical national infrastructure: An intelligence challenge. International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, 26(3), 453-481.
• Sabillon, R., Cavaller, V., & Cano, J. (2016). National cyber security strategies: global trends in cyberspace. International Journal of Computer Science and Software Engineering, 5(5), 67.
• Samuel-Azran, T. (2013). Al-Jazeera, Qatar, and new tactics in state-sponsored media diplomacy. American behavioral scientist, 57(9), 1293-1311.
• Schreier, F., & Caparini, M. (2005). Privatising security: Law, practice and governance of private military and security companies (Vol. 6). Geneva: DCAF.
• Sengupta, S., Chowdhary, A., Sabur, A., Alshamrani, A., Huang, D., & Kambhampati, S. (2020). A survey of moving target defenses for network security. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 22(3), 1909-1941.
• Singer, P. W., & Friedman, A. (2014). Cybersecurity: What everyone needs to know. oup usa.
• Singh, B. (2011). Network Security and Management. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.
• Skopik, F., Settanni, G., & Fiedler, R. (2016). A problem shared is a problem halved: A survey on the dimensions of collective cyber defense through security information sharing. Computers & Security, 60, 154-176.
• Spafford, E. H., Metcalf, L., & Dykstra, J. (2023). Cybersecurity Myths and Misconceptions: Avoiding the Hazards and Pitfalls that Derail Us. Addison-Wesley Professional.
• Steingartner, W., Galinec, D., & Kozina, A. (2021). Threat defense: Cyber deception approach and education for resilience in hybrid threats model. Symmetry, 13(4), 597.
• Stellios, I., Kotzanikolaou, P., Psarakis, M., Alcaraz, C., & Lopez, J. (2018). A survey of iot-enabled cyberattacks: Assessing attack paths to critical infrastructures and services. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 20(4), 3453-3495.
• Theohary, C. A. (2018). Information warfare: Issues for congress. Congressional Research Service, 7-5700.
• Val Sánchez, K. V., & Akyesilmen, N. (2021). Competition for High Politics in Cyberspace: Technological Conflicts Between China and the USA. Polish Pol. Sci. YB, 50, 43.
• Waters, L. A. (2005). Secrecy, deception and intelligence failure: explaining operational surprise in war (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
• Weinberger, C. W. (1985). US defense strategy. Foreign Aff., 64, 675.
• Wendt, D. W. (2020). Exploring the strategies cybersecurity specialists need to improve adaptive cyber defenses within the financial sector: An exploratory study (Doctoral dissertation, Colorado Technical University).
• Yuan, W., Zhao, L., & Zeng, B. (2014). Optimal power grid protection through a defender–attacker–defender model. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 121, 83-89.