The Hindu Business Line : Blame game, and beyond

It is again interesting times in cyber space. A few months ago, we saw a massive attack against Estonia’s public and commercial computer networks. Suspected to have been launched from Russia, either by those who belonged to the current Establishment or were close to it, the offensive brought life in that tiny nation almost to a grinding halt. This definitely lent further bitterness to an already hostile relationship between the two countries.

Now, it is the Chinese Government versus the US and a few European powers, especially Germany and the UK. The latter three have complained that China has unleashed a cyber war against them to steal secret information from their sensitive government departments. The gravamen of the charge is that China has nearly abandoned its traditional methods of collecting the intelligence it requires on other countries and has started resorting to electronic spying. Such change of strategy is attributed to a Chinese assessment that nations of the West were heavily dependent on computers for storing sensitive defence information and were using these systems for conducting all their military operations.

In support of their charge, Western government sources refer to articles in a number of Chinese journals highlighting the advantage derived from attacking military-controlled digital information.

‘Titan Rain’

Ironically, the spate of criticism against China began during the recent State visit to that country by the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. It originated from a sensational report in the respected German daily Der Spiegel, which specifically said that in May this year, Chinese spying software had been found in the networks of a few German government departments and even in the Chancellor’s private office.

The paper alleged that the hackers responsible for this had links with the Chinese military, and the spyware was collecting sensitive information and sending it to China. Specifically, Der Spiegel named Guangdong as the province from which attacks against German computers were initiated, a charge that was also supported by US investigators on the job who codenamed the Chinese intruders as ‘Titan Rain’.

UK officials also say that Chinese operations to break into the Whitehall database had come to notice as early as two years ago. According to the Centre for Protection of the National Infrastructure (CPNI), which is controlled by MI5 (the domestic intelligence agency), while enough has been done in the form of firewalls and anti-virus software to guard government networks, the increasing use of wireless computing had enhanced data vulnerability.

Charge, counter-charge

US authorities have also complained that hackers owing allegiance to China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) had broken into Pentagon systems, especially of the Defence Secretary, Robert Gates. One report states that Pentagon uses as many as 3.5 million computers across 65 countries. Pentagon has also as many as 65 internal networks.

While it is believed that Pentagon’s most sensitive network Siprnet has not been breached, the less important Niprnet has, in fact, been broken into. According to one expert, any success in the attack may have been by using what is known as the principle of ‘elevating privilege.’ This would mean breaking into one unsecured computer used for routine administrative and other mundane chores, and thereafter exploiting the opportunity to make further forays.

These are all unconfirmed speculations. Nevertheless, even if they were only partially true, they give more than a glimpse of the growing Chinese prowess in cyber space. As a follow-up, President Bush threatened to confront the Chinese President with this information at the APEC meeting in Sydney a few weeks ago. Whether he actually did so is not known. But the fact that he reacted as sharply as he did is indicative of the seriousness with which the US views the suspected Chinese intrusion.

Immediately after the hacking charges were levelled against it, China, no doubt, appeared defensive, and it actually promised to look into them. Its latest posture is, however, offensive.

China now complains that its own computer systems had been broken into. Its Vice-Information Minister, Lou Qinjian, has gone on record stating that several countries had committed blatant intrusion into China’s national systems. While he did not name the aggressors, he said that 80 per cent of the intruders identified so far were from the US.

Escalating hostility

This public trading of charges between China and the others is indicative of the degree of hostility that marks transactions in cyber space. It is easy to level allegations here, and it is equally easy to rebut them, even if one were truly guilty. This is why one may reasonably predict that cyber terrorism, just now only theoretical, is a distinct future possibility. At the same time, experts feel that the actual impact of such aggression on the Net cannot be exaggerated. This is because so many redundancies have been built to prevent a total shut-down of most vital public services, such as electricity, water, air transport and banking systems. In contrast, a frontal physical attack on people and buildings, such as the ones that took place during 9/11 and subsequent incidents such as London, Madrid, Bali, and more recently, Hyderabad, has a greater horror effect on wider populations.

Such dramatic action as planting explosives in public places, where thousands of the public congregate, is, therefore, likely to be the preference for elements out to disrupt public peace. It is reasonable to assume that terrorists will use cyber space more for disseminating propaganda than for causing wanton destruction.

instance of ingenuity

Talking of propaganda, the credibility of the above assessment is borne out by the fact that three video messages that found their way recently into the Net carried fervent appeals from the Al Qaeda leader, Bin Laden. One was released on the eve of the sixth anniversary of 9/11.

More than the content of the posted video messages, it is their authenticity and date of production that were a matter of speculation. This is because conflicting theories are floating round Bin Laden, whether he is still alive or not. If he was dead, when were the recent videos made? Many American officials, however, believe that the videos were authentic. References by Bin Laden to the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, and the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, in his messages suggest that they were made very recently. Even then, where is the guarantee that Laden’s voice had not been duplicated by someone now living?

This is because the Al Qaeda has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to manipulate images on the Net. More than this, what is most interesting is the report that much before the Al Qaeda posts such messages on its Web sites, enterprising researchers inimical to the outfit are able to lift them from such sites and hand them over to law enforcement officials.

Actually, in the recent instance, it is known that the lifting of Bin Laden’s images was from Web sites that had only recently known to have been shut down by those opposed to the Al Qaeda.

Such ingenuity in dealing with terrorists and their cyber capabilities is a revelation by itself. It should warm the hearts of counter-terrorism officials in law enforcement agencies.

Cheer news for laptop-toters

Before I sign off, there is some good news for travellers carrying laptops, who go through the harrowing experience of having to remove their machines from bags and send them through the baggage scanner. This is physically taxing. It also consumes valuable time when one is in a hurry. The US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is now experimenting (at three major airports) with a new powerful X-ray machine that would be able to look through your computer bag all by itself, saving you the trouble of pulling out your computer and collecting it back at the other end of the scanner.

Only frequent travellers will understand what a relief such a system would be when introduced at all airports. The new scanner is said to be very expensive. Let us hope Indian authorities will not mind the cost.

The writer is a former CBI Director who is currently Adviser (Security) to TCS Ltd.

More Stories on : Security | Foreign Relations | Security Musings

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Receiving a strong signal

‘Let me buy you out’

IT – in sickness and in health

System boot problem

In expansion mode

Blame game, and beyond

Quiz

Don’t just tweak your sites

Cartoon