Cybercops and Cyberrobbers

Sunday morning. A man wakes up and walks down his driveway, picks up his newspaper. Comes inside. Drinks coffee. Reads.

Fast forward twenty years. Sunday morning. The same man wakes and reaches to his left, clicking on his phone. Three notifications from the night: another shooting in America, an independence movement in Spain, updates on the nuclear tension with North Korea. News is now available at the touch of a screen.

With this development, it’s becoming harder to find younger people without cell phones, Bluetooth, laptops. But as the Internet and cyberspace expands, so do the amount of vulnerabilities hackers can take advantage of.

From WannaCry to Equifax to political elections to Verizon to countless other corporations and organizations, it seems as though no one is immune to these hackers and cyberattacks. In fact, ransomware attacks have increased by 250% in 2017, affecting the US the most [1]. In a time when most nations have not developed a national cybersecurity force to respond to these attacks, like the way firefighters would respond to outbreaks of wildfire, one would think that all cybersecurity industries in America would be thriving.

 In mid-September, the US government “banned federal agencies from using Kaspersky Lab,” a type of antivirus and security software meant to protect against malware and other cyberattack [2]. At first glance, this may seem confusing: the government bans a private industry’s security software when malware and malicious cyberattacks are at an all-time high?

 But the Department of Homeland Security justified this decision by claiming that there are concerns about ties between “certain Kaspersky officials and Russian intelligence and other government agencies” [3]. Additionally, Russian laws allow some Russian officials to ask for help or information from Kaspersky, without alerting the public. This caveat, along with the history of Russian malware attacks and involvement in US politics, particularly the latest presidential election, is why the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) plans to replace Kaspersky with other security software [3].

 A Binding Operational Directive implemented by the DHS intends to remove all Kaspersky products from computers and technology within the next 30 days [4]. The government, specifically the US House Science, Space and Technology Committee, invited Kaspersky himself to a hearing on September 27th, but the hearing was postponed. In response to this, Eugene Kaspersky bemoaned the delay on his blog on October 2nd [5]. Kaspersky has been known for its ties to the Kremlin and the KGB, but “more than 85% of its revenue comes from outside of Russia,” making ties to any government bad for business [3].

 Though the DHS and the US government have justified this decision, companies similar to Kaspersky based in the US are also influenced by American government: they give information over to the government just as the Russians can be influenced to do [4]. The government may worry about external influence or external leaks -- in this case, information to the Russians -- but at the same time, the US and agencies like the NSA monitor and influence US security software in the same way. This relates to the idea of safety versus liberty, a question hotly debated in instances such as the Patriot Act and even the fight over gun control.

Cybersecurity in particular is intriguing because of its relevance and its novelty, and also because of the humanistic nature behind attacks. Although all of cyberattacks are through technological mediums, such as phones or computers, there is always people behind attacks, and there are human strategies behind every piece of malware. In this sense, cybersecurity relates closely to forensics, detective work, investigations, and the like, except through the medium of Internet and technology. Moreover, as technology develops, there become more and more ways for hackers to attack. At the same time, hackers are continually developing new strategies of offense and defense, which makes cybersecurity a constantly changing field.

And as mentioned before, there is currently no national cyberforce to protect Americans against malware and malicious attacks. It’ll be interesting to see how such a defense force might develop and how the government will play a role in its growth. Will the government allow cybersecurity software and forces to develop in the private sector, or begin to weed out products, as seen with Kaspersky?




Sources:

    http://www.newsweek.com/ransomware-attacks-rise-250-2017-us-wannacry-614034

    http://www.denverpost.com/2017/09/18/us-ban-kaspersky-software/

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/13/us-government-bans-kaspersky-lab-russian-spying

    http://www.normantranscript.com/opinion/columns/feds-ban-kaspersky-antivirus/article_d00fd114-9994-597c-9abe-20dc96a63c4e.html

    http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/353416-kaspersky-pokes-congress-over-cancelled-testimony