[Hebert Lin & Amy Zegart, eds. Bytes, Bombs, and Spies. The strategic dimensions of offensive cyber operations. The Brookings Institution. Washington, 2019. 438 p. ] REVIEW / Albert Vidal

review / Pablo Arbuniés

Just as in the second half of the 20th century the world experienced the degree program nuclear weapons between the US and the USSR for world hegemony, everything seems to indicate that the degree program that will mark the 21st century is that of cyberspace. Ever since the department The inclusion of cyberspace as the fifth domain of the country's military operations (along with land, sea, air, and space) has made clear the paramount importance of its role in global security.

However, the very nature of cyberspace makes it a completely different field from what we might call kinetic security fields. The only constant in cyberspace is change, so any study and strategic approach must be able to adapt quickly to changing conditions without losing efficiency and maintaining enormous precision. This is a real challenge for all actors operating in cyberspace, both national and private. At the national level, the incorporation of cyber operations into the U.S. national security strategy (NSS) and the development of a cyberwarfare doctrine by the department are the two main pillars on which the new degree program through cyberspace.

"Bytes, Bombs, and Spies" explores the big questions posed by this new challenge, presenting very different approaches to different situations. Probably the greatest value offered by the book is precisely the different ways of dealing with the same problem defended by the more than twenty authors who have participated in its elaboration, coordinated by Herbert Lin and Amy Zegart. These authors collaborate in the 15 essays that make up the book. They do it with the idea of turning a topic as complex as offensive cyber operations into something achievable for non-expert readers. topic, but without sacrificing the depth and detail of an academic work.

Throughout the volume, the authors not only propose what the approach of the framework theoretical. They also assess the U.S. government's policies in the field of offensive cyber operations and propose what the points should be core topic in the development of new policies and adaptation of previous ones to the changing cyber environment.

The book tries to answer the big questions asked about cyberspace. From the use of offensive cyber operations in a framework from conflict to the role of the private sector, through the escalation dynamics and the role of deterrence in cyberspace or the intelligence capabilities needed to carry out effective cyber operations.

One of the main issues is how cyber operations are included in the framework of the dynamics of a scale of conflict. Is it permissible to respond to a cyberattack with kinetic force? And with nuclear weapons? The U.S. government's current cyber-doctrine leaves both doors open, facing a response based on the effects of the attack over the means. This idea is described as incomplete by Henry Farrell and Charles L. Glaser in their chapter, in which they argue for the need to take into account more factors, such as the perception of the threat and attack by other actors, as well as public opinion and the international community.

Continuing with the theoretical approaches, the main question raised by this book is whether it is sensible to apply the same principles in the strategic study of cyberspace that were applied to nuclear weapons during the cold war to answer the questions posed above. And since this is a relatively new field in which global hegemony and stability can be at stake from the outset, how this question is answered can mean the difference between stability or absolute chaos.

This is precisely what David Aucsmith proposes in his chapter. In it, he argues that cyberspace is so different from classical strategic disciplines that its strategic dimensions must be rethought from scratch. The disintermediation of governments, incapable of encompassing all of cyberspace, opens up a niche for private companies specializing in cybersecurity, but even these will not be able to completely fill what the government does in other domains. For his part, Lucas Kello tries to fill the sovereignty gap in cyberspace with the aforementioned private participation, proposing the convergence between governments and citizens (through the private sector) in cyberspace.

In conclusion, "Bytes, Bombs, and Spies" tries to answer all the main questions posed by cyberspace, without being unattainable to an audience that is not an expert in cyberspace. topic, but maintaining rigor, precision, and depth in its analysis. .

COMMENTARY / Daniel Andrés Llonch

Cyberspace has established itself as a new domain in which the security of States and their citizens is decided. On the one hand, attacks no longer have to involve the employment armaments; On the other hand, non-military actions, such as certain operations of interference in the affairs of other countries, can be especially effective given the access to millions of people that information technologies allow.

These capabilities have contributed to a climate of growing mistrust among world powers, characterized by mutual accusations, cover-ups and secrecy, since cyberspace makes it possible to conceal the origin of aggression to a large extent. That makes it difficult to mission statement of the State to protect national interests and complicates its management of individual freedoms (the tension between security and privacy).

The governments of Russia and China have frequently been singled out by the West as sponsors of cyberattacks aimed at damaging sensitive computer networks and stealing data confidential transactions of both individuals and companies, and operations aimed at influencing world opinion. In the case of China, the activities of secret units dependent on the People's Liberation Army have been targeted; in the Russian case, organizations such as Fancy Bear are mentioned, behind which many see directly the hand of the Kremlin.

The latter agents are blamed for Russian cyberattacks or interference in Europe and the United States, whose goal it is to destabilize those powers and diminish their capacity for global influence. There are several sources that suggest that these organizations have intervened in processes such as Brexit, the presidential elections in the United States or the separatist process in Catalonia. This activity of influence, radicalization and mobilization would have been carried out through the management of social networks and also possibly through the use of the Dark Web and the Deep Web.

One of the most prominent organizations in this activity is Fancy Bear, also known as APT28 and linked by various means to the Russian military intelligence agency. The group serves the interests of the Russian government, with activities that include support for certain candidates and personalities in foreign countries, as happened in the last elections to the White House. It operates many times through what is called Advanced Persistent Threat or APT, which consists of continuous hacking of a given system through computer hacking.

Although an APT is normally addressed to private organizations or States, either for commercial reasons or for political interests, it can also have the following characteristics: goal citizens who are perceived as enemies of the Kremlin. Behind these actions is not a lone hacker or a small hacker. group of people, but a whole organization, of very vast dimensions.

Fancy Bear and other similar groups have been linked to the dissemination of confidential information stolen from world banks, the World Anti-Doping Agency, NATO, and the electoral process in France and Germany. They were also credited with an action against the network in which there was theft of data and extensive spying over a long period of time.

The European Union has been one of the first international actors to announce measures in this regard, consisting of a considerable increase in the budget to strengthen cybersecurity and increase research by technicians and specialists in this field. The new figure of the Data Protection Officer (DPO) is also being created, which is the person in charge of overseeing all issues related to the protection of data and your privacy.

The sophistication of the Internet and at the same time its vulnerability have also given rise to a status of insecurity in the network. Anonymity makes it possible to perpetrate criminal activities that know no borders, neither physical nor virtual: this is cybercrime. This was confirmed on May 12, 2017 with the Wannacry virus, which affected millions of people worldwide.

Reality, then, warns us of the dimension that the problem has acquired: it speaks to us of a real risk. Society is increasingly connected to the network, which, together with the advantages of all kinds that this entails, also implies a exhibition cybercrime. Hackers can use our data personal data and the information we share for their own purposes: sometimes as a way of blackmail or as a key to access fields of the subject's privacy; other times that private content is sold. The fact is that the magnitudes to which such a problem can reach are overwhelming. If one of the world's leading security agencies, the U.S. National Security Agency, has result hacked, what should simple users expect, who in their innocence and ignorance are vulnerable and usable subjects?

Added to the problem is the progressive improvement of the techniques and methods used: identity theft and viruses are created for mobile phones, computer systems, programs, emails and downloads. In other words, there are few areas within the cyber world that are not considered susceptible to hacking or that do not have some weak point that represents an opportunity for threat and intrusion for any person or organization for illicit purposes.

▲Great Wall of China, near Jinshanling [Jakub Halin-Wikimedia Commons]

COMMENTARY / Paulina Briz Aceves

The Great Wall of China was completed after decades of successive efforts by different dynasties, not only as a defensive line, but also as a sign of China's attitude towards the outside world. Although this wall currently has no use, other than to be a tourist attraction, it has been an example for the creation of another great wall, which, although not physical, has the same effects as the original: isolating the Chinese community from the outside world and protecting itself from attacks that threaten its sovereignty.

The "Great Firewall of China" – the government's online surveillance and censorship effort – monitors all traffic in Chinese cyberspace and allows authorities to both deny access to a variety of selected websites, and disconnect all Chinese networks from the Internet. network of the Internet. In addition to the Great Firewall, the Chinese government has also created a domestic surveillance system called the "Golden Shield," which is administered by the Ministry of Public Security and others Departments government and local agencies. The Chinese government understands how valuable and powerful technology, innovation, and the Internet are, which is why it is cautious about information disseminated on Chinese soil, due to its constant fear of possible questioning of the Communist Party and disruption of China's political order.

China's cyber policies and strategies are barely known in the international world, but what is known is that China's network security priorities are motivated by the goal the main challenge of the Communist Party to stay in power. China's rulers understand that cybernetics are something that is already fully integrated into society. Therefore, they believe that in order to maintain political stability, they must keep an eye on their citizens and control them, leaving them in the shadows by censoring not only general information, but also sensitive issues such as the massacre in the city. place Tiananmen or Hong Kong's Umbrella Revolution .

Filters that control what citizens see on the web have become more sophisticated. In addition, the government has employee around 100,000 people to monitor the Chinese internet, to control information not only coming from the West, but even that which is generated in China itself. It is true that this meddling in the media has undoubtedly caused the Chinese government to assert its power over society, because it is clear that whoever has the information definitely has the power.