U.S./Russia Cyber Arms Control Talks

[Triple Zero]

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/usrussia_cyber.html

U.S./Russia Cyber Arms Control Talks

Now this interesting:
The United States has begun talks with Russia and a United Nations arms control committee about strengthening Internet security and limiting military use of cyberspace.

[...]

The Russians have held that the increasing challenges posed by military activities to civilian computer networks can be best dealt with by an international treaty, similar to treaties that have limited the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The United States had resisted, arguing that it was impossible to draw a line between the commercial and military uses of software and hardware.

[...]

A State Department official, who was not authorized to speak about the talks and requested anonymity, disputed the Russian characterization of the American position. While the Russians have continued to focus on treaties that may restrict weapons development, the United States is hoping to use the talks to increase international cooperation in opposing Internet crime. Strengthening defenses against Internet criminals would also strengthen defenses against any military-directed cyberattacks, the United States maintains.

[...]

The American interest in reopening discussions shows that the Obama administration, even in absence of a designated Internet security chief, is breaking with the Bush administration, which declined to talk with Russia about issues related to military attacks using the Internet.


I'm not sure what can be achieved here, but talking is always good.

Another cyberwar policy post: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/cyberwarfare_po.html

[Cain]

I wonder if Russia is doing this because it knows it has a massive lead on the USA here, and wants to institutionalize it.

[Triple Zero]

institutionalize, like "to establish it as part of a culture, social system, or organization"?

I don't follow--they do have a massive lead on the USA, so wouldn't they want to keep it?

[Cain]

Because the lead exists outside of the ordinary chain of command - the rumour is Russian hackers like the RBN are related to political figures, they're like brothers and cousins of KGB colonels, current politicians etc but they're not on the government payroll, they only recieve government protection and sponsorship.  So by constraining the US from undertaking research into doing similar things (because, lets face it, if the US government started hiring organized crime syndicates, it would get out and people involved would be prosecuted) and then turning around showing only what they officially have, in their military bases and intelligence agencies, they keep a lead by not really going after their own cyber-vigilantes, who will continue to develop and deploy more sophisticated and advanced cyberwarfare techniques with the approval of the Russian security services.

[Triple Zero]

Ah I see. That's kind of related to that second article at the bottom of the first post. There Schneier explains that a cyberattack usually isn't very useful to a country, (roughly) because it is not targeted enough. If you hit an economic target, there's too much economic collateral, for instance. Since the national boundaries are a bit blurred in cyberspace, so to say.

So in that manner, it would make sense that non-government groups are the ones making use of cyber warfare, and I can see why Russia (the government) would want to keep that somewhat in check.

[Template]

So by constraining the US from undertaking research into doing similar things (because, lets face it, if the US government started hiring organized crime syndicates, it would get out and people involved would be prosecuted)