At a glance.
- Russian media give President Biden good press, post-summit.
- A US red line for cyber operations.
- Duma votes to restrict US company operations in Russia.
- What an adequate cyber doctrine might look like.
TASS is authorized to disclose that Joe is a good Joe...
President Putin perceived President Biden as “professional” and attentive to detail, not mixed up, TASS is authorized to declare, contrary to rumors of senility the Russian media had been happily flacking during the run-up to the summit. “[O]ne should work very attentively with him,” President Putin told an audience. This coverage represents, the Washington Post observes, a striking volte-face with respect to earlier official and semi-official media presentations of Mr. Biden as a doddering threat to global stability. Now he's the leader of one great power working with the leader of another great power. The Atlantic Council offers some cross-cutting quick reaction commentary on what it calls the "staredown" between the two leaders.
…as Joe draws a “red line" in an approach to cyber deterrence...
SecurityWeek discusses President Biden’s critical infrastructure red line, and his call for “responsible countries” to combat native cybercriminals. The red line is drawn specifically around the sixteen officially designated critical infrastructure sectors: chemicals, commercial facilities, communications, critical manufacturing, dams, the Defense Industrial Base, emergency services, energy, financial services, food and agriculture, government facilities, healthcare and public health, information technology, nuclear activities, transportation systems, and water and wastewater systems.
...and, good Joe or not, the Duma voted to require US tech companies to establish offices in Russia.
Reuters reports that the Russian parliament voted yesterday to require US companies to set up offices in Russia or face stiff penalties. The avowed goal is "internet sovereignty;" the deadline is this coming January.
A consideration of what an adequate cyber doctrine might look like.
That's strategic doctrine, not religious doctrine. The American Legion considered the prospects for a cyber defense doctrine, in light of the 200 million ransomware attacks on US targets last year and other recent APT mischief, which amount to “economic warfare” (with China pilfering $200 to $600 billion in US IP annually) and undermine domestic security. The piece argues for treating “state-based” hackers as terrorists, and their host countries as accountable parties, using the following options:
- “preemptively cut off hacker armies from cyberspace, destroy their software and hardware, arrest their footsoldiers…and seize their cryptocurrency assets”
- “zero-out the off-shore accounts of Putin’s oligarch cronies”
- “disable the banks and mobile-phone system in Crimea”
- “implant bugs or backdoors in the intellectual property Beijing is stealing”
- “disable network pathways used by Chinese nationals to deliver what they harvest”
- “create cracks in the Great Firewall of China”
Since the Kremlin and Chinese Communist Party pose more of a threat than traditional terror incubators, however, they should be afforded “face-saving alternatives.” Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman suggests clearly announcing that “ransomware-piracy could be considered an act of war.”
The American Legion’s draft doctrine would term “[a]ny use of cyberspace to interfere with, disable or attack U.S. critical infrastructure…a hostile act” that “will be met with a retaliatory response in a time, place, manner and domain of America’s choosing.”