The real cyber threat
May 21st, 2013
09:05 AM ET

The real cyber threat

By Mark Sparkman, Special to CNN

Editor’s note: Mark Sparkman, a former senior officer with the CIA’s National Clandestine Service, is a senior international affairs analyst with the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation.  The views expressed are his own.

The announcement by prosecutors that charges had been filed against suspected cyber thieves believed responsible for stealing $45 million in a matter of hours from ATM’s in two dozen countries should send a stark message to governments around the world – banks could be the most vulnerable front in cyber space.

Plenty of people have been warning us these days to worry about cyber attacks, but generally we have been worrying about the wrong things. Most “cyber Armageddon” scenarios focus on gaps in our physical infrastructure and even far-fetched scenarios such as infant incubators in hospitals being turned off. But major swathes of the United States have routinely gone without electricity and water for days following natural disasters. Soon enough, life gradually gets back to normal. Want real chaos? Destroy confidence in the banking system (or even a part of it), and just stand back and watch.

Since last fall, a series of Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks on financial institutions have temporarily denied customers access to their bank accounts, and U.S. officials have pointed an accusatory finger at Iran. Although the attacks were not devastating, U.S. officials are rightly weighing their response options. The fact is that the United States needs to gear up for the coming era of cyber threats – and start by ensuring its financial flank is not catastrophically compromised.

The banking system is built on trust. It’s slow to establish and fragile to keep. That trust must be fiercely protected. Consider some of the ways cyber attacks could quickly undermine our faith in the system. If you suspected that someone was going to steal $1,000 a month from your bank account, wouldn’t you shut it down, regardless of government guarantees on your deposits? If a regional bank discovered that 10 percent of its capital assets were being moved (or removed) every month through cyber manipulation, what would it do? If a national government knew that a hostile actor was manipulating bond prices, how might it respond – and what could that response do to the global bond market?

More from CNN: Why cyber attacks threaten our freedom

International commerce depends on billions of electronic transactions each week, ranging from simple bank transfers to complicated debt swaps. The system works only because of the faith people put into it. It is rooted in the trust built up over decades of successful transactions governed by national and international legal and accounting norms. But what if people start to see the banking system as vulnerable to manipulation by terrorist groups, crime syndicates, or countries waging semi-clandestine campaigns to undermine a rival’s economy?

For a decade or more, governments with advanced cyber capabilities and a decent knowledge of financial systems have presumably been able to alter, adjust, and amend financial data to suit their own ends. And many governments have had tempting incentives to do so, from recovering stolen funds to hindering terrorist groups or drug cartels. But so far, the incentives not to change banking data have overwhelmingly carried the day within  governments whenever this issue is broached. After all, no responsible, law-abiding government wants to set the precedent that “stealing” money – or even moving it around – is acceptable, no matter how pure their motives. The stability of international financial institutions and banks, and even of states themselves, is grounded in the belief that financial holdings and transactions are sacrosanct – not to be tampered with by any government for any reason. So governments have only frozen or confiscated funds within the confines of international sanctions, often U.N. mandates, or when a company, organization or individual has broken the law.

Government responses to assaults on banks have been restrained thus far because the cyber attacks haven’t been that severe. True, financial institutions have had to weather some DDoS attacks, in which their sites are flooded with huge volumes of data until they collapse. Such attacks can be disruptive and annoying, but most individuals, companies, and governments wake up the next morning with just as much money in their accounts as they did before the attack.

All bets are off, however, in a true offensive cyber attack. Protected data would be changed, manipulated, or destroyed, and depositors might never recover their assets. With the possibility of such an attack looming, governments should be making serious decisions about deterrence, defense, retaliation, and escalation.

That day could be closer than we think. Given the unsettling recent advances in DDoS attacks and the ever-growing scale and speed of international financial transactions, even these heretofore nuisance attacks may be crossing the threshold into outright assault on a nation’s financial infrastructure or economy. Blocking banks, businesses, and individuals from conducting transactions for even a few days could have a major economic impact.

In April, for example, Wells Fargo Bank was slammed by a sustained DDoS attack. To keep up their customers’ trust, Wells Fargo assured them publicly that their personal “information is safe.” But that may not always hold true. Companies, credit card issuers, and medical firms have regularly reported breaches of personal information – and while these have often been disconcerting and sometimes even unnerving, these information breaches or data spills have usually not significantly undermined the trust that individuals and companies place in institutions that failed to adequately protect their data. Why? Simply put, while customers may have fretted about having had their credit card data out in the open for a few days, they ultimately suffered no real losses.

An offensive cyber operation would be something else entirely. Such attacks aim to destroy or alter enough data to harm a target institution or national economy. The most worrisome attacks would involve adversaries deploying cyber weapons to prevent normal financial transactions from taking place. That would undermine companies’ abilities to conduct business and dilute the trust that underpins any stable economy.

A major cyber attack would require a response from the nation at the receiving end – and establish a new field of warfare. States will want to retaliate in ways that deter future would-be cyber attackers. Any nation or group that moves beyond financial espionage, messaging, or annoyance to actually electronically manipulate assets or markets must understand that it will be subject to retaliation that inflicts pain proportionate to the damage done. And if the attackers persist, target nations must be ready to escalate by returning fire at a rate and magnitude that will deter further attacks.

Adversaries cannot be allowed to destroy in a second the trust in our financial systems that has taken centuries to build.

Post by:
Topics: Cyber • Economy

Next entry »
soundoff (53 Responses)

    If some one desires expert view regarding blogging and site-building afterward i advise him/her to visit this website,
    Keep up the fastidious work.

    July 8, 2013 at 4:25 am | Reply
  2. Brianna

    I've been trying everything and unfortunately they won't work. I tried posting a playlist in my wordpress in the 'Pages' section but the playlist won't show. Can someone please help with this?.

    May 12, 2014 at 12:53 pm | Reply
  3. Aiman

    I found your website while sencrhiag Bing. This is a nice article. I'd like to see you remove the primary point from this article and create another separate page, and maybe you could embed a video, also? If you do, it would be much welcomed.

    July 6, 2014 at 2:56 am | Reply
  4. Shanna

    Obama is the consumate poialtciin when it comes to deliverying a well-written speech. I just got done re-living George Bush's epic address to both Houses of Congress after 9-11; wherein he first uttered the Bush Doctrine of either being with us (America) or with the terrorists and those that give them aid or refuge. You can't get any clearer than that: you knew where Bush stood on foreign policy.With Obama, I don't know from one day to the next, one speech to the next, or from one ambiguous statement (or inaction) to the next.

    July 25, 2014 at 7:02 pm | Reply

    Heya I don't know if it is me or possibly your
    blog post but it's starting slowly , I had to spend just like a couple of minutes to successfully load up however gmail
    operates totally to me. Anyways, I must thank
    you for placing awesome blog post. In my opinion this has already been honestly helpful individual who seem to click here.

    I am hoping I will be able to get further awesome things and I
    should compliment by stating you have done fabulous writing.
    Just after checking out your content, I have book marked your web blog.

    March 31, 2015 at 8:43 am | Reply
1 2

Post a comment


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

Next entry »

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,058 other followers