Cyber Scene - Cyber Space: What Goes Up, May Come Down

By krahal

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, as a well-read diplomat, is turning to Sun Tzu's famous military strategy: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Secretary Blinken, as of 16 February, is in fact approaching his Chinese and Indian counterparts to ward off a world-threatening cyber move by Russia's Vladimir Putin. This issue has apparently been brewing over the last few weeks.

Many among this readership may have been following the quasi-cryptic references, from Fox to Politico and reported here by CBS's Melissa Quinn and Caitlin Yilek, of the call to action on 16 February by the House Intelligence Permanent Select Committee (HPCSI) Chair Mike Turner (R-OH) to try to convey a serious satellite cyber threat to a greater audience. This threat had been shared with several members of the HPSCI as well as the Senate, as the process is that sensitive, highly classified issues are briefed to senior members in the Senate and House. Representative Turner has asked that this intelligence be declassified. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) Chairman Mark Warner (D-VA) and Vice-Chairman Marco Rubio (R-FL) point out that they have been "…rigorously tracking this issue from the start…" and have been discussing with the Biden administration on an "appropriate response."

Secretary Blinken resolved the difficulty, taking the lead and advantage of his timely role in raising these developments regarding Russia's nuclear threat to world-wide satellites at the Munich Security Conference over 16-18 February.

Coverage of Secretary Blinken's discussions with his Chinese and Indian counterparts, who in turn were asked to present this to their leaders Xi Jinping (China) and Narendra Modi (India), is provided for us by New York Times (the Times) senior intelligence reporters David Sanger then in Munich and Julian Barnes in Washington D.C. The title of their article speaks volumes, succinctly: "U.S. Fears Russia Might Put a Nuclear Weapon in Space."

Sanger and Barnes explain: "American spy agencies are divided on whether Moscow would go so far, but the concern is urgent enough that Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken has asked China and India to try to talk Russia down." There is a bit of recent history about Putin's plans discovered by U.S. officials beginning with the invasion of Ukraine involving secret military satellite launches at that time. Subsequently, the U.S. intelligence community, as reported by journalists Barnes and Sanger, determined that Russia was "…working on a new kind of space-based weapon that could threaten the thousands of satellites that keep the world connected."

The threat increases: very recently, there is concern about another Russian launch to put a real nuclear weapon into space. If Putin does make that decision, it would violate the 1967 Outer Space Treaty agreement. The U.S. agencies are trying to reach a determination, as Putin has of course not divulged his plans, but the Times casts this as a very urgent concern to the Biden administration.

Sanger and Barnes continue, citing a U.S. official agreement, in assessing that "Even if Russia does place a nuclear weapon in orbit, the assessment is that the weapon would not be detonated." Rather it would "lurk like a time bomb in low orbit" to be used if Russia was overburdened by sanctions or by too much Western military support against Russia and for Ukraine. This, as reported in the Times analysis, could destroy economies without killing humans. Moreover, Secretary Blinken's message was blunt: "Any nuclear detonation in space would take out not only American satellites but also those in Beijing and New Delhi."

Additional fallout is also expected to follow. The Times cites U.S. officials and outside analysts who agree "…that global communications systems would fail, making everything from emergency services to cell phones to the regulation of generators and pumps go awry. Debris from the explosion would scatter throughout low-earth orbit and make navigation difficult if not impossible for everything from Starlink satellites, used for internet communications, to spy satellites."

Back to Sun Tzu, as this audience understands, China is not a dear friend. Indeed, HPSCI committee member Michael Waltz (R-FL) admits that "Relying on our greatest adversary to deliver messages to Moscow is not a great practice but, in this case, if the reporting is true, China would have a vested interest in delivering the message."

Per The Times on 2 February, the above issue will have also landed on the desk of the new Commander of Cyber Command and Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), General Timothy Haugh.

Julian Barnes was at the change of command at Cyber Command and NSA two weeks earlier. General Paul Nakasone, due to retire in 2023, had been held over due to Senate confirmation delays and then "gave up" his six-year command (the longest ever so far for Cyber Command) to Air Force General Timothy Haugh. Barnes pointed out that at that time (early February) the intelligence agencies and military were "…bracing for renewed efforts by foreign adversaries to influence the American elections this year." This provides a source of confidence in Gen. Haugh's background, who earlier in his career "…was leading Cyber Command's National Mission Force, which conducts offensive and defensive operations on computer networks." He was hand-picked by Gen. Nakasone to help lead that group as was NSA official Anne Neuberger, Deputy National Security Adviser for Cyber and Emerging Technology for this White House advisory position. The original expectation of election interference during the 2024 U.S. presidential election, with concerns about Russia and China having hands in it, is already a huge challenge. Now Gen. Haugh's background will be more welcome with the breaking Russian satellite issues, and as well as with Anne Neuberger remaining at the White House.

Beyond the world of "whole of government," cyber challenges engaging scores of agencies and tech companies are playing a very important role in fighting 2024 election misinformation related to deceptive AI. The Hill's Julia Shapero cited 10 among 20 major technology companies who signed an accord on 16 February "…pledging to combat the use of deceptive artificial intelligence (AI) in this year's elections." Among them are Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, TikTok, Snap, X, Adobe, and IBM. Their press release includes the following promise to: "…work collaboratively on tools to detect and address online distribution of AI-generated content meant to deceive voters in elections around the globe, in addition to engaging in educational campaigns and offering transparency." Interestingly, the pledge was made at the Munich Security Conference. The conference Chair, Christoph Heusgen, described it as a "…crucial step in advancing election integrity, increasing societal resilience, and creating trustworthy tech practices." Shapero notes that the challenge is enormous: there are over 40 countries (including the U.S.) and 4 billion people going to vote in 2024. After some AI disinformation in the New Hampshire U.S. primary, the willingness and commitment of these major tech companies to work collaboratively to create detection tools aimed at preventing voter deception in elections around the globe are bolstered by Congress, the Federal Elections Commission, and the Federal Communications Commission which have promised to do much more.

Disinformation is not restricted to the U.S. The Economist on 12 February features "Lies wrapped in enigmas: France uncovers a vast Russian disinformation campaign in Europe" raising the European side of the challenge. This type of Russian disinformation was first tracked in 2014; France says that "Portal Kombat" is targeting France, Germany, Poland, and more countries.

France's disinformation watchdog organization, Viginum, is now publicizing the Russian disinformation campaign tied to its celebration of the second anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine as well as the European Parliament elections in June 2024. It includes 193 websites from likely one organization. Despite quietude of late, Viginum is expecting a resurgence soon, given the projected victims. "The French expect the Russians are ready to be activated aggressively as part of what one official calls a 'massive' wave of Russian disinformation."

French President Macron met with the leader of Poland, Donald Tusk, on this issue and added Germany to their "Weimar triangle." Russia's destabilization efforts and digital interference operations have recently expanded, timing with the beginning of the Israeli-Hamas war.

A deeper and very different discussion of disinformation is pursued in Foreign Affairs by Nina Jankowicz in "The Coming Flood of Disinformation: How Washington Gave up on the Fight Against Falsehood Disinformation." Jankowicz underscores the fact that projected falsehood or misleading information was not the exclusive domain of foreign actors. Rather, "…its use by domestic politicians and grifters has ballooned in recent years." She nails the "guilty-as-charged" element prohibiting the removal, or at a minimum reduction, of misleading information due to "the subject becoming a partisan, politicized issue."

She noted that the Baltics and others were able to derail Russian efforts to block integration with the West. They slogged through cyberattacks; staged paid-for protests; deployments of armies of trolls and more and are happy winners. But when she was Executive Director of Homeland Security's Disinformation Governance Board, she ran into a wall, given the division among those elected on Capitol Hill who had not made enough progress to try to work together.

The governmental-tech connection is not always congenial, despite earlier discussions of efforts to work together. Here is an unusual story from the U.S. Department of the Treasury—not a usual Cyber Scene player. The Washington Post's Cristiano-Lima-Strong, tracking breaking events in the Post's "Technology 202," discovered a problem between the tech world and the Department of Treasury: a watchdog group discovered that social media platform X (formerly Twitter) had been "…providing premium, paid services to accounts of two leaders of designated terrorist groups and some other organizations sanctioned by the U.S. government." (The U.S. terrorist list is reviewed and enforced yearly.) This infraction may have been due to the changes made by Elon Must upon his purchase of X (Twitter), but the response upon the publication of the list triggered a quick fix, particularly because the dozen names included two Hezbollah leaders and Iranian and Russian state media. All of these would catch one's eye, particularly with two raging wars associated with these three entities.

As the U.S. struggles with worldwide cyber threats from above, it is at least a small success in catching a few devious players related to two ongoing wars across large cyber systems.

To see previous articles, please visit the Cyber Scene Archive.