Hagel: NATO Must Do More to ‘Deal with’ Cyber Attacks

Global Security Newswire Staff
See more stories about...
Global Security Newswire Staff
Oct. 24, 2013, 9:02 a.m.

NATO de­fense min­is­ters agreed this week that they must “do more to deal with cy­ber threats,” U.S. De­fense Sec­ret­ary Chuck Hagel said on Wed­nes­day, as the al­li­ance pre­pared to launch a new cy­ber-de­fense cen­ter next week.

Cy­ber­se­cur­ity was one of the main top­ics de­fense lead­ers from the 28-na­tion NATO dis­cussed on Tues­day and Wed­nes­day dur­ing a two-day min­is­teri­al in Brus­sels. Hagel on Wed­nes­day told re­port­ers that the al­li­ance’s new cy­ber-de­fense sys­tem — the Com­puter In­cid­ent Re­sponse Cen­ter — “is on track to achieve full op­er­a­tion­al cap­ab­il­it­ies next week.”

“The U.S. sup­ports a pro­pos­al for the cen­ter to have teams of NATO cy­ber ex­perts that can be quickly de­ployed to as­sist al­lied na­tions if they re­quest help in deal­ing with cy­ber in­tru­sions or at­tacks,” Hagel ad­ded. “It was agreed that the al­li­ance must do more to deal with cy­ber threats, and this will re­main a top pri­or­ity go­ing for­ward.”

Al­li­ance mem­bers in June iden­ti­fied pro­tect­ing NATO com­puter sys­tems from cy­ber in­tru­sions as a pri­or­ity at a min­is­teri­al meet­ing. NATO Sec­ret­ary Gen­er­al An­ders Fogh Rasmussen said dur­ing a Tues­day press con­fer­ence that de­fense min­is­ters that day “con­cluded that we are on track in up­grad­ing our abil­ity to pro­tect NATO’s net­works against this fast-evolving threat.”

Rasmussen ad­ded that while cy­ber de­fense is a “na­tion­al re­spons­ib­il­ity” for mem­ber na­tions, the mil­it­ary lead­ers at the min­is­teri­al agreed that NATO should “play a use­ful role to fa­cil­it­ate the de­vel­op­ment of strong na­tion­al cy­ber de­fense cap­ab­il­it­ies.” He gave ex­amples of NATO’s role in this realm — in­clud­ing set­ting out the de­fens­ive cap­ab­il­it­ies na­tions should have; con­duct­ing joint cy­ber edu­ca­tion and train­ing ex­er­cises; help­ing na­tions to de­vel­op cy­ber-de­fense cap­ab­il­it­ies in joint pro­jects; and “shar­ing in­form­a­tion, in­tel­li­gence and best prac­tices amongst al­lies.”

At least one ana­lyst main­tains NATO should do more to help pro­tect mem­ber na­tions’ net­works from hack­ers.

Daniel Pit­cairn, a re­search fel­low with Gov­ern­ment Busi­ness Coun­cil, wrote in De­fense One that he has con­cerns with NATO’s de­cision to not be re­spons­ible for the na­tion­al net­work se­cur­ity of mem­ber states. That cre­ates a prob­lem for the United States, he said, be­cause its sens­it­ive data re­gard­ing mil­it­ary as­set and strategies could be com­prom­ised be­cause of oth­er NATO coun­tries’ more-vul­ner­able net­works.

“Of greatest con­cern is the in­form­a­tion al­lies are per­mit­ted to re­ceive re­gard­ing U.S. nuc­le­ar weapons,” Pit­cairn said. “The ATOMAL Agree­ment of 1965 al­lows NATO al­lies to re­ceive con­fid­en­tial in­form­a­tion on U.S. nuc­le­ar weapons cap­ab­il­it­ies and strategy in or­der to en­sure the al­li­ance’s ef­fect­ive col­lect­ive mil­it­ary ca­pa­city. New and as­pir­ing mem­bers of NATO may not be pre­pared to de­fend their net­works from the growth in cy­ber at­tacks they will face when they be­come privy to crit­ic­al U.S. na­tion­al se­cur­ity in­form­a­tion.”

Pit­cairn fur­ther as­ser­ted “the out­stand­ing ques­tion” for NATO’s cy­ber strategy is wheth­er its Art­icle 5 stat­ute — which says “an armed at­tack against one or more… shall be con­sidered an at­tack against them all” — should ap­ply to cy­ber at­tacks.

“Just as the U.S. has as­ser­ted that it ‘will re­spond to hos­tile acts in cy­ber­space just as [it] would to any oth­er threat,’ so should NATO be pre­pared to use its full cap­ab­il­it­ies to counter cy­ber at­tacks,” he wrote.

What We're Following See More »
INCLUDING CLINTON
Trump Finance Guru Has History of Contributing to Dems
1 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

"Like Donald Trump himself, the Trump campaign’s new national finance chairman has a long history of contributing to Democrats—including Hillary Clinton. Private investor Steven Mnuchin, Trump’s new campaign fundraising guru, has contributed more than $120,000" to candidates since 1995, about half of which has gone to Democrats.

Source:
AT LEAST NOT YET
Paul Ryan Can’t Get Behind Trump
16 hours ago
THE LATEST

Paul Ryan told CNN today he's "not ready" to back Donald Trump at this time. "I'm not there right now," he said. Ryan said Trump needs to unify "all wings of the Republican Party and the conservative movement" and then run a campaign that will allow Americans to "have something that they're proud to support and proud to be a part of. And we've got a ways to go from here to there."

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trump Roadmapped His Candidacy in 2000
18 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The Daily Beast has unearthed a piece that Donald Trump wrote for Gear magazine in 2000, which anticipates his 2016 sales pitch quite well. "Perhaps it's time for a dealmaker who can get the leaders of Congress to the table, forge consensus, and strike compromise," he writes. Oddly, he opens by defending his reputation as a womanizer: "The hypocrites argue that a man who loves and appreciates beautiful women (and does so legally and openly) shouldn't become a national leader? Is there something wrong with appreciating beautiful women? Don't we want people in public office who show signs of life?"

Source:
‘NO MORAL OR ETHICAL GROUNDING’
Sen. Murphy: Trump Shouldn’t Get Classified Briefigs
18 hours ago
THE LATEST
JOINS BUSHES, MCCAIN
Romney to Skip Convention
19 hours ago
THE LATEST

An aide to Mitt Romney confirmed to the Washington Post that the 2102 GOP nominee will not attend the Republican convention this year. He joins the two living Republican presidents, George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush, as well as 2008 nominee John McCain in skipping the event. Even among living Republican nominees, that leaves only Bob Dole who could conceivably show up. Dole did say in January that he'd prefer Trump to Ted Cruz, but his age (92) could keep him from attending.

Source:
×