AT THE NEXUS OF CYBERSECURITY
AND PUBLIC POLICY


Some Basic Concepts and Issues


David Clark, Thomas Berson, and Herbert S. Lin, Editors

Committee on Developing a Cybersecurity Primer:
Leveraging Two Decades of National Academies Work

Computer Science and Telecommunications Board

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
                          OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.

www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
AT THE NEXUS OF CYBERSECURITY AND PUBLIC POLICY Some Basic Concepts and Issues David Clark, Thomas Berson, and Herbert S. Lin, Editors Committee on Developing a Cybersecurity Primer: Leveraging Two Decades of National Academies Work Computer Science and Telecommunications Board

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS  500 Fifth Street, NW  Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Gov- erning Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engi- neering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. Support for this project was provided by the National Science Foundation under Award Number CNS-0940372. Additional support was provided by Microsoft Cor- poration, Google, Inc., and the President’s Committee of the National Academies. Any opinions, findings, or conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agen- cies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number 13:  978-0-309-30318-7 International Standard Book Number 10:  0-309-30318-4 Library of Congress Control Number:  2014940211 This report is available from Computer Science and Telecommunications Board National Research Council 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2014 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal govern- ment on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the char- ter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstand- ing engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in pro- viding services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON DEVELOPING A CYBERSECURITY PRIMER: LEVERAGING TWO DECADES OF NATIONAL ACADEMIES WORK DAVID CLARK, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Chair THOMAS BERSON, Anagram Laboratories MARJORY BLUMENTHAL,1 Georgetown University Staff HERBERT S. LIN, Study Director and Chief Scientist, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board ERIC WHITAKER, Senior Program Assistant, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board 1 Ms. Blumenthal resigned from the committee on May 1, 2013, and accepted a position as executive director for the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. iv

OCR for page R1
COMPUTER SCIENCE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS BOARD ROBERT F. SPROULL, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Chair LUIZ ANDRÉ BARROSO, Google, Inc. STEVEN M. BELLOVIN, Columbia University ROBERT F. BRAMMER, Brammer Technology, LLC EDWARD FRANK, Apple, Inc. SEYMOUR E. GOODMAN, Georgia Institute of Technology LAURA M. HAAS, IBM Alamaden Research Laboratory MARK A. HOROWITZ, Stanford University MICHAEL KEARNS, University of Pennsylvania ROBERT KRAUT, Carnegie Mellon University SUSAN LANDAU, Google, Inc. PETER LEE, Microsoft Corporation DAVID E. LIDDLE, US Venture Partners BARBARA LISKOV, Massachusetts Institute of Technology JOHN STANKOVIC, University of Virginia JOHN A. SWAINSON, Dell, Inc. PETER SZOLOVITS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology ERNEST J. WILSON, University of Southern California KATHERINE YELICK, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory JON EISENBERG, Director LYNETTE I. MILLETT, Associate Director and Senior Program Officer VIRGINIA BACON TALATI, Program Officer SHENAE BRADLEY, Senior Program Assistant RENEE HAWKINS, Financial and Administrative Manager HERBERT S. LIN, Chief Scientist ERIC WHITAKER, Senior Program Assistant For more information on CSTB, see its Web site at http://www.cstb.org, write to CSTB, National Research Council, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washing- ton, DC 20001, call (202) 334-2605, or e-mail the CSTB at cstb@nas.edu. v

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Preface Today, cybersecurity is widely viewed as a matter of pressing national importance. Many elements of cyberspace are notoriously vulnerable to an expanding range of attacks by a spectrum of hackers, criminals, ter- rorists, and state actors. For example, government agencies and private- sector companies both large and small suffer from cyber thefts of sensitive information, cyber vandalism (e.g., defacing of Web sites), and denial-of- service attacks. The nation’s critical infrastructure, including the electric power grid, air traffic control system, financial systems, and communi- cation networks, depends extensively on information technology for its operation. Concerns about the vulnerability of the information technology on which the nation relies have deepened in the security-conscious envi- ronment after the September 11, 2001, attacks and in light of increased cyber espionage directed at private companies and government agencies in the United States. National policy makers have become increasingly concerned that adversaries backed by considerable resources will attempt to exploit the cyber vulnerabilities in the critical infrastructure, thereby inflicting substantial harm on the nation. Numerous policy proposals have been advanced, and a number of bills have been introduced in Con- gress to tackle parts of the cybersecurity challenge. Although the larger public discourse sometimes treats the topic of cybersecurity as a new one, the Computer Science and Telecommunica- tions Board (CSTB) of the National Research Council has long recognized vii

OCR for page R1
viii PREFACE cybersecurity as a major challenge for public policy.1 CSTB work in cyber- security over more than two decades (Box P.1) offers a wealth of informa- tion on practical measures, technical and nontechnical challenges, and potential policy responses. Produced by the Committee on Developing a Cybersecurity Primer: Leveraging Two Decades of National Academies Work (see Appendix A), the present report draws on past insights devel- oped in this body of work to provide a concise primer on the fundamen- tals of cybersecurity and the nexus between cybersecurity and public policy (see Box P.2 for the project’s statement of task). This report is based primarily on earlier CSTB work (see Appendix B), and for readability, direct extracts from that work are not set in quotation marks, nor are paraphrases from that work identified as such. However, the report also addresses issues not covered in earlier CSTB work, and the committee acknowledges with gratitude input from William Press (University of Texas at Austin), Tim Gibson (Draper Laboratories), Stefan Savage (University of California, San Diego), and William Sanders (Uni- versity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) on a variety of cybersecurity- related topics in the course of its work. As a primer, this report presents fundamental concepts and principles that serve as points of departure for understanding specific cybersecurity incidents or proposals to improve security. The specifics of cybersecurity change rapidly, but the fundamental concepts and principles endure, or at least they change much more slowly. These concepts and principles are approximately independent of particular cybersecurity technologies or incidents, although they manifest themselves in a wide variety of different technologies and incidents. The report’s emphasis on fundamental concepts and principles also means that in the interest of brevity, coverage in this primer cannot be comprehensive. For readers who wish to explore particular topics more deeply, the detailed CSTB reports listed in Appendix B provide a substan- tial resource. 1 The Web page at http://sites.nationalacademies.org/CSTB/CSTB_059144 lists all CSTB reports related to cybersecurity.

OCR for page R1
PREFACE ix BOX P.1  Selected Computer Science and Telecommunications Board Work on Cybersecurity—A Brief Summary of Highlights The 1991 CSTB report Computers at Risk warned that “as computer systems become more prevalent, sophisticated, embedded in physical processes, and interconnected, society becomes more vulnerable to poor system design . . . and attacks on computer systems” and that “the nature and magnitude of computer system problems are changing dramatically” (p. 1). It also lamented that “known techniques are not being used” to increase security. In 1999, CSTB released Trust in Cyberspace, which proposed a research agenda to increase the trustworthiness of information technology (IT), with a spe- cial focus on networked information systems. This report went beyond security matters alone, addressing as well other dimensions of trustworthiness such as correctness, reliability, safety, and survivability. Importantly, it also noted that “eco- nomic and political context is critical to the successful development and deploy- ment of new technologies” (p. viii). In 2002, CSTB issued Cybersecurity Today and Tomorrow: Pay Now or Pay Later, which reprised recommendations from a decade of CSTB cybersecurity studies. Its preface noted that “it is a sad commentary on the state of the world that what CSTB wrote more than 10 years ago is still timely and relevant. For those who work in computer security, there is a deep frustration that research and recom- mendations do not seem to translate easily into deployment and utilization” (p. v). CSTB’s 2007 report Toward a Safer and More Secure Cyberspace observed that “there is an inadequate understanding of what makes IT systems vulnerable to attack, how best to reduce these vulnerabilities, and how to transfer cybersecu- rity knowledge to actual practice” (p. vii). It set forth an updated research agenda, sought to inspire the nation to strive for a safer and more secure cyberspace, and focused “substantial attention on the very real challenges of incentives, usability, and embedding advances in cybersecurity into real-world products, practices, and services” (p. xii). In 2009, CSTB turned its attention to the technical and policy dimensions of cyberattack—the offensive side of cybersecurity. Technology, Policy, Law, and Ethics Regarding U.S. Acquisition and Use of Cyberattack Capabilities concluded that although cyberattack capabilities are an important asset for the United States, the current policy and legal framework for their use is ill-formed, undeveloped, and highly uncertain and that U.S. policy should be informed by an open and public national debate on technological, policy, legal, and ethical issues posed by cyberattack capabilities. In 2010, the CSTB report Toward Better Usability, Security, and Privacy of Information Technology: Report of a Workshop identified research opportunities and ways to embed usability considerations in design and development related to security and privacy. In that year, CSTB also produced a second workshop report, Proceedings of a Workshop on Deterring Cyberattacks: Informing Strategies and Developing Options, a collection of papers that examined governmental, economic, technical, legal, and psychological challenges involved in deterring cyberattacks. NOTE: All of these reports were published by the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

OCR for page R1
x PREFACE BOX P.2 The Project Statement of Task A primer on the technical and policy issues of cybersecurity, building on more than two decades of prior Academies work, will be developed under the auspices of a small study committee. The report will examine what is known about effective technical and nontechnical approaches, the state of the art and open challenges, why relatively little progress has been made in cybersecurity despite the recom- mendations of many reports from the Academies and elsewhere, and potential policy responses. Much of the material will be drawn directly from previous reports. The committee will also review emerging issues and new technical and nontechni- cal approaches that may not have been covered in previous National Research Council reports.

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgment of Reviewers This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its pub- lished report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Steven Bellovin, Columbia University, RuthAnne Bevier, California Institute of Technology, Jack Goldsmith, Harvard Law School, Raymond Jeanloz, University of California, Berkeley, Anita Jones, University of Virginia, Butler Lampson, Microsoft Corporation, and Steven Wallach, Convey Computer Corporation. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many construc- tive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the con- clusions, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Sam Fuller (Analog Devices). Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for mak- xi

OCR for page R1
xii ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF REVIEWERS ing certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review com- ments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

OCR for page R1
Contents SUMMARY 1 1 WHY CARE ABOUT CYBERSECURITY? 7 1.1  the Meaning and Importance of Cyberspace and On Cybersecurity, 7 1.2 Cybersecurity and Public Policy Concerns, 10 1.3 Organization of This Report, 17 2  SOME BASICS OF COMPUTING AND COMMUNICATIONS 18 TECHNOLOGY AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE FOR CYBERSECURITY 2.1 Computing Technology, 18 2.2 Communications Technology and the Internet, 21 2.3 Information Technology Systems, 27 3 ON THE NATURE OF CYBERSECURITY 29 3.1  the Terminology for Discussions of Cybersecurity and On Public Policy, 29 3.2 What It Means to Be an Adversary in Cyberspace, 31 3.2.1 Cyber Exploitation, 31 3.2.2 Cyberattack, 32 3.2.3  Important Commonality for Exploitation and An Attack, 35 3.3 Inherent Vulnerabilities of Information Technology, 35 xiii

OCR for page R1
xiv CONTENTS 3.4 The Anatomy of Adversarial Activities in Cyberspace, 40 3.4.1 Cyber Penetration, 41 3.4.2 Cyber Payloads (Malware), 46 3.4.3 Operational Considerations, 48 3.5 Characterizing Threats to Cybersecurity, 49 3.6 Threat Assessment, 52 4 ENHANCING CYBERSECURITY 53 4.1 Approaches to Improving Security, 53 4.1.1 Reducing Reliance on Information Technology, 53 4.1.2 Knowing That Security Has Been Penetrated, 54 4.1.3 Defending a System or Network, 57 4.1.4 Ensuring Accountability, 62 4.1.5 Building a Capacity for Containment, Recovery, and Resilience, 69 4.1.6 Employing Active Defense, 71 4.2 Nontechnological Dimensions of Cybersecurity, 75 4.2.1 Economics, 76 4.2.2 Psychology, 77 4.2.3 Law, 81 4.2.4 Organizational Purview, 85 4.2.5 Deterrence, 86 4.3 Assessing Cybersecurity, 88 4.4 On the Need for Research, 90 5 TENSIONS BETWEEN CYBERSECURITY AND OTHER 93 PUBLIC POLICY CONCERNS 5.1 Economics, 93 5.1.1 Economic Approaches to Enhancing Cybersecurity, 93 5.1.2 Economic Impact of Compromises in Cybersecurity, 96 5.2 Innovation, 98 5.3 Civil Liberties, 100 5.3.1 Privacy, 100 5.3.2 Free Expression, 101 5.3.3 Due Process, 102 5.4 International Relations and National Security, 103 5.4.1 Internet Governance, 103 5.4.2 Reconciling Tensions Between Cybersecurity and Surveillance, 104 5.4.3 Norms of Behavior in Cyberspace, 106

OCR for page R1
CONTENTS xv 5.4.4 Managing the Global Supply Chain for Information Technology, 111 5.4.5 Role of Offensive Operations in Cyberspace, 113 6 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION 116 6.1 Findings, 116 6.2 Conclusion, 124 APPENDIXES A Committee Members and Staff 129 B Bibliography 132

OCR for page R1