Playing Politics with Cybersecurity

For most people, hackers and malware are nefarious entities intent on compromising their PCs and mobile devices, and perhaps stealing some login credentials or financial details. A successful attack can be quite frustrating,--or even devastating—on a personal level, but nobody gets killed and the world goes on.

When it comes to the critical infrastructure of the nation, though, the stakes get higher. The critical infrastructure is called “critical” for a reason. An executive order signed by President Clinton in 1996 defines “critical infrastructure” as: “Certain national infrastructures are so vital that their incapacity or destruction would have a debilitating impact on the defense or economic security of the United States.”

The critical infrastructure includes things like the electrical power grid, natural gas and petroleum pipelines, nuclear power facilities, water treatment plants, railways and highways. A successful attack that destroyed or shut down any of these things for a significant amount of time could wreak havoc on the nation.

The SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) systems that drive and control much of the critical infrastructure are archaic, legacy systems that are simply not designed with security in mind. SCADA systems used to be on separate, isolated networks that provided some inherent degree of security by obscurity. As these legacy systems are connected to and managed through the Internet, though, they are increasingly at risk.

Richard Clarke, former White House advisor on cybersecurity, has expressed concerns over evidence that China is actively probing and hacking the United States power grid. Clarke pointed out in The Wall Street Journal, "The only point to penetrating the grid's controls is to counter American military superiority by threatening to damage the underpinning of the U.S. economy. Chinese military strategists have written about how in this way a nation like China could gain an equal footing with the militarily superior United States."

Clark isn’t the only one sounding the alarm. Security experts have been pointing out the inherent weaknesses of the nation’s critical infrastructure for years.

SCADA software developed in China was recently discovered to contain vulnerabilities that could be used to remotely exploit SCADA devices. Also, the Stuxnet virus recently made headlines because it was designed specifically to target and disable SCADA devices controlling an Iranian nuclear facility. SCADA is a weak link in the effort to protect the critical infrastructure.

When it comes to fending off viruses, Trojans, phishing scams, and other malicious attacks against you and your PCs and mobile devices, all you really need is a solid cross-device security platform kept up to date to detect and block and threats. Protecting the critical infrastructure of the entire nation is another story.

Legislation aimed at strengthening the nation’s critical infrastructure defense has stalled out. The Cybersecurity Act of 2012 is essentially dead in the water after stiff opposition from Republicans. Opponents feel the bill gives too much power to the Department of Homeland Security and adds unnecessary government regulations that would get in the way of running businesses efficiently.

Perhaps this particular legislation isn’t the way to go, but opponents better have a suitable alternative to put on the table. It would be ironic for an attack to cripple our electricity, contaminate our water supply, or shut down our natural gas supply while elected officials bicker about how—or if—we should strengthen our protection of the critical infrastructure.

Subscribe to the Security Watch Newsletter

Comments