Konstantin Goloskov says additional Nashi youth involved in Estonia cyber attacks

Last Updated on Wednesday, 11 March 2009 12:39 Written by admin Wednesday, 11 March 2009 11:54

Konstantin Goloskov acknowledged his role in the Estonia cyber attacks of 2007 early on, however now that State Duma Deputy Sergei Markov has revealed that his assistant launched the attack, Goloskov apparently feels OK about revealing that more of his Nashi colleagues were involved.

The Pro-Kremlin Nashi youth movement have direct ties with key Kremlin advisors and the endorsement of President Medyedev and Prime Minister Putin. It is also financed by the Kremlin who, ironically, has cut their budget for FY 2009. The Nashi won’t be going away anytime soon however:

According to sources within President Vladimir Putin’s administration, “the movement is not to be disbanded in full because the powers-that-be know better than that.” The group will also retain some financial backing. However, authorities aren’t planning on using Nashi for political purposes or mass-demonstrations any longer, and the movement will instead focus on more specific social projects.

The Nashi summer camp Innovation Forum was held on the same weekend as the first cyber attack was launched against Georgian President Saakashvili’s Web site. Sergei Markov attended.

Connect the dots.

UPDATE: As much as I’d like to confirm that the “administration” who cut Nashi’s funding is the Kremlin, a more careful read of the source materials cannot confirm that. It remains likely, but not confirmed, pending more research.

Sergei Markov says he knows who started the Estonia cyber war

Last Updated on Friday, 6 March 2009 02:46 Written by admin Friday, 6 March 2009 02:46

… it was his assistant!

A new blog post for Ekho Moskvy makes a startling revelation about the 2007 attacks. The post, by journalist Nargiz Asadova — a columnist for RIA Novosti based in Washington, and an Ekho Moskvy host — describes a March 3 panel discussion between Russian and American experts on information warfare in the 21st century.

Asadova, who was moderating the discussion, asked why Russia is routinely blamed for the cyberattacks in Estonia and Georgia, where government sites were seriously disrupted during the August war.

She might not have been expecting the answer she got from Sergei Markov, a State Duma Deputy from the pro-Kremlin Unified Russia party: “About the cyberattack on Estonia… don’t worry, that attack was carried out by my assistant. I won’t tell you his name, because then he might not be able to get visas.”

Markov, a political analyst who has long been one of Vladimir Putin’s glibbest defenders, went on to explain that this assistant happened to be in “one of the unrecognized republics” during the dispute with Estonia and had decided on his own that “something bad had to be done to these fascists.” So he went ahead and launched a cyberwar.

“Turns out it was purely a reaction from civil society,” Markov reportedly said, adding ominously, “and, incidentally, such things will happen more and more.”

Markov and the Nashi Youth Movement

Apart from Markov’s assistant, the only other person who has confessed his involvement in the Estonia attack was a Commissar of the Nashi, Konstantin Goloskokov.

On July 21, 2008, Sergei Markov attended Nashi’s 2008 ‘Innovation Forum‘, which suffered from a 50% drop in attendance from the year before. Markov commented:

“The first idea was to block a possible Orange Revolution, that’s why last year was so important. Now, they don’t know what to do.”

Perhaps the other cause for Nashi’s doldrums was that in 2007 they were coming off the high of the Estonian cyberwar. Coincidently on July 20, 2008, the day before this Nashi event, anonymous Russian hackers launched a DDOS attack that took the President of Georgia’s website offline.

19 days later, the Nashi doldrums must have vanished when a Russian sea, air, and land assault was launched against Georgia while nationalistic Russian hackers engaged their Georgian counterparts in cyber warfare.

I wonder how many Nashi participated?

Can you have a Cyber War without Kinetic Combat?

Last Updated on Sunday, 21 December 2008 01:49 Written by admin Sunday, 17 August 2008 03:46

There’s been a lot of discussion in the blogosphere about cyber warfare, and a few well-respected folks have pointed to Estonia as the “first” cyber war, including this article in Slate: “Cyberwar I: What the attacks on Estonia have taught us about online combat” and Chris Diehl’s “Crowdsourcing Cyberwar”.

Well, apart from this being a factual error (Russia’’s first use of cyber warfare was in 2002 in Chechnya, not 2007 in Estonia), it prompted me to wonder about how we use the term. What constitutes a cyber war versus a cyber attack? Must force-on-force combat accompany or immediately follow a cyber attack in order for it to be called “cyber warfare”?

These same questions were raised in 2001 by a Congressional Research Service report to Congress entitled “Cyberwarfare“. Unfortunately, no answers were forthcoming at that time.

In 2007, a new CRS report was issued: “Information Operations, Electronic Warfare, and Cyberwar: Capabilities and Related Policy Issues“. According to this latest report, cyber warfare falls under Information Operations (IO):

DOD information operations are actions taken during time of crisis or conflict to affect adversary information, while defending one’s own information systems, to achieve or promote specific objectives.

This categorization implies that military operations have already commenced. I tend to agree with this position; i.e., that a cyber attack during or immediately in advance of military operations can properly be called cyber warfare, whereas a cyber attack sans military operations cannot. This would disqualify the cyber attack against Estonia in 2007 from being called “cyber warfare” unless Russian tanks were rolling across Estonia’s borders while simultaneously launching a network attack, which clearly was not the case.

If an act of cyber warfare were to be defined as an act that may occur without accompanying military operations, then China’s cyber operations against the U.S. during Titan Rain and afterward should qualify. As I write this, India is experiencing Chinese cyber attacks on its networks and considers them threats to their national security (h/t The Dark Visitor). But is it warfare?

(f) Cyber War and Cyber Terrorism in India
India is also suffering from the menaces of cyber war and cyber terrorism. Nobody cares about any these threats in India. Far more citizens were concerned of the Amarnath issue than by potential risks of nuclear conflict, or near-breakdowns in Net and mobile security. China’s intensified cyber warfare against India is becoming a serious threat to national security. In October 2007, Chinese hackers defaced over 143 Indian websites. In April 2008, Indian intelligence agencies detected Chinese hackers breaking into the computer network of the Ministry of External Affairs forcing the government to think about devising a new strategy to fortify the system. As a countermeasure, the Indian armed forces are trying to enhance their C4ISR capabilities, so that the country can launch its own cyber offensive if the need arises. Similarly, Pakistan is taking steps to intensify its cyber war propaganda against India with the help of its intelligence outfit, the ISI by carrying reports of alleged communal fissures taking place on the Indian side of Kashmir. Issues like these have to be resolved as well.

In my view, this is an important issue that deserves a lot more attention then its getting. Not only do we need to define what cyber warfare is and isn’t, and then use the term with discretion, but the United States particularly needs to re-examine how to fight a cyber war in light of China and Russia’s model.