Cyber warfare has been defined as actions employed by a nation to sabotage or de
ID: 3840983 • Letter: C
Question
Cyber warfare has been defined as actions employed by a nation to sabotage or destroy the computer resources of another nation. The video on Stuxnet discussed how malware is used for cyber warfare by targeting specific systems and geographical boundaries to launch attacks. You heard about the high sophistication and complexity of the malware. The malware was out in the wild for one year without anyone detecting its presence. This opens a new era in the application of malware for cyber warfare. Is it acceptable to create malware to stop activities that threaten national security? Why? Could there be any consequences associated with this? Please explain. If malware is created to defend a nation from these types of attacks, are there any legal ramifications? What would they be? Explain. Also, discuss whether you think it’s appropriate to make these attacks public. Why or why not? Explain the consequences of allowing the public to have knowledge of the workings of these software.
Explanation / Answer
ANSWER:
Yes, it is acceptable to create malware to stop activities that threaten national security.
Malware can be created, tested and used as a defense mechanism in case of a threat to nation. In this era of cyber world, everything thing is dependent on Internet and computers, from booking a table in restaurant to paying your monthly credit card bills, or buying a car or stocks to selling your house. All government organizations are dependent on various activities within the department. Hence, if a cyberwar situation arises it will not be only programming of nuclear weapons but everything is our day to day life will get affected. Hence, to protect the nation from such things also we will need to malware to demolish the enemy's intention.
When using the malware for counter attack it will destroy the cyber world of the enemy country, all the programmed weapons can be de-programmed before the attack actually takes place. As what Stuxnet did, malware can be used to destroy systems which controls the weapon. Malwares can be used as digital weapons in this era of cyberwar.
Such attacks should be ethical with the correct intention and used to defend oneself and the country rather than with the intention to harm others. According to Law, a crime is committed if a person “does any act which causes an unauthorized modification of the contents of any computer” and the perpetrator intends to “cause a modification of the contents of any computer” which may “impair the operation of any computer”, “prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer” or “impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data”. So such malwares within the country should be banned.
No, it's not appropriate to make these attacks public. Making these attacks public will lead to a substantial increase in number of cybercrimes. These attacks should not be made public, privacy is a must. Making these attacks public will alert the enemy on the same. Making these attack public will give birth to many hackers trying to counter attack such malwares intentionally, unintentionally or may be just curiosity. Also, if someone or a group is successful in replicating such malwares they can misuse and cause harm.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.