Weaponized Malware, Physical Damage, Zero Casualties – What Informal Norms Are Emerging in Targeted State Sponsored Cyber-Attacks?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Weaponized malware, physical damage, zero casualties – what informal norms are emerging in targeted state sponsored cyber-attacks? The dynamics beyond causation: an interpretivist-constructivist analysis of the US media discourse regarding offensive cyber operations and cyber weapons between 2010 and 2020 Margarita Sallinen Thesis, 30 ECTS (hp) War Studies Master’s Programme in Politics and War Autumn 2020 Supervisor: Jenny Hedström Word count: 17968 1 Abstract In 2010, the discovery of the malicious computer worm Stuxnet shocked the world by its sophistication and unpredictability. Stuxnet was deemed as the world’s first cyber weapon and started discussions concerning offensive cyber operations – often called “cyber warfare” – globally. Due to Stuxnet, rapid digitalisation and evolving technology, it became vital for decision makers in the US to consider formal norms such as laws, agreements, and policy decisions regarding cyber security. Yet, to obtain a holistic understanding of cyber security, this thesis uses constructivism as its theoretical framework to understand changing informal norms and social factors including the ideas and morals of the US society regarding offensive cyber operations. This thesis critically analyses the discourse of three of the largest US newspapers by circulation: the New York Times, the Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. A significant shift was discovered in the US media’s publications and in informal norms regarding offensive cyber operations and the use of cyber weapons in just one decade, by comparing the discourses relating to Stuxnet in 2010 and the US presidential election in 2020. This thesis concludes that it is equally important to consider ideas and morals when researching a technical field such as cyber security by arguing that informal norms guide the choices actors make when developing formal norms at the international level. The findings of this thesis are intended to provoke a normative, urgent, and focused discussion about cyber security. The findings are also intended to shift attention to how language is used in discussions about the cyber sphere, offensive cyber operations and cyber weapons as components of the traditional battlefield. Key words: constructivism, critical discourse analysis, cyber operations, cyber security, cyber warfare, cyber weapons, interpretivism, informal norms, media, war studies 2 Acknowledgements I wish to extend my deepest gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Jenny Hedström for her helpful contributions and guidance throughout the writing process. I would also like to express my sincerest gratitude to Assistant Professor of War Studies Kristin Ljungkvist and Associate Professor Ilmari Käihkö for their helpful advice and practical suggestions. I wish to also gratefully acknowledge the help I received from Dr. Lars Nicander, the head of Center for Asymmetric Threat Studies (CATS) at the Swedish Defence University, for his constructive criticism, encouragement and invaluable insight into cyber security. I am also very grateful to my mother Larisa Sallinen for giving me the opportunity to study this master’s degree. Lastly, I want to thank my loving fiancé Michael Daw for his profound belief in my work and who supported me throughout this entire process. 3 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 6 1.1 Key words .................................................................................................................... 8 1.2 Research question and aim ........................................................................................ 11 1.3 Limitations of the study ............................................................................................. 13 1.4 Disposition ................................................................................................................. 14 2 Previous research ........................................................................................................... 15 2.1 Technical discourse ................................................................................................... 15 2.2 Cybercrime and cyber espionage ............................................................................... 15 2.3 National security and critical infrastructure protection ............................................. 16 2.3.1 Cyber war is real ................................................................................................ 16 2.3.2 Cyber war is a metaphor ..................................................................................... 18 2.4 Guidelines .................................................................................................................. 20 2.5 Summary previous research ....................................................................................... 21 3 Theory ............................................................................................................................. 23 3.1 Constructivism ........................................................................................................... 23 3.2 Five key features of constructivism ........................................................................... 24 4 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 25 4.1 Interpretivism ............................................................................................................. 25 4.2 Method ....................................................................................................................... 26 4.2.1 Critical discourse analysis .................................................................................. 26 4.2.2 Choice of material .............................................................................................. 27 4.2.3 Newspaper articles ............................................................................................. 28 4.2.4 Data collection .................................................................................................... 29 4.3 Reflexivity ................................................................................................................. 33 5 Empirics .......................................................................................................................... 34 5.1 News articles 2010 ..................................................................................................... 34 5.2 News articles 2020 ..................................................................................................... 35 5.3 Authors of the news articles ...................................................................................... 36 6 Analysis and results ........................................................................................................ 37 6.1 Ideas ........................................................................................................................... 37 6.1.1 Cyber warfare ..................................................................................................... 37 6.1.2 Cyber weapons ................................................................................................... 40 6.1.3 Objectives ........................................................................................................... 42 6.1.4 Future predictions ............................................................................................... 43 6.2 Morals ........................................................................................................................ 46 4 6.2.1 Actors – the Self and Others .............................................................................. 46 6.2.2 Retaliation .......................................................................................................... 49 6.3 What is not said? ........................................................................................................ 50 7 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 51 8 Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 53 9 Future research .............................................................................................................. 56 References ................................................................................................................................ 57 5 1 Introduction In 2010, Iran’s uranium enrichment facility at Natanz suffered from malfunctions that caused hundreds of the centrifuges to spin and burn out. The controls failed to signal to the scientists of the substantial damage sustained by the centrifuges. The damage inflicted was caused by one of the most prominent malwares known at the time called Stuxnet – a targeted weaponized malicious software. While the incident resulted in no casualties, Stuxnet inflicted significant physical damage to Iran’s nuclear facility and its nuclear program (Dunn-Cavelty, 2019, p. 420). It was concluded that the cyber-attack was state-sponsored due to the sophistication and aggressiveness of Stuxnet. However, no official statement has ever been made and it seems plausible that the state(s) involved in this attack was either the US or Israel, or both (Lindsay, 2013, pp. 365-366). The sophistication