Eric Gartzke writing in International Security argues that attackers don’t have much motive to stage a Pearl Harbor-type attack in cyberspace if they aren’t involved in an actual shooting war.
Here is his argument:
It isn’t going to accomplish any very useful goal. Attackers cannot easily use the threat of a cyber attack to blackmail the U.S. (or other states) into doing something they don’t want to do. If they provide enough information to make the threat credible, they instantly make the threat far more difficult to carry out. For example, if an attacker threatens to take down the New York Stock Exchange through a cyber attack, and provides enough information to show that she can indeed carry out this attack, she is also providing enough information for the NYSE and the U.S. Government to stop the attack.
Cyber attacks usually involve hidden vulnerabilities — if you reveal the vulnerability you are attacking, you probably make it possible for your target to patch the vulnerability. Nor does it make sense to carry out a cyber attack on its own, since the damage done by nearly any plausible cyber attack is likely to be temporary.
Points to ponder:
- Most attacks are occurring against well known vulnerabilities; systems that are unpatched
- Most attacks are undetected and systems are “pwned” for weeks/months
- The disruption caused when attacks are discovered are significant both in human and cost terms
- There was little logic in the 9/11 attacks other than to cause havoc and fear (i.e., terrorists are not famous for logical well thought out reasoning)
Coming to commercial systems, attacks are usually for monetary gain. Attacks are often performed because “they can” [Remember George Mallory famously quoted as having replied to the question “Why do you want to climb Mount Everest?” with the retort “Because it’s there”].