At first glance, transparency seems like an unequivocal virtue. It fosters trust among member nations, reassures the public, and demonstrates NATO’s commitment to openness. However, when dealing with military operations, the equation becomes more intricate. Operational security (OPSEC) demands that certain details remain confidential to protect troops, strategies, and capabilities.
Brig. Gen. Gunnar Bruegner, assistant chief of staff at NATO’s Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, aptly captures this dilemma. He acknowledges the need for transparency but recognizes that it cannot come at the cost of compromising operational effectiveness. Striking the right balance is akin to walking a tightrope: one misstep and the consequences could be dire.
Steadfast Defender involves a series of military maneuvers across NATO member countries, with Poland hosting a crucial leg. The exercise aims to test NATO’s readiness and interoperability. While NATO wants to showcase its capabilities, it must also be cautious not to reveal too much. The elephant in the room is Russia—a nation that views NATO exercises as a direct threat.
Recently, a leak in Germany added fuel to the fire. Discussions about potentially supplying Ukraine with Taurus missiles were intercepted by Russian intelligence. The audio from a web conference provided insights into missile supply plans and operational scenarios. Suddenly, the fine line between accountability and information security became starkly visible.
Russia closely monitors NATO’s activities. For them, Steadfast Defender isn’t just a routine exercise; it’s a signal. As NATO briefs the media and the public, it must tread carefully. The challenge lies in providing a bigger picture without inadvertently revealing critical details. The delicate dance continues.
NATO’s caution stems from the lessons learned during the war in Ukraine. The conflict highlighted the importance of protecting sensitive information. Russia’s hybrid warfare tactics—combining conventional military actions with cyberattacks and disinformation—underscore the need for robust OPSEC.
So, how does NATO navigate this minefield? Here are some considerations
Selective Transparency: NATO can be transparent about overarching goals, the importance of collective defense, and the commitment to deterrence. However, specific operational details should remain classified.
Secure Communication Channels: Ensuring secure communication channels during exercises and discussions is crucial. Encryption, secure video conferencing, and strict protocols can minimize leaks.
Educating Personnel: Every NATO member, from high-ranking officials to soldiers on the ground, must understand the delicate balance. Training programs should emphasize the importance of OPSEC.
Public Perception Management: NATO needs to manage public perception effectively. Transparency doesn’t mean revealing every tactical move; it means being accountable and explaining the broader context.
We are presently experiencing IT/OT convergence, which will reveal new hurdles for both IT and OT divisions to overcome. Site engineers have traditionally overseen operational technology with an emphasis on reliability and stability. However, as OT systems become more integrated, these two worlds must start functioning as a single entity. The panorama of industrial cyber risks changed in 2010. Since Stuxnet targeted crucial supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems, which immediately gained attention on a global scale.
Humans can operate and manage an industrial facility utilizing computer systems employing OT, which consists of programmable logic controllers (PLCs), intelligent electronic devices (IEDs), human-machine interfaces (HMIs), and remote terminal units (RTUs). These systems are linked to sensors and devices on the site, which could be a factory or a power plant.
Industrial control systems are a common name for this set of process control equipment (ICSs). These technologies allow hackers to act based on what they see on the screen, in addition to providing information to them. Operational technologies have always been created with safety and availability in mind, but with relatively minimal care for cyber security. This is a significant contrast between OT and IT.
Stuxnet: What is it?
As per reports, Stuxnet influenced countless rotators at Iran's Natanz uranium advancement office to wear out. Afterward, different gatherings modified the infection to explicitly target foundations like gas lines, power stations, and water treatment offices. It is assessed that the US and Israel cooperated to make the malware.
Industrial facilities have possibly "air-gapped," demonstrating that there is no connection between the organization inside the office and the organizations outside. This postures one of the obstructions in arriving at these regulators. A portion of the world's richer countries has figured out how to get around this countermeasure, regardless.
Iran benefited from the assault
"The attack by Stuxnet opened the world's eyes to the idea that you can now design cyber weapons that can harm real-life target" said Mohammad Al Kayed, director of cyber defense at Black Mountain Cybersecurity. You could gain access to a nation's whole infrastructure and, for instance, turn off the electricity. In just this manner, Russia has twice attacked Ukraine.
Iran gained from the hack that the appropriate tool stash can likely be utilized to target ICS. It likewise noticed the power of those assaults. Somewhere in the range of 2012 and 2018, specialists saw an ascent in cyberattacks against Saudi Arabian modern offices as well as those of different nations nearby.
"A virus program called Shamoon was one example. Three distinct waves of the virus have struck Saudi Arabian industrial facilities. The original version affected a few other businesses and Saudi Aramco. In a few years, two new variants were released. All of them exploited Saudi Arabian petrochemical firms and the oil and gas sector" stated Al Kayed. Saudi Arabia was a target since it has numerous manufacturing plants and sizable oil production operations. It is Iran's rival in the area and a political superpower.
Connecting OT and IT invites vulnerability
When ICS is connected to an IT network, hacks on those systems are even simpler. By exploiting the IT network first, malicious actors can remotely attack OT assets. All they need to do is send an expert or employee who isn't paying attention to a phishing email. When industrial control systems are connected to an IT network, attacks on those systems are even easier.
Al Kayed proceeds, "Anybody can bounce into designing workstations and other PC frameworks inside a modern site. Now that they understand how one can remotely put the malware on such modern control frameworks. Although they don't at first need to think twice about designing workstations at the office, there is a method for doing so because it is connected to the corporate organization, which is in this manner connected to the web. You can move between gadgets until you show up at the ideal design workstation in the petrochemical complicated or the power plant. "
Saudi government takes measures
The targeted nation can acquire the necessary skills, possibly repair the weapon used against it, and then go after another target. Saudi Arabia, which has numerous manufacturing plants, is the nation in the area with the main threat on its front. Therefore it makes sense that the Iranians exploited what they had learned to strike its strongest rival in the region.
However, the Saudi government is acting to stop similar attacks from occurring again. The National Cyber Security Authority (NCA) created a collection of legislation known as the Essential Cybersecurity Controls (ECC), which are required cyber security controls, to stop the attack type mentioned above. One of the only nations in the area having a security program that goes beyond IT systems is Saudi Arabia right now. It has also taken into account the dangers to OT infrastructure.
Guidelines for ICS security
The protection of industrial control systems is currently a global priority. A thorough set of recommendations for defending industrial technology against cyber security risks was released in 2015 by the US National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). Four important lessons can be learned from the attack on Iran and the ensuing attacks on Saudi Arabia: