Enter your details below and we'll get back to you.
Share this article
Talking to a well-respected and hitherto successful businessman at an event recently, he mentioned the NotPetya malware attack and then dismissed it as “another one of these spotty teenagers misbehaving – something I leave to my technical boys”. It was very clear from his comments that his perception of cyber risk is that it is, at most, peripheral. I will not identify his business out of courtesy, but I would have said he is likely to be a pretty high value target, and is probably custodian of a huge amount of valuable information belonging to 3rd parties.
One of the most striking things about the recent series of global cyber attacks is what appears to be a subtle shift in motivation for some of these events…. Whilst the analysis continues and our understanding will continue to develop, there is a clear shift in some of these attacks from cyber banditry to strategic attack. Whilst this is not necessarily a new phenomenon, it is now something that should be understood as mainstream operational risk by those running organisations.
Even if we set aside many of the practical and technical implications (which are widely covered elsewhere), the moment we become part of a strategic target, valuable for our collective value, rather than as an individual target, valuable for our own intrinsic value, then we can expect to see a very different attack tempo. Where attacks are motivated by anarchy rather than theft, the rules change significantly. When the rules change, our response may need to change too.
This shift is analogous to the evolution of the doctrine of asymmetric warfare over the past two decades where it has become clear that the fundamental differentiator is not the way that protagonists behave, but the fundamental value set and drivers that shape their strategy, behaviours and decisions. If, for example, our security strategy is based on the assumption that we can remain safe by creating conditions which are too unsafe for a potential attacker, we become vulnerable to attackers who either care little for safety, or perhaps define it differently to us. This, of course, is the paradigm that underpins suicide bombing as an attack strategy in the physical and space.
Where does this leave us?
As individuals and organisations, we need to think a little about those who might seek to compromise us and what drives them. It is no longer viable to dismiss these attackers as vandals those who behave badly; just as it is no longer sensible to repeatedly hit the “update later” button when our machines ask us whether we would like to update them. Senior decision makers dismiss cyber security as something purely for the technicians to manage at their peril.
Wherever we sit in society or in the workplace, we all need to make a little effort to understand a little about the digital environment and how to stay safe in it. Specifically, we need to think a little about those who may be using this environment to exploit us or do us harm. Whether we read e-books, tablets, hardbacks or red tops – there is material out there to suit most tastes. If that fails there are increasing numbers of people and companies who are able to advise.
Whilst we are not all expected to be experts, we should all have an informed view that is consistent with our role!
The environment we live and survive in is changing, and we either embrace that changing environment, and take responsibility for our own safety, or we should expect to be exploited as a a commodity.