Latest in Cybersecurity
The GCHQ’s disclosure of the “BlueKeep” vulnerability offers an opportunity for the U.S. to learn from how the British handle the question of vulnerabilities equities.
In the past two years, a number of companies have invoked international law justifications to decline to make their products available to states that, in their view, will use those products to violate international law.
It’s not clear whether criminal charges against hackers deter foreign adversaries, but they are still valuable.
How do we measure cybersecurity? Two new products—one from BSA/the Software Alliance and the other from the Department of Homeland Security—provide some new insights that are worthy of study.
On Tuesday, Associate Deputy Attorney General Sujit Raman delivered the following remarks to the ABA Rule of Law Initiative annual conference in a speech entitled “The Rule of Law in the Age of Great Power Competition in Cyberspace.”
The French report is a cautious survey of how to manage government regulation of speech in the new platform era, while the Christchurch Call is a high-level pledge to prevent the abuse of an open internet.
CYBERCOM is maturing rapidly thanks to developments including a new presidential memorandum, the most-recent National Defense Authorization Act, and Gen. Nakasone’s persistent-engagement and defending-forward operational concepts.
There are lots of ways to cover tech platforms, but the past few decades have shown that the techniques most effective at moving law and policy forward take time and a scientific rigor.
I don’t disagree with much that Alexei Bulazel, Sophia d’Antoine, Perri Adams and Dave Aitel wrote on Huawei and risk mitigation, and endorse almost all of their argument.
Information attacks, whether they’re attempts to polarize political processes or to increase mistrust in social institutions, involve a series of steps. And enumerating those steps will clarify possibilities for defense.