Critical Terminology Foundations 2 - Cybersummit

Critical TerminologyFoundations 2Russia-U.S. Bilateralon Cybersecurity

CRITICAL TEMINOLOGY FOUNDATIONS 2Russia-U.S. Bilateral on CybersecurityCriticalTerminologyFoundations 22James B. Godwin III, Andrey Kulpin,Karl Frederick Rauscher and Valery YaschenkoChief Editors2

CRITICAL TEMINOLOGY FOUNDATIONS 2The Russia-U.S. Bilateral on Cybersecurity – Critical Terminology Foundations, Issue 2The principle editors of this document are:James B. Godwin III, Andrey Kulpin, Karl Frederick Rauscher and Valery YaschenkoCover artwork by Dragan StojanovskiISBN No. 978-0-9856824-4-6Copyright 2014 EastWest Institute and the Information Security Institute of Moscow State UniversityThe EastWest Institute seeks to make the world a safer place by addressing the seemingly intractableproblems that threaten regional and global stability. Founded in 1980, EWI is an international, nonpartisan organization with offices in New York, Brussels, Moscow and Washington. EWI’s track recordhas made it a global go-to place for building trust, influencing policies and delivering solutions.The EastWest Institute11 East 26th Street, 20th FloorNew York, NY 10010 .info4Information Security Institute was founded as a separate department of Moscow State University (MSU)in 2003. The Institute’s main aim is to coordinate the research activity on information security at MSU.For more information about the Information Security Institute, please contact:Information Security InstituteMoscow State UniversityMichurinskiy prospeky, 1Moscow, Russia, 1191927 495 932-8958iisi@iisi.msu.ruwww.iisi.msu.ru4

!ForewordISince our first report was issued, both countries and the world have witnessedan increasing need for new “rules of the road” for cyberspace. Ultimately, theessential building blocks for any international agreements are words thatconvey the same meaning to each party involved. The challenge of cyberspaceis unlike any other in history in the degree of its complexity, the speed of itsadvance and the number of key concepts that are often beyond the grasp ofnon-technically trained diplomats.Our institutions were fortunate to once again have at the helm for this study aworld-class team of science, technology, engineering and mathematics(STEM) professionals integrated with stakeholders with military, policy andlegal training. This report, based on work from our nations’ superb teams in aTrack 2 process, has yielded another 20 terms.CRITICAL TERMINOLOGY FOUNDATIONS 2n June 2013, Presidents Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama signed a historicagreement to begin cooperation on cybersecurity. The mutualunderstanding developed through previous work by our institutions todefine critical terminology for cyber conflict helped prepare the way forthat agreement. There is increasing international attention to the importanceof ongoing definitional work in cyber, including that of the 2012 United NationsGroup of Governmental Experts (GGE).We present this report as a small but important step in making the world asafer place for all of us.5!John Edwin MrozVladislav P. SherstyukPresident & CEOEastWest InstituteDirector, Information Security InstituteMoscow State University

CRITICAL TERMINOLOGY FOUNDATIONS 26To those pioneers of theRusso-American relationshipduring the last half century,who have avoided anunspeakable conflict.

!PrefaceWIn 2011, the EastWest Institute together with the Information Security Institute ofMoscow State University took an initiative and led a much needed discussion. As aresult, 20 terms were established through our initial bilateral negotiations andpublication in April 2011. Building on then-established collaborative relationship, thejoint team reinitiated the discussion in 2013, to further define critical terms. While theinitial negotiations were bilateral in nature, the overriding intent is for these efforts tobecome multilateral by expanding negotiations to other nations that seek to create aconsensus on what has clearly been an ill-defined and unstructured arena.The two teams have contributed greatly both in their individual compilations, bilateralnegotiations, collaborations, and, most importantly, in the ever growing trustingrelationship that has developed from our initial efforts in 2011. While this reportsuperficially represents 20 additional agreed terms, the robust, substantive andongoing nature of these negotiations is building on the foundation, required forrecurring bilateral discussions beyond the bounds of terminology to establishaccepted worldwide standards in the cyber and information domains.This set of terms was presented at the fourth World Cyberspace Cooperation Summitin Silicon Valley, USA, in November 2013, as an addendum to the original document.As these terms serve as a foundation and catalyst for multilateral efforts, we welcomeand encourage comments, opinions and suggestions that could improve them.Our intention is to make these efforts an ongoing and expanding universe of agreedterms without defining a scope or set of limitations. Join us in this journey!RADM (ret.) J.B. Godwin IIILeader, US ExpertsPresident, BriteWerx, Inc.& Senior FellowEastWest InstituteAndrey KulpinLeader, Russia ExpertsDirector, International CenterInformation Security InstituteMoscow State UniversityCRITICAL TERMINOLOGY FOUNDATIONS 2ith the increasing frequency of cyber incidents, unattributableaccusations within and outside of borders, and expanding use of networksto probe systems worldwide, there is an ever growing need to check theescalation of these intrusions and establish norms by which we canmultilaterally agree. Specifically, the fundamental tenets of a common set of languagecontinued to rise to the surface of any conversation as the worldwide rhetoric hascontinued to escalate in the cybersecurity domain.7

Contributors1Russian FederationVladimir Ivanov, EastWest InstituteSergey Komov, Information Security Institute*Andrey Kulpin, Information Security InstituteAlexey Salnikov, Information Security InstituteAnatoly Streltsov, Information Security InstituteCRITICAL TERMINOLOGY FOUNDATIONS 2Valery Yaschenko, Information Security InstituteUnited States of AmericaMerritt Baer, Merritt Rachel Baer, LLC, and EWI Senior Fellow **Charles (Chuck) Barry, National Defense UniversityJohn S. Edwards, Digicom, Inc.*J. B. (Gib) Godwin III, RADM (ret.), BriteWerx, Inc. and EWI Senior FellowStuart Goldman, Bell Labs Fellow (ret.) and EWI Senior FellowLuis Kun, National Defense University**Paul Nicholas, Microsoft Corporation*James Bret Michael, U.S. Naval Postgraduate School*Jack Oslund, George Washington University (ret.)8Karl Frederick Rauscher, former CTO, EastWest Institute and Bell Labs Fellow*Issue I contributors only**Issue II contributors onlySpecial appreciation is expressed here for Nadiya Kostyuk for her broad research and translation supportfor the !

!AcknowledgementsSpecial recognition and sincere appreciation is here expressedto Anatoly Safonov, Vladislav Sherstyuk, Andrey Krutskikh and John Edwin Mroz,for their foresight and encouragement of such Track 2 Russo-American cooperative efforts onthe most challenging global security problems;and finally, to our wider community of respective stakeholder confidants in Moscow,Washington, D.C. and around the world, whose appreciation for innovation in Track 2engagements ensures the work’s long-term value.CRITICAL TERMINOLOGY FOUNDATIONS 2to Vartan Sarkissian and Vladimir Ivanov,for their vision and persistence in opening the door for this opportunity;9

1 IntroductionThe time is way over due for clear, agreed-upon cyberspace terms and policies.Indeed, there is unacceptable chaos regarding the meaning of even the mostbasic terms—cyberspace, cyber war and cyber attack. Given the seriousnessof security breaches in cyberspace over the last several years, it is wellreasoned to believe that, at any time, the interpretation of one of these terms could bea watershed in determining whether or not a certain cyber action would result inintensified or violent escalation.CRITICAL TERMINOLOGY FOUNDATIONS 2Russia and the United States form the ideal partnership for an initiative to generatethe initial momentum toward a useful taxonomy. Among other factors, both countriesare respected for their competence in the field and managing the nuclear tensions ofthe modern age and interests that promote worldwide stability, prosperity and peace.10This document is a tangible step forward toward clarifying the taxonomy of cyberconflict. It is intended to serve as a catalyst for multilateral collaboration on thesubject matter.Objectives and ImportanceThree objectives were set for this bilateral engagement. The first objective was toopen genuine dialogue between subject matter experts and stakeholders from bothcountries. The second objective, built on the first, was to develop deeperunderstanding of each other’s perspectives. The third objective was to establishconsensus around initial definitions of critical terms for cyber and informationsecurity.2 This taxonomy is submitted for consideration, review and improvement, sothat the terms can be refined and used to help enable eventual formal agreementsbetween the two countries, and as a reference for other nation-states.3 The first twoobjectives were met, as is evidenced from the contents of this report. Time is neededto determine the achievement toward the third objective.4The motivation for embarking on a joint effort to define cybersecurity terminology isquite clear. Many experts and stakeholders around the world feel that the time forinternational agreements, or “rules of the road,” is long overdue.5 For the Americanson the team, this Track 2 initiative was seen as a fulfillment of new policy forcyberspace. The 2009 White House Cyberspace Policy Review outlined severalpriorities for the United States, naming international cooperation as its seventh Dallas,!May!2010.