Back to news

June 13, 2019 | Local, Security, Other Defence

Canada should think again about having the ability to use offensive cyber weapons: Expert

Canada's electronic spy agency will soon get new authority to launch cyber attacks if the government approves legislation that is in the final stages of being debated. There's a good chance it will be proclaimed before the October federal election.

But a discussion paper issued Wednesday by the Canadian Global Affairs Institute says Canadians need to debate the pros and cons of using this new power.

“This direction not only opens up new possibilities for Canadian defence, it could also represent significant new risks,” says the report. “Without good answers to the difficult questions this new direction could raise, the country could be headed down a very precarious path.”

Among the possible problems: Cyber retaliation. Another: While Canada might try to target a cyber attack, the impact might be bigger than expected — in fact, it might boomerang and smack us back.

Third is the lack of international agreement on the use of cyber weapons (although this is a double-edged sword: Without an agreement there are no formal limits on what any country is forbidden from doing in cyberspace).

“To move forward at this point to implement or even formally endorse a strategy of cyber attack would be risky and premature,” concludes the report's author, computer science professor Ken Barker, who also heads the University of Calgary's Institute for Security, Privacy and Information Assurance. “There are challenging technical controls that must be put in place as well as a critical international discussion on how cyber weaponry fits within the rules of war.”

Barker's paper is in response to the 2017 strategy setting out Defence Department goals, where the possibility of Canada having a cyber attack capability first raised. It wasn't written with Bill C-59 in mind — now in its final stage before Parliament — which actually gives Canada's electronic spy agency, the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), the power to use what's called “active” as well as defensive cyber operations.

In an interview Tuesday, Barker said “in the desire to push this thing they need to have more carefully thought about the questions I raise in this paper.”

“Maybe it's late, but at least it's available.”

He dismisses the argument that by announcing it has an offensive cyber capability Canada will cause other countries to think twice about attacking us with cyber weapons. “They would attempt to find out what Canada is doing to create cyber attack capabilities,” he argued.

“One of the risks once we do endorse this,” he added, “is we open ourselves up to other countries to using Canada as a launching pad for cyber attacks to cover up their involvement, and [then] say ‘That was done by Canada.'”

Nation states are already active in cyberspace. Ottawa has blamed China for the 2014 hack of the National Research Council, Washington suspects China was behind the massive hack of employee files at the Office of Personnel Management, and there is strong evidence that Russia mounted a sophisticated social media attack against the U.S. during the 2016 federal election.

According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, The U.S. the U.K. and Australia say they have used offensive cyber operations against the Islamic State. The U.S.-based Council on Foreign Relations notes that Germany increased its offensive cyber capability after a 2016 attack on the country's legislature blamed on Russia. Last year the New York Times reported the U.S. Cyber Command has been empowered to be more offensive. Meanwhile in April the CSE warned it's “very likely” there will be some form of foreign cyber interference during the run-up to October's federal election here,

The most commonly-cited interference in a country were two cyber attacks that knocked out electrical power in Ukraine — in December 2015 and again in December 2016 — largely believed to have been launched from Russia.

All this is why some experts say Canada has to have an offensive cyber capability to at least keep up. In January, Ray Boisvert, former assistant director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), told a parliamentary committee that “the best defence always begins with a good offense ... “When more than five dozen countries are rumoured to be developing active cyber capabilities, in my view that means we must develop capabilities to respond and in some cases that includes outside our borders.”

Background

In 2017 the Trudeau government announced a new defence strategy that included the promise of “conducting active cyber operations against potential adversaries in the context of government-authorized military missions.”

The same year the government introduced Bill C-59, which in part would give the CSE, which is responsible for securing government networks, the ability to take action online to defend Canadian networks and proactively stop cyber threats before they reach systems here. This would be done as part of new legislation governing the CSE called the Communications Security Act.

That act would give CSE the ability to conduct defensive and “active” cyber operations. Active operations are defined as anything that could “degrade, disrupt, influence, respond to or interfere with the capabilities, intentions or activities of a foreign individual, state, organization or terrorist group as they relate to international affairs, defence or security.”

Both defensive and active cyber operations can't be used against any portion of the global information infrastructure within this country. And they have to be approved by the Minister of Defence.

C-59 has been passed by the House of Commons and slightly amended by the Senate. It was scheduled back in the House last night to debate the Senate amendments.

Despite all the cyber incidents blamed on nation states, Barker is reluctant to say we're in an era of low-level cyber war right now. Many incidents can be characterized as cyber espionage and not trying cause harm to another state, he argues.

https://www.itworldcanada.com/article/canada-should-think-again-about-having-the-ability-to-use-offensive-cyber-weapons-expert/418912

On the same subject

  • Title Publication Date	Department	News type Teaser Minister Blair meets with U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III 2024-05-13 17:27:20National Defencenews releases Today, the Honourable Bill Blair, Minister of National Defence, met with United Sta

    May 13, 2024 | Local, Land

    Title Publication Date Department News type Teaser Minister Blair meets with U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III 2024-05-13 17:27:20National Defencenews releases Today, the Honourable Bill Blair, Minister of National Defence, met with United Sta

    The Honourable Bill Blair, Minister of National Defence and the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, will visit Montréal on May 15, 2024 to discuss Our North, Strong and Free: A Renewed Vision for Canada’s Defence at the Montreal Council on Foreign Relations.

  • Pénurie de pilotes : le casse-tête des forces armées canadiennes

    December 7, 2018 | Local, Aerospace

    Pénurie de pilotes : le casse-tête des forces armées canadiennes

    Les conclusions du rapport du vérificateur général soulignant une pénurie de pilotes militaires au Canada résonnent particulièrement au Manitoba, où la formation initiale des pilotes des Forces armées canadiennes est donnée et supervisée. Un texte de Pierre Verrière Il est difficile de parler de l'Aviation royale canadienne sans évoquer le Manitoba. Pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, les pilotes de tout le Commonwealth venaient y suivre leur formation avant d'être déployés en Europe. Depuis 1992, la troisième École de pilotage des Forces canadiennes située à Portage-la-Prairie, à une heure de Winnipeg, assure la formation de base des pilotes canadiens. Enfin, c'est à Winnipeg qu'est situé le quartier général de la 2e Division aérienne du Canada, responsable de l'instruction des pilotes. Or, ce sont justement ces pilotes qui font gravement défaut, selon le vérificateur général du Canada. Ce dernier met notamment l'accent sur les pilotes de chasse. Selon le vérificateur, il en manque plus du tiers pour satisfaire aux exigences opérationnelles. Parmi les raisons évoquées, on compte le rythme auquel les pilotes quittent l'aviation, qui est plus rapide que celui auquel elle peut en former de nouveaux. Entre avril 2016 et mars 2018, l'Aviation royale canadienne a ainsi perdu 40 pilotes de chasse qualifiés et en a formé seulement 30 nouveaux. Ce problème n'est cependant pas nouveau ni étranger pour les responsables de la formation des pilotes. Article complet: https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1139188/penurie-pilotes-forces-armees-canadiennes-manitoba

  • Feds closing in on winning bidder for $60-billion warship project

    September 25, 2018 | Local, Naval

    Feds closing in on winning bidder for $60-billion warship project

    By BEATRICE PAEZ Some industry observers say there are rumblings that the multibillion-dollar announcement on the Canadian Surface Combatant could happen in a few weeks' time, but Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says he hopes a decision will be announced on the design by 'the end of the year.' Ottawa could be close to settling on the winning bid for the $60-billion procurement of multi-purpose vessels that will form the backbone of the Canadian Navy, with rumours swirling that a decision could come in a few weeks' time, although Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says the government will announce it by the end of the year. Some industry observers have heard rumblings that the multibillion-dollar announcement on the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) project, the biggest procurement in the federal government's history, could happen as early as the upcoming defence and aerospace convention in Halifax, otherwise known as DefSec, slated for Oct. 2-4. Asked if the government plans to announce the winner in Halifax, Byrne Furlong, press secretary to Mr. Sajjan (Vancouver South, B.C.) said, the minister would be attending the convention as he does every year. Mr. Sajjan, in an interview with The Hill Times earlier this month said, the preferred bidder will be named by the end of the year. “We wanted to make sure that we gave industry enough time so that the right bid process is done correctly and we're hoping that by the end of this year, we will be able to make the announcement and a selection will be made on the design,” Mr. Sajjan said in a phone interview on Aug. 29. Three companies are competing to help deliver 15 warships over the next 25 years. Those ships will eventually replace Canada's aging fleet, namely, the 12 Halifax-class frigates and the four Iroquois-class destroyers, which have been decommissioned. In its entirety, the CSC project is estimated to cost between $56-billion and $60-billion. The cure process—a chance for the contenders to adjust their bids to fit the government's criteria—wrapped up in July. “I don't expect there to be another cure process. I think they've got a decision ready to go,” said Brian Botting, principal at Earnscliffe Strategy Group. He added there are rumours suggesting the “evaluation has been completed, and it's a matter of getting the right announcement put together,” while noting that the chance of there being an announcement is 50-50. Mr. Botting is a defence-industry consultant, whose client, Naval Group, submitted a bid outside the competitive process. The bid was rejected. DefSec is a major attraction in defence circles, and unveiling the winner in that venue would be a good play, from a communications perspective, Mr. Botting said. Still, one observer said that Mr. Sajjan's noncommittal response on the precise timing of the announcement leaves the department some wiggle room. Dave Perry, vice-president and senior analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said he'd be surprised if the government had chosen a winner by then. The preferred bidder will work with Irving Shipbuilding, which won a separate competition to build the 15 ships in the company's Halifax shipyard. Three vessels in the running Three bidders are competing to supply the ships' design: a coalition that includes shipbuilder BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, and L3 Technologies; Alion Science and Technology; and Navantia, a state-owned corporation in Spain. Mr. Botting said that BAE Systems' Type 26 frigate appears to have an edge over the other two companies, thanks to the support it enjoys in the navy ranks, “There's a lot of supporters of Type 26 in the navy. It's not that much different than what the royal navy operates on. ... We tend to have a strong focus on submarine warfare, which this ship operates as.” Type 26 is under construction in the U.K. for its navy and would be the first of its class. Construction under the CSC program is expected to start in the mid-2020s. That the navies of Canada and the U.K. face similar environments and needs makes for a compelling case in Type 26's favour, even in the face of criticism that BAE and Lockheed Martin's offer is still a design on paper, according to Mr. Botting. In addition to landing a contract with the U.K., BAE was also selected by Australia to build a new generation of warships. Multiple requests for an interview with Lockheed Martin's executive were declined. A company spokesperson touched base with The Hill Times briefly on background. In contrast, one of Alion's biggest selling points, as characterized by the company's chief operating officer, Bruce Samuelson, is that the company's offer is a “proven, off-the-shelf design” and does not carry the risks of going with a new design. Unlike its competitors, Alion is not in the business of making products, but rather it takes a “vendor-agnostic” approach as an integrator. That means that, as the designer and engineering firm, Alion works to select the different components, from the sensors to the combat-management system, which make up the ship through what's available in the marketplace. “The reason you'd buy straight off the shelf is like going to a car lot and buying a car. You know exactly what you're getting,” said Mr. Samuelsen. “Why do you change it a little bit? Because you have slightly different needs, but you really want to take advantage of what everyone else has done for that car.” The anchor to its overall design is the De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate, which has been in service in the Dutch navy for more than a decade. Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding, the Netherlands-based company, has had experience tucking under another shipyard to produce its design, said Mr. Samuelsen. The winning subcontractor will have to work with Irving. When the warship is eventually built it will resemble a mini-city. The ship has to have the trappings of a town: there has to be a functional sewage system, provide food, shelter, medical care, and at the same time, it has to be built to respond to the hostile environment that is the ocean, said Mr. Samuelsen. Navantia's proposal, which is a partnership with Saab Australia and CEA Technologies, is also based on an existing model, the F-105 frigate. Seven are in service with the Spanish and Australian navy, and there are five “smaller variants” in the Norwegian navy, according to the company. In an email response to The Hill Times, Emiliano Matesanz Sanz, the company's business development manager, said Navantia is in the “best position to face the challenging task of working with the local industry,” given that it has operated in a similar scenario as the one set up under the CSC project. Its ship was built in a new shipyard in Australia, by ASC. Two frigates have, so far, been delivered, Mr. Matesanz Sanz said. (Navantia initially agreed to a phone interview, but said due to the sensitivity of the file, an email Q&A was the only possible option.) The government had initially stated a preference for a mature design—one that was already in operation in a NATO country, for example—to mitigate the risks of cost overruns that could, for example, tie up production. But the government appeared to have been convinced by the team behind Type 26 to consider its bid because it changed the parameters for considering bids, said Mr. Botting. Due to inflation, for every year of delay, the program is projected to cost $3-billion or more, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. If going with an untested design carries more risks, why would Canada potentially sweep those concerns aside? Part of the answer lies in the argument that while there isn't a “physical ship in the water” yet, Type 26 stands to have “some of the most modern technology,” said Mr. Perry. The chance to hold the intellectual property rights to the design is also cited as a possible point in its favour. “People would make the argument that if you have a ship that hasn't sailed and been tested yet, you can offer up the IP, because you don't have an understanding of what its full value is. Whereas if you have something that's more of a known quantity, you can put whatever premium you want on it,” he added. Conflict-of-interest concerns flared up in late 2016 when it was announced that Irving Shipbuilding planned to work with BAE Systems to bid on a $5-billion contract to provide maintenance and support for Arctic patrol vessels and resupply ships, according to a CBC report, while BAE was pursuing the CSC project that Irving is involved in overseeing. Both Irving and Ottawa said at the time that they have taken steps to ensure the process is fair. Mr. Perry dismissed conjectures that suggest changes to the bidding process have been made with the “explicit goal” of giving Type 26 the upper hand. “I don't think that's accurate. Because that's not the way the procurement system is set up. What the government has done is to try and make this environment as competitive as possible,” he said. “But you can never totally level the playing field. ... Some bids are always gonna be better than others in different respects.” Billed as the most-complex, most-expensive procurement on record in Canadian history, CSC, and more broadly, Canada's shipbuilding strategy, has raised questions about whether the country has chosen the right approach in preserving its shipbuilding culture over working to develop the high-tech side of the business. “We protected the lower-tech end of the business and not the higher-tech [end]. All the missile systems, sensors, all that stuff is being imported and assembled at the Irving yard,” Mr Botting said. “It's a different way of approaching it. The U.K. is slowly getting out of that business, but it's painful when you close down a yard.” https://www.hilltimes.com/2018/09/24/feds-closing-winning-bidder-60-billion-warship-project/169844

All news