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

September 3, 2019 | Local, Aerospace

Airbus se retire de la course pour remplacer les CF-18 canadiens
Par LEE BERTHIAUME La division Airbus Defence and Space, en partenariat avec le gouvernement britannique, était l'une des quatre entreprises qui devaient selon toute vraisemblance soumissionner pour ce contrat de 19 milliards portant sur la construction des 88 nouveaux avions de chasse qui doivent remplacer les CF-18 vieillissants de l'Aviation royale canadienne. Mais dans un communiqué publié vendredi, Airbus annonce qu'elle a informé le gouvernement canadien de sa décision de retirer de la course son « Eurofighter Typhoon » pour deux motifs — déjà évoqués par ailleurs avant même le lancement officiel de l'appel d'offres en juillet. Le premier motif concerne l'obligation pour les soumissionnaires de préciser comment ils comptent s'assurer que leurs avions pourront s'intégrer au réseau canado-américain ultra-secret de renseignement, connu sous le nom de « Two Eyes », qui est utilisé pour coordonner la défense commune de l'Amérique du Nord. Airbus conclut que cette exigence fait peser « un coût trop lourd » sur les avions qui ne sont pas américains. Le géant européen explique qu'il aurait été tenu de démontrer comment il envisageait d'intégrer son Typhoon au système « Two-Eyes » sans même connaître les détails techniques de ce système ultra-secret de renseignement. Le deuxième facteur a été la décision du gouvernement libéral de modifier la politique qui obligeait traditionnellement les soumissionnaires à s'engager légalement à investir autant d'argent dans des produits et activités au Canada que ce qu'ils tirent des contrats militaires décrochés. En vertu du nouveau mécanisme, les soumissionnaires peuvent plutôt établir des « objectifs industriels » et signer des accords non contraignants promettant de tout mettre en œuvre pour les atteindre. Ces soumissionnaires perdent des points dans l'appel d'offres, mais ils ne sont plus écartés d'emblée de la course. Les États-Unis soutenaient que la politique précédente violait un accord signé par le Canada en 2006 pour devenir l'un des neuf pays partenaires dans le développement du F-35 de Lockheed Martin. Or, cet accord prévoit que les entreprises des pays partenaires se feront toutes concurrence pour obtenir des contrats en sous-traitance. Deuxième retrait Dans son annonce, vendredi, Airbus soutient que la nouvelle approche ne valorise pas suffisamment les engagements contraignants qu'elle était prête à offrir et qui constituaient l'un de ses principaux arguments. La ministre des Services publics et de l'Approvisionnement, Carla Qualtrough, a défendu à nouveau l'approche de son gouvernement dans ce dossier. Dans une déclaration écrite publiée après l'annonce du retrait d'Airbus, elle a estimé que cette nouvelle approche « assurera une participation maximale des fournisseurs ». « Notre gouvernement priorise les retombées économiques solides dans ce projet, a soutenu Mme Qualtrough. Nous sommes convaincus que cet investissement soutiendra la croissance de la main-d'œuvre canadienne hautement qualifiée dans les industries de l'aérospatiale et de la défense pour les décennies à venir et créera d'importantes retombées économiques et industrielles dans l'ensemble du pays. » Airbus devient la deuxième entreprise à retirer son chasseur de l'appel d'offres canadien, après le retrait du « Rafale » de la société française Dassault en novembre dernier. Il ne reste plus maintenant comme prétendants que le « F-35 » de Lockheed Martin, le « Super Hornet » de son concurrent américain Boeing et le « Gripen » du suédois Saab. Boeing et Saab ont déjà exprimé leurs préoccupations au sujet de la nouvelle politique en matière d'exigences industrielles, affirmant que ces changements ne profiteront pas aux contribuables et à l'industrie canadienne de l'aérospatiale et de la défense. Les entreprises devraient soumettre leurs offres l'hiver prochain et le contrat final doit être signé en 2022 ; le premier avion ne sera pas livré avant au moins 2025. Les gouvernements fédéraux successifs s'emploient à remplacer les CF-18 depuis plus de dix ans. Selon le porte-parole conservateur en matière de défense, James Bezan, le retrait d'Airbus prouve que le gouvernement libéral a mal géré tout ce dossier pendant son mandat — notamment en attendant quatre ans avant de lancer l'appel d'offres promis en campagne électorale en 2015. « Alors que d'autres pays ont choisi des avions de combat en moins de deux ans, le bilan du premier ministre Justin Trudeau en matière d'achats militaires en est un de retards et d'échecs », a estimé M. Bezan. Le gouvernement conservateur précédent avait annoncé en 2010 un plan pour acheter des F-35 de Lockheed Martin sans appel d'offres, mais il y a renoncé deux ans plus tard à la suite de préoccupations concernant les coûts et les capacités de ce chasseur furtif. https://www.lapresse.ca/affaires/entreprises/201908/30/01-5239279-airbus-se-retire-de-la-course-pour-remplacer-les-cf-18-canadiens.php
February 10, 2020 | Local, Naval

Irving to receive $58 million for 'minimal' changes to new Coast Guard ships
DAVID PUGLIESE, OTTAWA CITIZEN Irving is receiving $58 million from taxpayers to make what the federal government calls minimal changes to an existing ship design so it can be used by the Canadian Coast Guard. Irving is in the midst of building a fleet of six Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) for the Royal Canadian Navy and will add two more in the production line for the coast guard. The addition of two ships for the coast guard, announced by the federal government in May, was supposed to be cost-effective as the design of the vessel was completed and the ships were in the process of being built. But documents recently tabled in Parliament show the government entered into a $58-million contract with Irving for engineering design work on the AOPS that would ensure the coast guard's vessels “can meet regulatory and operational requirements.” The coast guard has determined that only minimal modifications are required to the ships to meet its needs as well as any regulatory requirements, according to documents provided to Parliament as the result of a question from Conservative MP Lianne Rood. “The modifications have been assessed as minimal as none of the identified modifications will impact major elements of the AOPS design and construction,” Bernadette Jordan, the minister of Fisheries, Oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard, stated in her written response. But critics are questioning why taxpayers are spending $58 million if the changes are so limited. “That's a very expensive tweak,” said Aaron Wudrick, the federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. “We'd like see some clarity from the government on what could possibly justify such an increase in the price tag.” Each AOPS is estimated to cost around $400 million. The coast guard originally looked at the AOPS in 2017-2018 but decided against acquiring the ship, industry representatives noted. But the Liberal government announced in May 2019 that two AOPS would be bought for the coast guard. One of the benefits of the purchase is to prevent layoffs at Irving as there is expected to be a gap between when the shipyard finishes the navy's AOPS and when it starts working on replacements for the navy's frigates. Tom Ormsby, director of communications for Irving, said the first step for the firm is to fully review the AOPS design and then confirm any modifications that are needed to be made for the coast guard. “Once modifications have been agreed to, these changes must then be worked through and implemented into the design,” he noted. “While not making major changes that a first-in-class design would require, the Canadian Coast Guard has a different and critical mission, including the need for scientific laboratories for sampling and research, so each vessel is being tailored to suit the Canadian Coast Guard's unique and important role.” The government only pays for actual costs incurred, he added. Irving will also receive an additional $18.8 million to purchase some initial equipment for the vessels as well as reimbursement for project management. The contract to Irving on the design changes was signed Nov. 1, 2019 and is to end March 31, 2021. Areas of change include modifications to the bridge layout and accommodations to meet Transport Canada requirements for a non-military crew, as well as changes to some areas to accommodate coast guard equipment and modifications to the deck, Jordan noted in her response to Parliament. The main portions of the ship, including the hull and propulsion systems, will remain unchanged, she added. The AOPS program was launched by the Conservative government with a minimum of five ships for the navy. The Liberal government approved the construction of a sixth AOPS for the navy and two for the coast guard But retired Liberal senator Colin Kenny, who served on the Senate defence committee, questions the value of the AOPS for either the navy or coast guard. Kenny noted he is also concerned about the engineering contract. “These changes shouldn't cost $58 million,” Kenny said. “I think it's questionable as to why we are even buying these ships.” In 2017 the Senate Defence Committee raised concerns about the capabilities of the AOPS. Among the issues identified by the committee was the slow speed of the AOPS and its limited ability to operate in ice-covered waters. “These limitations are troubling and raise the question of whether the taxpayers are receiving value for the monies spent,” the Senate report said. The Department of National Defence expects the delivery of the first AOPS by the end of March although it acknowledges there is a possibility that may not happen. The delivery of the vessel has already been delayed a number of times. The navy expects its last AOPS to be delivered by 2024. After the navy vessels are built, construction will begin on the AOPS for the coast guard, the federal government has said. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/irving-to-receive-58-million-for-minimal-changes-to-new-coast-guard-ships
June 13, 2018 | Local, Land

Rheinmetall lifts curtain on new next-gen combat vehicle with hopes to spark US Army interest
PARIS, France — Rheinmetall lifted a curtain, literally, complete with smoke and 80s rock, on its new Lynx KF41 infantry fighting vehicle at Eurosatory June 12, setting its sights on meeting requirements for both European and U.S. future combat vehicles. “Do current fighting vehicles meet the needs of future forces? This was the question that started Rheinmetall on a journey to develop a Lynx family of vehicles,” Ben Hudson, the head of the company's vehicle systems division, said at Eurosatory just ahead of the unveiling. Hudson said militaries around the world are rethinking requirements and it is clear that in order to meet all the demands of future operations and potential peer-on-peer conflict that a vehicle needs “to provide utility across the spectrum of conflict” and have “the ability to conduct peer-on-peer warfare against emerging battlefield threats.” The U.S. Army has set developing a Next-Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) as one of its top six modernization priorities. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/eurosatory/2018/06/12/rheinmetall-lifts-curtain-on-new-next-gen-combat-vehicle-with-hopes-to-spark-us-army-interest/

All news