Cyberwarfare / Nation-State Attacks,
Fraud Management & Cybercrime
Trump Presidential Memo a Risky Proposition for Corporations and the Internet
Supporters of a recent White House initiative aimed at integrating the private sector into offensive cyber operations against foreign crime syndicates acknowledge significant risks involved. These risks not only threaten participating corporations but also pose broader implications for the global internet landscape.
A National Security Presidential Memorandum, endorsed by President Donald Trump, grants permission for U.S. government-contracted companies to engage in “cyber surveillance and cyber effects operations” against foreign “cyber-enabled transnational criminal organizations,” all while remaining under the “direction, control and oversight of the federal government.” This initiative is seen as a response to growing frustration regarding the government’s ongoing struggles to combat rampant cybercrime.
In a pointed observation, former White House cyber official and current Columbia University Professor Jason Healey remarked on LinkedIn about the persistence of these challenges, comparing the elusive success in cyberspace to historical military failures in Vietnam and Afghanistan.
Rich Mozeleski, a product manager at cybersecurity firm Huntress, expressed a duality of views held by cybersecurity professionals. He emphasized that while there is enthusiasm for the initiative, the paramount directive of protecting customers cannot be forgotten. “The ability to go attack the enemy is real nice to have, but we can’t forget our first mandate,” he stated, highlighting the risks involved in this new strategy.
Mozeleski carries a unique perspective as both a major in the U.S. Army Cyber Reserve and a professional in a cybersecurity firm that caters to small businesses. “In my day job, I see all of this cybercrime affecting small businesses and real people,” he explained, feeling limited in proactive measures. However, when he dons his military uniform, he accesses a broader arsenal of tools aimed at tackling attacks from nation-state threats.
Despite the ambitious 60-day timeline mandated in the presidential memo for the program’s design and implementation, Mozeleski predicted a more extended timeframe for any observable outcomes. He discussed the complexities involved in developing a system to relay classified intelligence to companies while ensuring that operations do not inadvertently endanger critical infrastructures, such as hospitals.
The memorandum specifically dictates that potential private sector operations target transnational criminal organizations that do not maintain close ties to nation-state adversaries. “This is not hacking back,” emphasized Marcus Sachs, a veteran of the Department of Defense and current chief engineer at the Center for Internet Security. He likened the initiative to a modern form of bounty hunting since it delineates targets that are outside the infrastructure of enemy nations.
Legal advisors in the private sector are sounding alarms regarding liability. Sachs asserted that companies must secure robust legal protections to shield themselves from potential repercussions. “The internet is so interconnected that disrupting an adversary may lead to unintended consequences across the network,” he noted, drawing parallels between civilian infrastructure and insurgent tactics.
Adding further nuance to the dialogue, Edward Amoroso, a seasoned cybersecurity executive, warned of potential blowback from other nations. “If other nations reciprocate, we could be laying the groundwork for commercial cyber-privateering,” he cautioned, referencing the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence that could enable quicker and more cost-effective offensive operations.
Beyond the legal and operational challenges, the feasibility of actual collaboration between the private sector and government intelligence agencies is projected to be a complex endeavor. Retired Air Force officer Lance Spencer stressed that classified intelligence would be difficult to share effectively. Given that access is usually limited to those on a “need to know” basis, operational transparency within organizations will be a hurdle.
The presidential memorandum suggests that participating corporations must keep their involvement confidential. However, as Spencer noted, the adversaries targeted by the cyber operations also have a say in how they will respond and what information they might disclose. This duality raises concerns about potential backlash against private entities involved in government-sanctioned operations.
Sachs reiterated that at the end of the day, the decision to participate in this program will hinge on each company’s risk tolerance. “Nothing in here is compelling a company to do anything,” he concluded. Companies may weigh their legal and reputational risks against the potential rewards and decide against participation entirely, while others may find enough incentive to proceed.