UConn-Pitt Study Examines Cyber Security Motivation

STORRS, CT — A recent University of Connecticut/University of Pittsburgh study indicates that taking credit for cyber attack depends on the goal of attacker.

And the motivation to claim credit for a cyber attack on a government or institution depends on both the goals of the attack as well as the characteristics of the attacker, according to one of the first studies into the voluntary claiming of cyber security operations that is co-authored by a UConn political scientist.

The type of attacker – whether a state or a non-state actor such as a terrorist group – determines if credit is claimed for a cyber attack and how it is communicated, according to the study, “Rethinking Secrecy in Cyberspace: The Politics or Voluntary Attribution,” forthcoming in the Journal of Global Security Studies. Co-authors of the study are Evan Perkoski, assistant professor of political science at UConn, and Michael Poznansky, assistant professor of political science at University of Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Public Affairs.

Among the findings in the study:

• Both states and non-state actors face similar decisions in the lifecycle of a cyberattack, yet the characteristics of each can cause their strategies to diverge, “particularly with the optics of credit claiming.”
• While most research treats cyber operations as distinct from more traditional elements of state power, states “may be able to leverage their cyber assets to achieve many of the same goals most frequently pursued with conventional forces.”
• The decision to privately, or publicly, acknowledge sponsorship of an attack may provide “crucial information about both their motives and identity.”

Perkoski says the alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election fits into the study’s findings. Russian operatives reportedly hacked into the Democratic National Committee computers to obtain emails from the Hillary Clinton campaign and then used social media trolls to sway public opinion toward Donald J. Trump’s campaign.

“Russia wouldn’t get as many benefits from claiming their operation,” he says. “They’re not looking to get attention for their message or cause. They’re really looking to influence the way events might unfold. Because it’s unclear, it makes it hard for the U.S. to take a hard stance against them. Perkoski says that in developing the study, a distinction was drawn between cybercrime and cyberblackmail because “they are inherently different forms of cyber operations with different goals in mind.”

FOR MORE INFORMATION SEE: https://today.uconn.edu/2018/05/claiming-credit-cyberattacks/

Photo Credit: UConn