Centre for Internet and Society

The Evolving Cyber Threat and How to Address It

praskrishna — 2013-11-18T10:49:15Z

Larry Clinton, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Internet Security Alliance will give a talk on cyber threat and how to address the same. The talk will be held at the office of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore on November 22, 2.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m.

The talk will broadly cover the following:

Using Public-Private Partnerships to Enhance Cyber Security
Ongoing Threat of Cyber-attacks Must be Fought on Both a Technical and Economic Basis
Targeted Education's Critical Role in Cyber security
Combating the Persistent Cyber Security Threat in the Manufacturing Industry / Cyber Security Threats to the Supply Chain
Economics of Cyber Security

Larry Clinton

Larry Clinton is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Internet Security Alliance (ISA). ISA is a multi-sector trade association with membership from virtually every one of the designated critical industry sectors. The mission of the ISA is to combine advanced technology with economics and public policy to create a sustainable system of cyber security.

Mr. Clinton is regularly called upon to testify before both the U.S. House and Senate. In 2008, ISA published its Cyber Security “Social Contract,” which is both the first and last source cited in the Executive Summary of President Obama’s “Cyberspace Policy Review” (click here for report). This report also cited more than a dozen of ISA’s white papers – far more than any other source. Recently, these ISA documents were also the inspiration for many of the recommendations in the House Republican Cyber Security Task Force Report (click here for report).

Mr. Clinton is known for his ability to take the complicated issues in this space and explain them clearly to a wide range of audiences: professional, policy makers and the general public. He has been featured in mass media such as USA Today, the PBS News Hour, the Morning Show on CBS, Fox News, CNN’s Situation Room, C-SPAN, and CNBC. He has also authored numerous professional journal articles on cyber security. This year he has published articles in the Cutter IT Journal, the Journal of Strategic Security and the Journal of Software Technology (click here for a full list of articles and other ISA news appearances).

The ISA’s pro-market, incentives-based approach to cyber security, rather than regulation, is outlined in its numerous publications, including the ISA Cyber Security Social Contract and Financial Management of Cyber Security series, which were written by the ISA Board of Directors and edited by Mr. Clinton (click here for the full list of ISA Publications).

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/evolving-cyber-threat-and-how-to-address-it

Bali meet to discuss Internet governance issues

praskrishna — 2013-10-23T08:29:23Z

Four-day event hosted by Internet Governance Forum to also discuss Internet access and diversity, privacy, security.

This article by Moulishree Srivastava was published in Livemint on October 22, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Representatives of governments around the world, technology executives and activists will discuss issues such as Internet access and diversity, privacy, security, inter-governmental corporation, and Internet governance at a four-day event hosted by the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that begins on Tuesday in Bali, Indonesia.

J. Satyanarayana, secretary, ministry of communications and information technology, confirmed India’s participation in the forum and said the country would be represented by Dr Govind, a senior director and head of department, e-infrastructure and Internet governance division, department of information technology.

“We will also be taking part in a working group on Internet governance and enhanced cooperation, which will be convened by the United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development in November,” said Satyanarayana.

“IGF is a valuable learning forum wherein different stakeholders can discuss Internet governance policy issues without any antagonism. Other fora for Internet policy like ICANN, WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization), ITU (International Telecommunication Union), etc., are places where international law and policy are developed, and do not allow for such learning because negotiations are always very acrimonious. Since IGF is only meant for learning, it does not directly address the global policy vacuum that exists for cyber crime, data protection and privacy,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, who will be participating in the Bali event.

“Indian government, private sector, civil society, technical and academic community can become more competent and effective through such a dialogue in other multilateral and multi-stakeholder fora where international Internet standards, policies and laws are formulated. It also helps the stakeholders contribute to the development of internationally interoperable domestic policy,” he added.

In 2006, the UN secretary general established a small secretariat in Geneva to assist him in the convening of IGF. The first meeting was convened in October-November 2006 in Athens. In December 2010, IGF’s mandate was extended for five years.

In its eighth edition, IGF will have detailed discussions on issues such as free flow of information on the Internet, regulatory approaches to privacy, and protection of interests of individuals and communities in cyberspace, Internet surveillance and legal framework for cyber crime, said the forum in a statement on its website.

During the four-event, for instance, one of the workshops “will explore what core principles and strategies are needed to achieve a balanced and fair approach to data protection that is effective internationally and regionally”, according to IGF.

Some of the prominent speakers in the event include Jari Arkko, chairman, Internet Engineering Task Force, Finland; Virat Bhatia, president, South Asia, AT&T Inc.; Chris Painter, coordinator for cyber issues, US department of state; Karen Mulberry, policy adviser, Internet Society; and Matthew Shears, director of Internet policy and human rights, Center for Democracy and Technology.

According to industry estimates, over 2.5 billion Internet users interact in shared cross-border online spaces where they can post content potentially accessible worldwide.

“No clear frameworks exist yet to handle the tensions between these competing normative orders or values and enable peaceful cohabitation in cross-border cyberspace. This challenge constitutes a rare issue of common concern for all stakeholder groups,” said IGF on its website.

According to a UN estimate, nearly 40% of the world’s population will be online by the end of 2013. “The Internet has become an essential tool for the creation of jobs and the delivery of basic public services,” said the UN undersecretary-general for economic and social affairs, Wu Hungbo, in a statement, adding that it is also essential “for improving access to knowledge and education, for empowering women, for enhancing transparency, and for giving marginalized populations a voice in decision-making processes”.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/livemint-moulishree-srivastava-october-22-2013-bali-meet-to-discuss-internet-governance-issues

Fair process frameworks for cross-border online spaces

praskrishna — 2013-10-21T09:02:02Z

This workshop is being organised by the Internet & Jurisdiction Project, Civil Society of France, Western Europe and Others Group and Internet & Jurisdiction Project, Civil Society of Germany, Western Europe and Others Group. Sunil Abraham is one of the panelists for this workshop.

The Internet Governance Forum 2013 is being held at Bali from October 22 to 25. The overarching theme for the 2013 IGF meeting is: "Building Bridges"- Enhancing Multistakeholder Cooperation for Growth and Sustainable Development".

Read the original published on IGF website. Also read it on Internet & Jurisdiction website.

Theme: Legal Frameworks and Cyber-crime (Spam, Cyber-security, etc.)

This workshop is organized by the Internet & Jurisdiction Project, a global multi-stakeholder dialogue process launched in January 2012, which engages key actors from states, international organizations, companies, civil society, academia and the technical community from all around the world to address the tension between the cross-border Internet and national jurisdictions.

Over 2,5 billion Internet users interact in shared cross-border online spaces where they can post content potentially accessible worldwide. On the one hand platforms’ Terms of Service try to set transnational rules on acceptable postings, but on the other hand content that is legal in one jurisdiction can be illegal or sensitive in other territories. No clear frameworks exist yet to handle the tensions between these competing normative orders or values and enable peaceful cohabitation in cross-border cyberspaces. This challenge constitutes a rare issue of common concern for all stakeholder groups.

Building upon the intersessional work conducted by the Internet & Jurisdiction Project since the 2012 IGF, the roundtable will address the following topics:

Can commonly agreed interoperability procedures ensure fair process in interactions between platforms, public authorities, technical operators and users regarding seizures, content takedowns and access to user data? regarding seizures, content takedowns and LEA access to user data? - See more at: http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/igf2013-workshop/#sthash.q6PQ3uMn.dpuf

How could appropriate multi-stakeholder frameworks be developed?

Note: This roundtable is listed above under the “legal frameworks and cybercrime” track. However it equally touches upon other thematic areas: Human Rights/ Freedom of Expression on the Internet (addressing takedown procedures); Internet Governance Principles (eg. fair process and accountability) and Principles of Multi-Stakeholder Cooperation (the development of mutual frameworks).

Has the proponent organised a workshop with a similar subject during past IGF meetings?

Yes

Indication of how the workshop will build on but go beyond the outcomes previously reached

At the IGF 2012, after a year of interaction with different stakeholders, the Internet & Jurisdiction Project organized two workshops titled: “What is the Geography of Cyberspace?” and “What frameworks for cross-border online communities and services?” These sessions explored the roots of the tension between the Internet and the patchwork of national jurisdictions and examined how to address this common concern. Both these two workshops and the ongoing dialogue facilitated by the I&JProject in 2013 (including several preparatory meetings around the world) confirmed the need to explore how to develop appropriate frameworks to handle the tension in a multi-stakeholder setting. Therefore, the I&J Project will gather involved stakeholders at the 2013 workshop “Fair process frameworks for cross-border online spaces” to discuss the way forward: How could appropriate frameworks be developed and what commonly agreed interoperability procedures could ensure fair process?

Background Paper: No background paper provided

Session Type: Roundtable

Mr. Bertrand De La Chapelle, Internet & Jurisdiction Project, Civil Society, France, Western Europe and Others Group - WEOG

Mr. Paul Fehlinger, Internet & Jurisdiction Project, Civil Society, Germany, Western Europe and Others Group - WEOG

Have the Proponent or any of the co-organisers organised an IGF workshop before?

Yes

The link(s) to the workshop report(s):

Panelists

Please click on biography to view the biography of the panelist:

Fiona Alexander, Department of Commerce, NTIA, Female, Government, United States, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG
Biography
Anne Carblanc, OECD, Female, Intergovernmental Organizations, France, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG
Biography
Elvana Thaci, Council of Europe, Female, Intergovernmental Organizations, France, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG
Biography
Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet & Society, Male, Civil Society, India, Asia-Pacific Group
Biography
Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications, Female, Civil Society, South Africa, African Group
Biography
Carlos Affonso Pereira Da Souza, Fundacao Getulio Vargas, Male, Technical Community, BRAZIL, Latin American and Caribbean Group – GRULAC
Biography
Ross Lajeunesse, Google, Male, Private Sector, United States, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG Biography
Ebele Okobi, Yahoo, Female, Private Sector, United States, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG
Biography
Linda Corugedo Steneberg, European Commission, Belgium, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG
Biography

Agenda

Can commonly agreed interoperability procedures ensure fair process in interactions between platforms, public authorities, technical operators and users regarding seizures, content takedowns and access to user data?
How could appropriate multi-stakeholder frameworks be developed?

Inclusiveness of the Session

The format of the workshop is going to be an open roundtable discussion between a diverse group of stakeholders on the basis of a structured agenda, without formal presentations. Taking stock of the preparatory process with meetings around the world, the participants will be able to discuss the outcomes of the multi-stakeholder dialogue process, explore the components of possible frameworks and how to move forward. The objective is to produce a structured but fluid and dynamic discussion that includes the audience in the debate.

Suitability for Remote Participation

In addition to the remote participation tools provided by the IGF, the session will be covered live on Twitter with a dedicated hashtag and questions can also be submitted through tweets to open the discussion and engage new stakeholders. Moreover, participants of the Internet & Jurisdiction dialogue process around the world will be encouraged to participate remotely in the discussion.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/igf-2013-workshop-42-fair-process-frameworks-for-cross-border-online-spaces

CIS Cybersecurity Series (Part 11) - Anja Kovacs

purba — 2013-10-15T15:25:07Z

CIS interviews Anja Kovacs, researcher and activist, and director of the Internet Democracy, Project as part of the Cybersecurity Series.

"Having the cyber security debate become more and more important was a real challenge for civil society. I think in part because many of us who were focused on human rights aren't necessarily techies. And so, when you have a conversation with a government bureaucrat, and ask questions about the kind of decisions they decided to take, very often they will come up with a technical answer in response. And then, if you don't have that expertise, it is difficult to react. In the meantime though, I think it has become clear that this is one of the biggest issues in the internet field at the moment. It is also one of the big issues that is driving the desires of governments to have a bigger role to play in internet governance. So it is an area that is unavoidable for activists. What has happened slowly is that we have come to realize that the first thing, as in most other areas, is not the technical details, but principles, and those principles are fairly similar to how they are in many other fields." - Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy Project

Centre for Internet and Society presents its eleventh installment of the CIS Cybersecurity Series.

The CIS Cybersecurity Series seeks to address hotly debated aspects of cybersecurity and hopes to encourage wider public discourse around the topic.

In this installment, CIS speaks to Anja Kovacs, director of the Internet Democracy Project. Her work focuses on a wide range of questions regarding freedom of expression, cybersecurity and the architecture of Internet governance as they relate to the Internet and democracy. Anja is currently also a member of the of the Investment Committee of the Digital Defenders Partnership and of the interim Steering Group of Best Bits, a global network of civil society members.

(Bio from internetdemocracy.in)

Internet Democracy Project homepage: http://internetdemocracy.in/

This work was carried out as part of the Cyber Stewards Network with aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-cybersecurity-series-part-11-anja-kovacs

11th India Knowledge Summit 2013

praskrishna — 2013-09-26T07:15:29Z

The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry in India (ASSOCHAM) is organizing the 11th Knowledge Summit 2013 in Hotel Shangri-La, New Delhi on October 14 and 15, 2013. The Centre for Internet and Society is supporting this event.

Click to read the original published by ASSOCHAM here , read the tentative agenda here and the event brochure here.

The lack of a national-level doctrine has created an environment where we are entirely reactive in our cyber posture. Indeed, battlefield transcends physical borders and boundaries. The power of a nation-state is not required to inflict widespread damage to critical infrastructure systems; a single malicious actor can wreak havoc. The starkest difference, however, is that today both the private sector and individual citizens have unprecedented access to a myriad of infrastructure systems that can provide entry into sensitive systems – yet they are largely unaware of, and unaccountable for, their responsibilities in defending them.

As cyber networks rapidly transition from a mere utility to the undercurrent of our entire societal infrastructure, this reliance becomes a vulnerability. The modern Cyber Era demands a national-level doctrine that can be adopted by government agencies, armed forces, private sector organizations and individual citizens alike to establish a collective sense of purpose for our Cyber Security.

The Chamber is providing a forum to bring executive leaders, policymakers and academia together with the scientists and practitioners that intimately understand cyber technology to collaborate and begin a debate about the complex issues.

The time has come when we should consider not only the military impact of the new cyber world, but also what role cyber defense will hold in shaping the future of our country’s economy, education, foreign affairs policies and critical infrastructure initiatives. Only then can our government, industry, and private citizens align under common goals to shape a safe and prosperous future.

ASSOCHAM India's Apex Chamber for Commerce & Industry was set up in 1920. Today the Chamber is proud to have more than 450,000 Companies as it's esteemed Member which includes many of the big global technology companies.

ASSOCHAM is privileged to be a Member of the “Cyber Regulation Advisory Committee” set up by Ministry of Communications and IT, and the Joint Working Group (JWG) on Cyber Security set up by the National Security Council Secretariat, Government of India.

The ASSOCHAM’s flagship program the Annual INDIA KNOWLEDGE SUMMIT, organized since 1999 has been Addressed in the past by Noble Laureates, as the Distinguished ‘Key Note Speaker’ including – Dr. Craig Venter, Sir Harry Kroto, Prof. Aaron Ciechanover, Dr. Raj Reddy, Dr. A P J Abdul Kalam, Dr. Kirsty Duncan, Prof. John A Pickett to name a few.

This year the 11th INDIA KNOWLEDGE SUMMIT is being organized from 14-15 October, 2013 in Hotel Shangri-La, New Delhi.

The Theme for this year’s Summit is “Cyber Era - Securing the Future”.

Registration Fees:

International Delegates: $ 200/- for both days
Indian Delegates: Rs. 5,000/- per day
Students: Rs. 2,000/- per day
The Delegate Registration Fee include:
Tea & Coffee
Copy of Background Paper /
Copy of Workshop Study Material

For more details please contact:

Ajay Sharma, Senior Director, M: 9899188488 , eMail: ajay.sharma@assocham.com
Varun Aggarwal, Joint Director, M: 9910613815 , eMail: varun.aggarwal@assocham.com
Himanshu Rewaria, Executive, M: 9654251077 , eMail: himanshu.rewaria@assocham.com
Sahil Goswami Executive, M: 9871962311 , eMail: sahil.goswami@assocham.com

Corporate Office
The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India
ASSOCHAM Corporate Office, 5, Sardar Patel Marg
Chanakyapuri, New Delhi – 110021
Phone: 46550555 (Hunting Line)
Fax: 01123017008/9

Email: assocham@nic.in

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/eleventh-india-knowledge-summit-2013

CYFY 2013: India Conference on Cyber Security and Cyber Governance

praskrishna — 2013-09-26T06:50:15Z

The Observer Research Foundation in collaboration with the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry is holding the India Conference on Cyber Security and Cyber Governance at the Oberoi Hotel in New Delhi on October 14 and 15, 2013. Sunil Abraham will participate in this event as a speaker.

Click to download the full details in the event brochure.

Shri Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications & Technology will give the inaugural address. Shri Shivshankar Menon, National Security Advisor, Government of India will give the keynote address. Shri Shashi Tharoor, Minister of State, Human Resource Development, Government of India will give the dinner table address on October 14.

On the second day, October 15, Minister Jaak Aaviksoo will give the keynote address and Shri Nehchal Sandhu, Deputy National Advisor, Government of India will give the valedictory address.

List of Speakers

Kapil Sibal, Minister for Communications and Information Technology, India
Shivshankar Menon, National Security Advisor, Government of India
Shashi Tharoor, Minister of State for Human Resource Development, India
Nehchal Sandhu, Deputy National Security Advisor, Government of India
A.P. Shah, Former Chief Justice, Delhi High Court
Arvind Gupta, Director General, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, India
Ashish Chauhan, CEO, Bombay Stock Exchange
C. Raja Mohan, Distinguished Fellow, ORF
Christopher Painter, Office of the Coordinator for Cyber Issues, Department Of State, USA
Dirk Brengelmann, Commissioner for International Cyber Policy, Federal Foreign Office, Germany
Eric H. Loeb, Vice President, International External Affairs, AT&T
Gabriel Siboni, Director, Cyber Warfare Program, Institute for National Security Studies, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Jaak Aaviksoo, Minister of Education and Research of the Republic of Estonia
Jamie Shea, Deputy Assistant Secretary General, Emerging Security Challenges, NATO
Joe Sullivan, CSO, Facebook
John Mallery, Research Scientist, MIT Computer Science & Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, USA
Maurizio Martellini, Secretary General, Landau Network-Centro Volta and IWG Executive Secretary, Italy
Michael Cheatham, Head U.S. Representative Office, Indo-US Science and. Technology Forum, USA
M.M.Oberoi, Indian Police Service, Joint commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, Government of India
Oleg Demidov, The Russian Center for Policy Studies, Russia
Peter Grabosky, Researcher, Australian National University, Australia
Prakash Nagpal, Senior Vice President, Product Marketing and Marketing, Narus
Rajan Mathews, Director General, Cellular Operators Association of India
Ram Narain, Deputy Director General (Security), Department of Telecommunication (DoT), Government of India
Sandro Gaycken, Freie Universität Berlin, Institute of Computer Science, Germany
Sean Kanuck, National Intelligence Officer for Cyber Issues, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, USA
Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
Vijay Madan, Chief Mentor, Tata Teleservices (former Director, C-DOT), India
Vivke Lall, President & CEO, Reliance Industries Limited

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/india-conference-on-cyber-security-and-cyber-governance

The National Cyber Security Policy: Not a Real Policy

bhairav — 2013-09-25T09:49:11Z

Cyber security in India is still a nascent field without an organised law and policy framework. Several actors participate in and are affected by India's still inchoate cyber security regime. The National Cyber Security Policy (NCSP) presented the government and other stakeholders with an opportune moment to understand existing legal limitations before devising a future framework. Unfortunately, the NCSP's poor drafting and meaningless provisions do not advance the field.

This article was published in the Observer Research Foundation's Cyber Security Monitor Vol. I, Issue.1, August 2013.

For some time now, law and policy observers in India have been noticing a definite decline in the quality of national policies emanating from the Central Government. Unlike legislation, which is notionally subject to debate in the Parliament of India, policies face no public evaluation before they are brought in to force. Since, unlike legislation, policies are neither binding nor enforceable, there has been no principled ground for demanding public deliberation of significant national policies. While Parliament’s falling standard of competence has been almost unanimously condemned, there has been nearly no criticism of the corresponding failure of the Centre to invigilate the quality of the official policies of its ministries. Luckily for the drafters of the National Cyber Security Policy (NCSP), the rest of the country has also mostly failed to notice its poor content.

The NCSP was notified into effect on 2 July 2013 by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology – which calls itself DeitY – of the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. As far as legislation and legal drafting go, DeitY has a dubious record. In March 2013, in a parliamentary appraisal of subordinate law framed by DeitY, a Lok Sabha committee found ambiguity, invasions of privacy and potentially illegal clauses. Apprehensions about statutory law administered by DeitY have also found their way to the Supreme Court of India, where a constitutional challenge to certain provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) continues. On more than one occasion, owing to poor drafting, DeitY has been forced to issue advisories and press releases to clarify the meaning of its laws. Ironically, the legal validity of these clarifications is also questionable.

A national policy must set out, in real and quantifiable terms, the objectives of the government in a particular field within a specified time frame. To do that, the policy must provide the social, economic, political and legal context prevalent at the time of its issue as well as a normative statement of factual conditions it seeks to achieve at the time of its expiry. Between these two points in time, the policy must identify and explain all the particular social, economic, political and legal measures it intends to implement to secure its success. Albeit concerned solely with economic growth, the Five-Year Plans – the Second and Tenth Plans in particular, without prejudice to their success or failure, are samples of policies that are well-drafted. In this background, the NCSP should be judged on the basis of how it addresses, in no particular order, national security, democratic freedoms, economic growth and knowledge development. Let us restrict ourselves to the first two issues.

There are broadly two intersections between national security and information technology; these are: (i) the security of networked communications used by the armed forces and intelligence services, and (ii) the storage of civil information of national importance. While the NCSP makes no mention of it, the adoption of the doctrine of network-centric warfare by the three armed forces is underway. Understanding the doctrine is simple – an intensive use of information technology to create networks of information aids situational awareness and enables collaboration to bestow an advantage in combat. However, the doctrine is vulnerable to asymmetric attack using both primitive and highly sophisticated means. Pre-empting such attacks should be a primary policy concern; not so, apparently, for the NCSP which is completely silent on this issue. The NCSP is slightly more forthcoming on the protection of critical information infrastructure of a civil nature. Critical information infrastructure, such as the national power grid or the Aadhar database, is narrowly defined in section 70 of the IT Act where it used to describe a protected system. Other provisions of the IT Act also deal with the protection of critical information infrastructure. The NCSP does not explain how these statutory provisions have worked or failed, as the case may be, to necessitate further mention in a policy document. For instance, section 70A of the IT Act, inserted in 2008, enables the creation of a national nodal agency to undertake research and development and other activities in respect of critical information infrastructure. Despite this, five years later, the NCSP makes a similar recommendation to operate a National Critical Information Infrastructure Protection Centre to undertake the same activities. In the absence of any meaningful explanation of intended policy measures, there is no reason to expect that the NCSP will succeed where an Act of Parliament has failed.

But, putting aside the shortcomings of its piece-meal provisions, the NCSP also fails to address high-level conceptual policy concerns. As information repositories and governance services through information technology become increasingly integrated and centralised, the security of the information that is stored or distributed decreases. Whether by intent or error, if these consolidated repositories of information are compromised, the quantity of information susceptible to damage is greater leading to higher insecurity. Simply put, if power transmission is centrally controlled instead of zonally, a single attack could black out the entire country instead of only a part of it. Or if personal data of citizens is centrally stored, a single leak could compromise the privacy of millions of people instead of only hundreds. Therefore, a credible policy must, before it advocates greater centralisation of information, examine the merits of diffused information storage to protect national security. The NCSP utterly fails in this regard.

Concerns short of national security, such as the maintenance of law and order, are also in issue because crime is often planned and perpetrated using information technology. The prevention of crime before it is committed and its prosecution afterwards is a key policy concern. While the specific context may vary depending on the nature of the crime – the facts of terrorism are different from those of insurance fraud – the principles of constitutional and criminal law continue to apply. However, the NCSP neither examines the present framework of cybersecurity-related offences nor suggests any changes in existing law. It merely calls for a “dynamic legal framework and its periodic review to address the cyber security challenges” (sic). This is self-evident, there was no need for a new national policy to make this discovery; and, ironically, it fails to conduct the very periodic review that it envisages. This is worrying because the NCSP presented DeitY with an opportunity to review existing laws and learn from past mistakes. There are concerns that cybersecurity laws, especially relevant provisions of the IT Act and its rules, betray a lack of understanding of India’s constitutional scheme. This is exemplified by the insertion, in 2008, of section 66A into the IT Act that criminalises the sending of annoying, offensive and inconvenient electronic messages without regard for the fact that free speech that is annoying is constitutionally protected.

In India, cybersecurity law and policy attempts to compensate for the state’s inability to regulate the internet by overreaching into and encroaching upon democratic freedoms. The Central Monitoring System (CMS) that is being assembled by the Centre is a case in point. Alarmed at its inability to be privy to private communications, the Centre proposes to build systems to intercept, in real time, all voice and data traffic in India. Whereas liberal democracies around the world require such interceptions to be judicially sanctioned, warranted and supported by probable cause, India does not even have statutory law to regulate such an enterprise. Given that, once completed, the CMS will represent the largest domestic interception effort in the world, the failure of the NCSP to examine the effect of such an exercise on daily cybersecurity is bewildering. This is made worse by the fact that the state does not possess the technological competence to build such a system by itself and is currently tendering private companies for equipment. The state’s incompetence is best portrayed by the activities of the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) that was constituted under section 70B of the IT Act to respond to “cyber incidents”. CERT-In has repeatedly engaged in extra-judicial censorship and has ham-handedly responded to allegedly objectionable blogs or websites by blocking access to entire domains. Unfortunately, the NCSP, while reiterating the operations of CERT-In, attempts no evaluation of its activities precluding the scope for any meaningful policy measures.

The NCSP’s poor drafting, meaningless provisions, deficiency of analysis and lack of stated measures renders it hollow. Its notification into force adds little to the public or intellectual debate about cybersecurity and does nothing to further the trajectory of either national security or democratic freedoms in India. In fairness, this problem afflicts many other national policies. There is a need to revisit the high intellectual and practical standards set by most national policies that were issued in the years following Independence.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/orfonline-bhairav-acharya-observer-research-foundation-cyber-security-monitor-august-2013-nsp-not-a-real-policy

CIS Cybersecurity Series (Part 10) - Lawrence Liang

purba — 2013-09-10T08:31:31Z

CIS interviews Lawrence Liang, researcher and lawyer, and co-founder of Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore, as part of the Cybersecurity Series.

"The right to privacy and the right to free speech have often been understood as distinct rights. But I think in the ecology of online communication, it becomes crucial for us to look at the two as being inseparable. And this is not entirely new in India. But, interestingly, a lot of the cases that have had to deal with this question in the Indian context, have pitted one against the other. Now, India doesn't have a law for the protection of whistle-blowers. So how do we now think of the idea of whistle-blowers being one of the subjects of speech and privacy coming together? How do we use the strong pillars that have been established, in terms of a very rich tradition that Indian law has, on the recognition of free speech issues but slowly start incorporating questions of privacy?" - Lawrence Liang, researcher and lawyer, Alternative Law Forum.

Centre for Internet and Society presents its tenth installment of the CIS Cybersecurity Series.

The CIS Cybersecurity Series seeks to address hotly debated aspects of cybersecurity and hopes to encourage wider public discourse around the topic.

Lawrence Liang is one of the co-founders of the Alternative Law Forum where he works on issues of intellectual property, censorship, and the intersection of law and culture. He is also a fellow with the Centre for Internet and Society and serves on its board.

This work was carried out as part of the Cyber Stewards Network with aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-cybersecurity-series-part-10-lawrence-liang

Cyberspying: Government may ban Gmail for official communication

praskrishna — 2013-09-02T04:19:53Z

The government will soon ask all its employees to stop using Google's Gmail for official communication, a move intended to increase security of confidential government information after revelations of widespread cyberspying by the US.

This article was published in the Times of India on August 30, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

A senior official in the ministry of communications and information technology said the government plans to send a formal notification to nearly 5 lakh employees barring them from email service providers such as Gmail that have their servers in the US, and instead asking them to stick to the official email service provided by India's National Informatics Centre.

"Gmail data of Indian users resides in other countries as the servers are located outside. Currently, we are looking to address this in the government domain, where there are large amounts of critical data," said J Satyanarayana, secretary in the department of electronics and information technology.

Snowden fallout

The move comes in the wake of revelations by former US National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden that the US government had direct access to large amounts of personal data on the internet such as emails and chat messages from companies like Google, Facebook and Apple through a programme called PRISM.

Documents leaked by Snowden showed that NSA may have accessed network infrastructure in many countries, causing concerns of potential security threats and data breaches. Even as the new policy is being formulated, there has been no mention yet of how compliance will be ensured.

Several senior government officials in India, including ministers of state for communications & IT Milind Deora and Kruparani Killi, have their Gmail IDs listed in government portals as their official email.

A Google India spokeswoman said the company has not been informed about the ban, and hence it cannot comment on speculation. "Nothing is documented so far, so for us, it is still speculation," Google said in an email response.

A senior official in the IT department admitted on condition of anonymity that employees turn to service providers such as Gmail because of the ease of use compared with official email services, as well as the bureaucratic processes that govern creation of new accounts.

"You can just go and create an account in Gmail easily, whereas for a government account, you have to go through a process because we have to ensure that he is a genuine government user."

Last week, IT Minister Kapil Sibal said the new policy would require all government officials living abroad to use NIC servers that are directly linked to a server in India while accessing government email services. Sibal said there has been no evidence of the US accessing Internet data from India.

Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based research firm Centre for Internet and Society, said he agrees with the government's decision to ban Gmail for official communication and that any official violating this needs to be punished.

"After Snowden's revelations, we can never be sure to what extent foreign governments are intercepting government emails," he said. Abraham, however, called the government's decision a "late reaction", as the use of Gmail and other free email services by bureaucrats has increased in the past.

"Use of official government email would also make it easier to achieve greater transparency and anti-corruption initiatives. Ministers, intelligence and law enforcement officials should not be allowed to use alternate email providers under any circumstance."

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-august-30-2013-cyberspying-govt-may-ban-gmail-for-official-communication

'Ethical Hacker' Saket Modi Calls for Stronger Cyber Security Discussions

kovey — 2013-08-05T13:11:08Z

Twenty-two year old Saket Modi is the CEO and co-founder of Lucideus, a leading cyber security company in India which claims to have worked with 4 out of 5 top global e-commerce companies, 4 out of 10 top IT companies in the world, and 3 out of 5 top banks of the Asia Pacific.

This research was undertaken as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is undertaking with Privacy International and IDRC

At the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) conference on July 13, titled “ACT – Achieving Cyber-Security Together,” Modi as the youngest speaker on the agenda delivered an impromptu talk which lambasted the weaknesses of modern cyber security discussions, enlightened the audience on modern capabilities and challenges of leading cyber security groups, and ultimately received a standing ovation from the crowd. As a later speaker commented, Modi’s controversial opinions and practitioner insight had "set the auditorium ablaze for the remainder of the evening". Since then the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) has had the pleasure of interviewing Saket Modi over Skype.

It is quite easy to find accounts of Saket Modi's introduction into hacking just by typing his name in the search engine. Faced with the pressure of failing, a teenage Saket discovered how to hack into his high school Chemistry teacher’s test and answer database. After successfully obtaining the answers, and revealing his wrong doings to his teacher, the young man grew intrigued by the possibilities of hacking. "I thought, if I could do this in a couple hours, four hours, then what might I be able to do in four days, four weeks, four months?"

Nowadays, Modi describes himself and his Lucideus team as "ethical hackers", a term recently espoused by hacker groups in the public eye. As opposed to "hacktivists", who utilize hacking methods (including attacks) to achieve or bring awareness to political issues, ethical hackers claim to exclusively use their computer skills to support defenses. At first, incorporation of ethics into a for-profit organization’s game plan may seem confusing, as it leaves room for key questions, like how does one determine which clients constitute ethical business? When asked, however, Modi clarifies by explaining how the ethics are not manifest in the entities Lucideus supports, but instead inherent in the choice of building defensive networks as opposed to using their skills for attack or debilitation. Nevertheless, considerations remain as to whether supporting the cyber security of some entities can lead to the insecurity of others, for example, strengthening the agencies which work in covert cyber espionage. On this point, Modi seems more ambivalent, saying "it depends on a case by case basis". But he still believes cyber security is a right that should be enjoyed by all, "entitled to [you] the moment you set foot on the internet".

As an experienced professional in the field who often gives input on major cyber policy decisions, Modi emphasizes the necessity of youth engagement in cyber security practice and policy. He calls his age bracket the “web generation,” those who have “grown with technology.” According to Modi, no one over 50 or 60 years of age can properly meet the current challenges of the cyber security realm. It is "a sad thing" that those older leaders carry the most power in policy making, and that they often have problems with both understanding and acceptability of modern technological capabilities. For the public, businesses, and also government, there are misconceptions about the importance of cyber security and the extent of modern cyber threats, threats which Modi and his company claim to combat regularly. "About 90 per cent of the crimes that take place in cyber space are because of lack of knowledge, rather than the expertise of the hacker,” he explains. Modi mentions a few basic misconceptions, as simple as, "if I have an anti-virus, my system is secured" or "if you have HTTPS certificate and SSL connection, your system is secured". “These are like wearing an elbow guard while playing cricket,” Modi tells. “If the ball comes at the elbow then you are protected, but what about the rest of the body?”

This highlights another problem evident in India’s current cyber security scene, the problem of lacking “quality institutes to produce good cyber security experts.” For example, Modi takes offence at there not being “a single institute which is providing cyber security at the undergraduate level [in India].” He alludes to the recently unveiled National Cyber Security Policy, specifically the call for five lakh cyber security experts in upcoming years. He calls this “a big figure,” but agrees that there needs to be a lot more awareness throughout the nation. “You really have to change a lot of things,” he says, “in order to get the right things in the right place here in India.”

When considering citizen privacy in relation to cyber security, and the relationship between the two (be it direct or inverse), Saket Modi says the important factor is the governing body, because the issue ultimately resolves to trust. Citizens must trust the “right people with the right qualifications” to store and protect their sensitive data, and to respect privacy. Modi is no novice to the importance of personal data protection, and his company works with a plethora of extremely sensitive information relating to both their clients and their clients’ clients data, so it operates with due care lest it create a “wikileaks part two.”

On internationalization and cyber security, he views the connection between the two as natural, intrinsic. “Cyberspace has added a new dimension to humanity,” says Modi, and tells how former constructs of physical constraints and linear bounds no longer apply. International cooperation is especially pertinent, according to Modi, because the greatest challenge for catching today’s criminal hackers is their international anonymity, “the ability to jump from one country to the other in a matter of milliseconds.”

With the extent of the challenges facing cyber defense specialists, and with the somewhat disorderly current state of Indian cyber security, it is curious to see that Saket Modi has devoted himself to the "ethical" side of hacking. Why hasn’t he or the rest of the Lucideus team resorted to offensive hacking, since Modi claims the majority of cyber attacks of the world who are committed by people also fall between the ages of 15 and 24? Apparently, the answer is simple. “We believe in the need for ethical hacking,” he defends. “We believe in the purpose of making the internet safer.”

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/saket-modi-calls-for-stronger-cyber-security-discussions

Guidelines for the Protection of National Critical Information Infrastructure: How Much Regulation?

jon — 2013-08-01T04:48:01Z

July has been a busy month for cyber security in India. Beginning with the release of the country’s first National Cyber Security Policy on July 2 and followed just this past week by a set of guidelines for the protection of national critical information infrastructure (CII) developed under the direction of the National Technical Research Organization (NTRO), India has made respectable progress in its thinking on national cyber security.

Yet the National Cyber Security Policy, taken together with what little is known of the as-yet restricted guidelines for CII protection, raises troubling questions, particularly regarding the regulation of cyber security practices in the private sector. Whereas the current Policy suggests the imposition of certain preferential acquisition policies, India would be best advised to maintain technology neutrality to ensure maximum security.

According to Section 70(1) of the Information Technology Act, Critical Information Infrastructure (CII) is defined as a “computer resource, the incapacitation or destruction of which, shall have debilitating impact on national security, economy, public health or safety.” In one of the 2008 amendments to the IT Act, the Central Government granted itself the authority to “prescribe the information security practices and procedures for such protected system[s].” These two paragraphs form the legal basis for the regulation of cyber security within the private sector.

Such basis notwithstanding, private cyber security remains almost completely unregulated. According to the Intermediary Guidelines [pdf], intermediaries are required to report cyber security incidents to India’s national-level computer emergency response team (CERT-In). Other than this relatively small stipulation, the only regulation in place for CII exists at the sector level. Last year the Reserve Bank of India mandated that each bank in India appoint a chief information officer (CIO) and a steering committee on information security. The finance sector is also the only sector of the four designated “critical” by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DEIT) Cyber Security Strategy to have established a sector-level CERT, which released a set of non-compulsory guidelines [pdf] for information security governance in late 201

The new guidelines for CII protection seek to reorganize the government’s approach to CII. According to a Times of India article on the new guidelines, the NTRO will outline a total of eight sectors (including energy, aviation, telecom and National Stock Exchange) of CII and then “monitor if they are following the guidelines.” Such language, though vague and certainly unsubstantiated, suggests the NTRO may ultimately be responsible for enforcing the “[mandated] security practices related to the design, acquisition, development, use and operation of information resources” described in the Cyber Security Policy. If so, operators of systems deemed critical by the NTRO or by other authorized government agencies may soon be subject to cyber security regulation—with teeth.

To be sure, some degree of cyber security regulation is necessary. After all, large swaths of the country’s CII are operated by private industry, and poor security practices on the part of one operator can easily undermine the security of the rest. To quote security expert Bruce Schneier, “the externalities in cybersecurity are so great that even the freest free market would fail.” In less academic terms, networks are only as secure as their weakest links. While it is true that many larger enterprises take cyber security quite seriously, small and medium-sized businesses either lack immediate incentives to invest in security (e.g. no shareholders to answer to) or more often lack the basic resources to do so. Some form of government transfer for cyber security related investments could thus go a long way toward shoring up the country’s overall security.

Yet regulation may well extend beyond the simple “fiscal schemes and incentives” outlined in section IV of the Policy and “provide for procurement of indigenously manufactured ICT products that have security implications.” Such, at least, was the aim of the Preferential Market Access (PMA) Policy recently put on hold by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). Under pressure from international industry groups, the government has promised to review the PMA Policy, with the PMO indicating it may strike out clauses “regarding preference to domestic manufacturer[s] on security related products that are to be used by private sector.” If the government’s aim is indeed to ensure maximum security (rather than to grow an infant industry), it would be well advised to extend this approach to the Cyber Security Policy and the new guidelines for CII protection.

Although there is a national security argument to be made in favor of such policies—namely that imported ICT products may contain “backdoors” or other nefarious flaws—there are equally valid arguments to be made against preferential acquisition policies, at least for the private sector. First and foremost, it is unlikely that India’s nascent cyber security institutions will be able to regulate procurement in such a rapidly evolving market. Indeed, U.S. authorities have been at pains to set cyber security standards, especially in the past several years. Secondly, by mandating the procurement of indigenously manufactured products, the government may force private industry to forgo higher quality products. Absent access to source code or the ability to effectively reverse engineer imported products, buyers should make decisions based on the products’ performance records, not geo-economic considerations like country of origin. Finally, limiting procurement to a specific subset of ICT products likewise restricts the set of security vulnerabilities available to hackers. Rather than improve security, however, a smaller, more distinct set of vulnerabilities may simply make networks easier targets for the sorts of “debilitating” attacks the Policy aims to avert.

As India broaches the difficult task of regulating cyber security in the private sector, it must emphasize flexibility above all. On one hand, the government should avoid preferential acquisition policies which risk a) overwhelming limited regulatory resources, b) saddling CII operators with subpar products, and/or c) differentiating the country’s attack surface. On the other hand, the government should encourage certain performance standards through precisely the sort of “fiscal schemes and incentives” alluded to in the Cyber Security Policy. Regulation should focus on what technology does and does not do, not who made it or what rival government might have had their hands in its design. Ultimately, India should adopt a policy of technology neutrality, backed by the simple principle of trust but verify. Only then can it be truly secure.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/guidelines-for-protection-of-national-critical-information-infrastructure

India's National Cyber Security Policy in Review

jon — 2013-07-31T10:40:22Z

Earlier this month, the Department of Electronics and Information Technology released India’s first National Cyber Security Policy. Years in the making, the Policy sets high goals for cyber security in India and covers a wide range of topics, from institutional frameworks for emergency response to indigenous capacity building.

What the Policy achieves in breadth, however, it often lacks in depth. Vague, cursory language ultimately prevents the Policy from being anything more than an aspirational document. In order to translate the Policy’s goals into an effective strategy, a great deal more specificity and precision will be required.

The Scope of National Cyber Security

Where such precision is most required is in definitions. Having no legal force itself, the Policy arguably does not require the sort of legal precision one would expect of an act of Parliament, for example. Yet the Policy deals in terms plagued with ambiguity, cyber security not the least among them. In forgoing basic definitions, the Policy fails to define its own scope, and as a result it proves remarkably broad and arguably unfocused.

The Policy’s preamble comes close to defining cyber security in paragraph 5 when it refers to "cyber related incident[s] of national significance" involving "extensive damage to the information infrastructure or key assets…[threatening] lives, economy and national security." Here at least is a picture of cyber security on a national scale, a picture which would be quite familiar to Western policymakers: computer security practices "fundamental to both protecting government secrets and enabling national defence, in addition to protecting the critical infrastructures that permeate and drive the 21st century global economy."[*] The paragraph 5 definition of sorts becomes much broader, however, when individuals and businesses are introduced, and threats like identity theft are brought into the mix.

Here the Policy runs afoul of a common pitfall: conflating threats to the state or society writ large (e.g. cyber warfare, cyber espionage, cyber terrorism) with threats to businesses and individuals (e.g. fraud, identity theft). Although both sets of threats may be fairly described as cyber security threats, only the former is worthy of the term national cyber security. The latter would be better characterized as cyber crime. The distinction is an important one, lest cyber crime be “securitized,” or elevated to an issue of national security. National cyber security has already provided the justification for the much decried Central Monitoring System (CMS). Expanding the range of threats subsumed under this rubric may provide a pretext for further surveillance efforts on a national scale.

Apart from mission creep, this vague and overly broad conception of national cyber security risks overwhelming an as yet underdeveloped system with more responsibilities than it may be able to handle. Where cyber crime might be left up to the police, its inclusion alongside true national-level cyber security threats in the Policy suggests it may be handled by the new "nodal agency" mentioned in section IV. Thus clearer definitions would not only provide the Policy with a more focused scope, but they would also make for a more efficient distribution of already scarce resources.

What It Get Right

Definitions aside, the Policy actually gets a lot of things right — at least as an aspirational document. It certainly covers plenty of ground, mentioning everything from information sharing to procedures for risk assessment / risk management to supply chain security to capacity building. It is a sketch of what could be a very comprehensive national cyber security strategy, but without more specifics, it is unlikely to reach its full potential. Overall, the Policy is much of what one might expect from a first draft, but certain elements stand out as worthy of special consideration.

First and foremost, the Policy should be commended for its commitment to “[safeguarding] privacy of citizen’s data” (sic). Privacy is an integral component of cyber security, and in fact other states’ cyber security strategies have entire segments devoted specifically to privacy. India’s Policy stands to be more specific as to the scope of these safeguards, however. Does the Policy aim primarily to safeguard data from criminals? Foreign agents? Could it go so far as to protect user data even from its own agents? Indeed this commitment to privacy would appear at odds with the recently unveiled CMS. Rather than merely paying lip service to the concept of online privacy, the government would be well advised to pass legislation protecting citizens’ privacy and to use such legislation as the foundation for a more robust cyber security strategy.

The Policy also does well to advocate “fiscal schemes and incentives to encourage entities to install, strengthen and upgrade information infrastructure with respect to cyber security.” Though some have argued that such regulation would impose inordinate costs on private businesses, anyone with a cursory understanding of computer networks and microeconomics could tell you that “externalities in cybersecurity are so great that even the freest free market would fail”—to quote expert Bruce Schneier. In less academic terms, a network is only as strong as its weakest link. While it is true that many larger enterprises take cyber security quite seriously, small and medium-sized businesses either lack immediate incentives to invest in security (e.g. no shareholders to answer to) or more often lack the basic resources to do so. Some form of government transfer for cyber security related investments could thus go a long way toward shoring up the country’s overall security.

The Policy also “[encourages] wider usage of Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) within Government for trusted communication and transactions.” It is surprising, however, that the Policy does not mandate the usage of PKI. In general, the document provides relatively few details on what specific security practices operators of Critical Information Infrastructure (CII) can or should implement.

Where It Goes Wrong

One troubling aspect of the Policy is its ambiguous language with respect to acquisition policies and supply chain security in general. The Policy, for example, aims to “[mandate] security practices related to the design, acquisition, development, use and operation of information resources” (emphasis added). Indeed, section VI, subsection A, paragraph 8 makes reference to the “procurement of indigenously manufactured ICT products,” presumably to the exclusion of imported goods. Although supply chain security must inevitably factor into overall cyber security concerns, such restrictive acquisition policies could not only deprive critical systems of potentially higher-quality alternatives but—depending on the implementation of these policies—could also sharpen the vulnerabilities of these systems.

Not only do these preferential acquisition policies risk mandating lower quality products, but it is unlikely they will be able to keep pace with the rapid pace of innovation in information technology. The United States provides a cautionary tale. The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), tasked with producing cyber security standards for operators of critical infrastructure, made its first update to a 2005 set of standards earlier this year. Other regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) move at a marginally faster pace yet nevertheless are delayed by bureaucratic processes. FERC has already moved to implement Version 5 of its Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) standards, nearly a year before the deadline for Version 4 compliance. The need for new standards thus outpaces the ability of industry to effectively implement them.

Fortunately, U.S. cyber security regulation has so-far been technology-neutral. Operators of Critical Information Infrastructure are required only to ensure certain functionalities and not to procure their hardware and software from any particular supplier. This principle ensures competition and thus security, allowing CII operators to take advantage of the most cutting-edge technologies regardless of name, model, etc. Technology neutrality does of course raise risks, such as those emphasized by the Government of India regarding Huawei and ZTE in 2010. Risk assessment must, however, remain focused on the technology in question and avoid politicization. India’s cyber security policy can be technology neutral as long as it follows one additional principle: trust but verify.

Verification may be facilitated by the use of free and open-source software (FOSS). FOSS provides security through transparency as opposed to security through obscurity and thus enables more agile responses to security responses. Users can identify and patch bugs themselves, or otherwise take advantage of the broader user community for such fixes. Thus open-source software promotes security in much the same way that competitive markets do: by accepting a wide range of inputs.

Despite the virtues of FOSS, there are plenty of good reasons to run proprietary software, e.g. fitness for purpose, cost, and track record. Proprietary software makes verification somewhat more complicated but not impossible. Source code escrow agreements have recently gained some traction as a verification measure for proprietary software, even with companies like Huawei and ZTE. In 2010, the infamous Chinese telecommunications giants persuaded the Indian government to lift its earlier ban on their products by concluding just such an agreement. Clearly trust but verify is imminently practicable, and thus technology neutrality.

What’s Missing

Level of detail aside, what is most conspicuously absent from the new Policy is any framework for institutional cooperation beyond 1) the designation of CERT-In “as a Nodal Agency for coordination of all efforts for cyber security emergency response and crisis management” and 2) the designation of the “National Critical Information Infrastructure Protection Centre (NCIIPC) to function as the nodal agency for critical information infrastructure protection in the country.” The Policy mentions additionally “a National nodal agency to coordinate all matters related to cyber security in the country, with clearly defined roles & responsibilities.” Some clarity with regard to roles and responsibilities would certainly be in order. Even among these three agencies—assuming they are all distinct—it is unclear who is to be responsible for what.

More confusing still is the number of other pre-existing entities with cyber security responsibilities, in particular the National Technical Research Organization (NTRO), which in an earlier draft of the Policy was to have authority over the NCIIPC. The Ministry of Defense likewise has bolstered its cyber security and cyber warfare capabilities in recent years. Is it appropriate for these to play a role in securing civilian CII? Finally, the already infamous Central Monitoring System, justified predominantly on the very basis of cyber security, receives no mention at all. For a government that is only now releasing its first cyber security policy, India has developed a fairly robust set of institutions around this issue. It is disappointing that the Policy does not more fully address questions of roles and responsibilities among government entities.

Not only is there a lack of coordination among government cyber security entities, but there is no mention of how the public and private sectors are to cooperate on cyber security information—other than oblique references to “public-private partnerships.” Certainly there is a need for information sharing, which is currently facilitated in part by the sector-level CERTS. More interesting, however, is the question of liability for high-impact cyber attacks. To whom are private CII operators accountable in the event of disruptive cyber attacks on their systems? This legal ambiguity must necessarily be resolved in conjunction with the “fiscal schemes and incentives” also alluded to in the Policy in order to motivate strong cyber security practices among all CII operators and the public more broadly.

Next Steps

India’s inaugural National Cyber Security Policy is by and large a step in the right direction. It covers many of the most pressing issues in national cyber security and lays out a number of ambitious goals, ranging from capacity building to robust public-private partnerships. To realize these goals, the government will need a much more detailed roadmap.

Firstly, the extent of the government’s proposed privacy safeguards must be clarified and ideally backed by a separate piece of privacy legislation. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” When it comes to cyberspace, the Indian people must demand both liberty and safety.

Secondly, the government should avoid overly preferential acquisition policies and allow risk assessments to be technologically rather than politically driven. Procurement should moreover be technology-neutral. Open source software and source code escrow agreements can facilitate the verification measures that make technology neutrality work.

Finally, to translate this policy into a sound strategy will necessarily require that India’s various means be directed toward specific ends. The Policy hints at organizational mapping with references to CERT-In and the NCIIPC, but the roles and responsibilities of other government agencies as well as the private sector remain underdetermined. Greater clarity on these points would improve inter-agency and public-private cooperation—and thus, one hopes, security—significantly.

[*]. Melissa E. Hathaway and Alexander Klimburg, “Preliminary Considerations: On National Cyber Security” in National Cyber Security Framework Manual, ed. Alexander Klimburg, (Tallinn, Estonia: Nato Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, 2012), 13

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indias-national-cyber-security-policy-in-review

Parsing the Cyber Security Policy

chinmayi — 2013-07-22T06:37:56Z

An effective cyber-security policy must keep up with the rapid evolution of technology, and must never become obsolete. The standard-setting and review bodies will therefore need to be very nimble, says Chinmayi Arun.

Chinmayi Arun's article was published in the Hoot on July 13, 2013 and later cross-posted in the Free Speech Initiative the same day.

We often forget how vulnerable the World Wide Web leaves us. If walls of code prevent us from entering each other’s systems and networks, there are those who can easily pick their way past them or disable essential digital platforms. We are reminded of this by the doings of Anonymous, which carried out a series of attacks, including the website run by Computer Emergency Response Team India (CERT-In) which is the government agency in charge of cyber-security. Even more serious, are cyber-attacks (arguably cyber warfare) carried out by other states, using digital weapons such as Stuxnet, the digital worm. More proximate and personal are perhaps the phishing attacks, which are on the rise.

We therefore run a great risk if we leave air-traffic control, defense resources or databases containing several citizens’ personal data vulnerable. Sure, there is no doubt that efforts towards better cyber-security are needed. A cyber-security policy is meant to address this need, and to help manage threats to individuals, businesses and government agencies. We need to carefully examine the government’s efforts to handle cyber-security, how effective it is and whether its actions do not have too many negative spillovers.

The National Cyber-Security Policy, unveiled last week, is merely a statement of intention in broad terms. Much of its real impact will be ascertainable only after the language to be used in the law is available. Nevertheless, the scope of the policy remains ambiguous so far, leading to much speculation about the different ways in which it might be intrusive.

One Size Fits All?

The policy covers very different kinds of entities: government agencies, private companies or businesses, non-governmental entities and individual users. These entities may need to be handled differently depending on their nature. Therefore, while direct state action may be most appropriate to secure government agencies’ networks, it may be less appropriate in the context of purely private business.

For example, securing police records would involve the government directly purchasing or developing sufficiently secure technology. However, different private businesses and non-governmental entities may be left to manage their own security. Depending on the size of each entity, each may be differently placed to acquire sophisticated security systems. A good policy would encourage innovation by those with the capacity to do this, while ensuring that others have access to reasonably sound technology, and that they use it. Grey-areas might emerge in contexts where a private party is manages critical infrastructure.

It will also be important to distinguish between smaller and larger organisations whilst creating obligations. Unless this distinction is made at the implementation stage, start-up businesses and civil society organisations may find requirements such as earmarking a budget for cyber security implementation or appointing a Chief Information Security Officer onerous. Additionally, the policy will need to translate into a regulatory solution that provides under-resourced entities with ready solutions to enable them to make their information systems secure, while encouraging larger entities with greater purchasing power to invest in procuring the best possible solutions.

Race to the Top

Security on the Internet works only if it stays one step ahead the people trying to break in. An effective cyber-security policy must keep up with the rapid evolution of technology, and must never become obsolete. The standard-setting and review bodies will therefore need to be very nimble.

The policy contemplates working with industry and supporting academic research and development to achieve this. However the actual manner in which resources are distributed and progress is monitored may make the crucial difference between a waste of public funds and acquisition of capacity to achieve a reasonable degree of cyber security.

Additionally the flow of public funds under this policy, particularly to purchase technology, should be examined very carefully to see whether it is justified. For example, if the government chooses to fund (even by way of subsidy) a private company’s cyber-security research and development rather than an equivalent public university’s endeavour, this decision should be scrutinized to see whether it was necessary. Similarly, if extensive public funds are spent training young people as a capacity-building exercise, we should watch to see how many of these people stay in India and how many leave such that other countries end up benefiting from the Indian government’s investment in them!

Investigation of Security Threats

Although much of the policy focuses on defensive measures that can be taken against security breaches, it is intended not only to cover investigation subsequent to an attack but also to pinpoint ‘potential cyber threats’ so that proactive measures may be taken.

The policy has outlined the need for a ‘Cyber Crisis Management Plan’ to handle incidents that impact ‘critical national processes or endanger public safety and security of the nation’. This portion of the policy will need to be watched closely to ensure that the language used is very narrow and allows absolutely no scope for misinterpretation or misuse that would affect citizens’ rights in any manner.

This caution will be necessary both in view of the manner in which restraints on freedom of speech permitted in the interests of public safety have been flagrantly abused, and because of the kind of paternalistic state intrusion that might be conceived to give effect to this.

Additionally, since the policy also mentions information sharing with internal and international security, defence, law enforcement and other such agencies, it will also be important to find out the exact nature of information to be shared. Of course, how the policy will be put into place will only become clear as the terms governing its various parts emerge. But one hopes the necessary internal direct action to ensure the government agencies’ information networks are secure is already well underway.

It is also to be hoped that the government chooses to take implementation of privacy rights at least as seriously as cyber-security. If some parts of cyber security involve ensuring that user data is protected, the decision about what data needs protection will be important to this exercise.

Additionally, although the policy discusses various enabling and standard-setting measures, it does not discuss the punitive consequences of failure to take reasonable steps to safeguard individuals’ personal data online. These consequences will also presumably form a part of the privacy policy, and should be put in place as early as possible.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-hoot-july-13-2013-chinmayi-arun-parsing-the-cyber-security-policy

CII Conference on "ACT": Achieve Cyber Security Together"

kovey — 2013-07-26T08:17:40Z

The Confederation of Indian Industries (CII) organized a conference on facing cyber threats and challenges at Hotel Hilton in Chennai on July 13, 2013. Kovey Coles attended this conference and shares a summary of the event in this blog post.

This research was undertaken as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is undertaking with Privacy International and IDRC

The conference hosted by CII in the Hotel Hilton, was well attended, and featured a range of industry experts, researches and developers, and members of the Indian armed forces.

Participants focused on the importance of Indian entities reaching new, adequate levels of cyber security. It was stated early in the event that India is one of the world's most targeted areas for cyber-attacks, and its number of domestic internet users is known to be rapidly increasing in an age which many view as a new era of international information warfare. Despite this, the speakers considered India to be too far behind other countries in its understanding of cyber security. In the opening remarks, CII Chairman Santhanam implored "We need hard core techies in this field… we are not producing them." Another speaker, Savitha Kesav Jagadeesan, a practicing lawyer in Chennai, asked if India would wait until the "9/11 of cyberspace" occurrence before we establish the same level of precautionary measures online as it exists now in transportation security.

With the presence of both the government’s executive forces and the private industries, the aura circulating the conference room was that of a collective Indian defense, a secure nation only achieved through both secure governmental and industrial aspects. Similar to the previous day’s DSCI cyber security conference, many speakers discussed security issues pertinent to the financial and banking industries, and other cyber crimes which had pecuniary goals. For people seeking to avoid the array of scams and frauds online, some talks shared some of the most basic advice, like safe password practices. "Passwords are like toothbrushes," said A.S. Murthy of the CDAC, "use them often, never share them with anyone, change them often." Other talks went into the intricacies of various hacking schemes, including tab-nabbing and Designated Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks, describing their tactics and how to moderate them.

In the end, the conference had certainly informed the attendees of the goals, and the challenges, that India will face in the coming months and years. The speakers (all of them) showed how the world of cyber security was quickly evolving, and demonstrated the imperative in government and industry entities evolving their own practices and defenses in stride. The ambitions of several presentations matched the well-publicized "5 lakh cyber professionals in 5 years" plan, placing a strong emphasis in the current and future training of young students in cyber security. Ultimately, I think, the conference helped convince that cyber security is neither a futile, nor completely infallible concept. As CISCO Vice President Col. K.P.M. Das said towards the end of the evening, the most ideal form of cyber security is truly "all about trust, the ability to recover, and transparency/visibility."

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cii-conference-on-act

CIS Cybersecurity Series (Part 6) - Lhadon Tethong

purba — 2013-08-01T09:54:46Z

CIS interviews Lhadon Tethong, Tibetan human rights activist, as part of the Cybersecurity Series

"In authoritarian states, and in this case, in Tibet, I think that every person that we can teach and pass knowledge to, that can help them stay out of jail, stay in the streets, for one, two, three days longer, one week longer, that is a valuable time of time and resources. And I think we cannot rely on only tools and technology solutions to protect people. I think we can't just rely on government policies at the highest levels, and on export controls... the approach to digital security has to be comprehensive and we have to engage citizens. And not just in cases like the Tibetans or for activists or for people living under repression, but for people in free and open societies too." - Lhadon Tethong, Tibetan human rights activist.

Centre for Internet and Society presents its sixth installment of the CIS Cybersecurity Series.

The CIS Cybersecurity Series seeks to address hotly debated aspects of cybersecurity and hopes to encourage wider public discourse around the topic.

In this installment, CIS interviews Lhadon Tethong, Tibetan human rights activist. Lhadon is the Director of the Tibet Action Institute, where she leads a team of technologists and human rights advocates in developing and advancing open-source communication technologies, nonviolent strategies and innovative training programs for Tibetans and other groups facing heavy repression and human rights abuses.

Link for Tibet Action Institute: https://tibetaction.net/

This work was carried out as part of the Cyber Stewards Network with aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/cis-cybersecurity-series-part-6-lhadon-tethong