Poppy Gustafsson spoke on Wednesday at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) – the UK’s leading and world’s oldest defense think thank – on the evolving cyber threat landscape.

Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has led to a global rethinking of security. 

While some in the West had begun questioning the need for NATO post-cold war, and many members have failed to meet their defense spending commitments, the invasion of Ukraine has proven why the defense alliance remains a bedrock of Western security.

NATO members are now spending more on defense, increasing cooperation, and the alliance is now preparing to accept Sweden and Finland into its fold.

Russia has thrown out the rule book with its conduct and will eventually face war crime trials as a result. NATO members, in contrast, have acted in accordance with the UN charter and only provided resources to Ukraine that it can use to defend its territory from the invaders.

However, any provision of long-range weapons that could pose a threat to Moscow would be seen as going beyond helping an ally to defend itself into helping attack Russia itself—likely triggering a disastrous global conflict.

Those kinds of norms around conventional warfare are well-established. In the cybersphere, they’re yet to be set.

“There remains a persistent lack of clarity around how we define an act of war in the cybersphere,” said Gustafsson.

Gustafsson wants to see the creation of a dedicated international cyber task force, or a “tech NATO”, where global partners can collaborate, agree, and ratify norms for the cybersphere—including what kind of response would be warranted for breaches.

At the beginning of Russia’s invasion, the country attacked Viasat to disable Ukrainian communications. The attack spilt over into other European countries, including rendering 5,800 Enercon wind turbines in Germany unable to communicate for remote monitoring or control.

“The attack on the Viasat satellite that disabled Ukrainian military communications one hour before the invasion was a key component of the beginning of this war,” added Gustafsson. “We have seen UK, US, and EU officials jointly attribute this attack to Russia, an immensely political act. That is unprecedented.”

No-one reasonable would suggest that incident is worth triggering a full-scale war between NATO and Russia, but clarity is needed on what the response should be. If a cyberattack leads to serious loss of life, should it have any different response than if it was a missile?

“There is a shocking tolerance for cyberattacks, and that has to change,” argued Gustafsson. “Organisations that are custodians of valuable, private data can not be allowed to let that data fall into criminal hands through negligence and face no consequences.”

Darktrace says it has witnessed a global increase in attacks on critical national infrastructure bodies across its customer base—including a 90 percent increase in high priority security incidents on the networks of energy companies in Europe during the initial week of Russia’s invasion.

“Issues that we had thought about speculatively have now become our reality. We are facing war in Europe and there is an essential cyber component both to the way it is being fought and to its international ramifications,” says Professor Madeline Carr, Senior RUSI Associate Fellow and Professor of Global Politics and Cybersecurity at University College London.

“This is a complex area which is the subject of a wealth of academic debate and what is needed is clarity, consensus, and cooperation.”

Greater cooperation is certainly needed to combat evolving cyber threats. However, Gustafsson’s call for a “Tech NATO” is surprising—not least because NATO itself already has one in the form of the CCDCOE (Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence).

Despite being run by NATO, the CCDCOE is open to “like-minded non-NATO nations”. Earlier this month, non-NATO member South Korea joined the organisation alongside NATO members Canada and Luxembourg. In March, Ukraine also joined the CCDCOE despite not being a full NATO member.

“Cooperation, sharing of information, skills, and best practices are essential for tackling the challenges we face in cyberspace,” said a spokesperson for the Embassy of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, following the country’s admission to the CCDCOE.

The CCDCOE leans more towards collaboration between public agencies but also brings together representatives from academia and the private sector to discuss cyber norms and improve members’ defenses.

“Each member of the CCDCOE plays an important role in building and advancing a strong and efficient unity against cyber threats,” explained Colonel Jaak Tarien, Head of the CCDCOE.

“In the long run, the conditions for peace in the cyber realm and a response to the security threats to the modern world cannot be created without united and committed support.”

We’ve reached out to Darktrace for clarification on Gustafsson’s call for a “Tech NATO” and how it would differ from the CCDCOE. We presume it would have a greater focus on private sector companies like Darktrace but will update this article when/if we receive an official response.

Related: US disrupts large Russian botnet ‘before it could be used’

Want to learn more about cybersecurity and the cloud from industry leaders? Check out Cyber Security & Cloud Expo taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London. The event is being co-hosted with the AI & Big Data Expo.

Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars powered by TechForge here.

The post Darktrace CEO calls for a ‘Tech NATO’ amid growing cyber threats appeared first on AI News.

AI is set to revolutionise many industries and will bring a range of benefits to citizens and businesses around the world. Concerns about job losses have been prevalent, but AI’s inevitable use in a military capacity has been less discussed.

Kersti Kaljulaid, President of Estonia, believes there is a 50 percent chance an AI system capable of launching a lethal attack will be created by the middle of this century. Despite some calls, there is no current international law to deter such a system from being developed.

Kaljulaid is calling for such boundaries to be established for areas such as the acceptable use of AI in combat scenarios. Where it’s suspected these boundaries have been crossed, then — similar to nuclear non-proliferation treaties — the international community should have the right to carry out inspections.

One standard being advocated by former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen is that AI can be used to enhance capabilities, but it must always involve human beings.

Rasmussen highlights three options:

1. Humans can always be in charge.
2. Humans can be in a supervisory role, and able to intervene.
3. Humans can leave the control up to the system.

“I’m in favour of trying to introduce legally binding [standards] that will prevent production and use of these kinds of autonomous lethal weapons,” says Rasmussen.

The international community needs to ensure these calls turn into actual laws before there’s a disaster prompting them.

When an unprecedented cyber attack was launched against Ukraine last year, NATO finally warned that it could trigger Article 5 which prompts a collective response. Just this week, the White House followed the British and Danish governments in blaming Russia for the attack.

According to Rasmussen, NATO practices ambiguity when it comes to its red lines. The idea is that if a potential threat doesn’t know where the line is, they won’t attempt to push their luck.

Defense chiefs are concerned about NATO being weakened. Within Europe, only the UK has consistently met its budget commitments. President Donald Trump has warned the U.S. will not continue to offer protection if other NATO members do not meet their obligations.

Trump has since reiterated the U.S.’ commitment to NATO. However, the European Union is currently under fire by the U.S. for its new PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation) defense agreement — which is accused of being protectionist and undermining NATO.

More than any time in recent history, coalitions like NATO must not be consumed by in-fighting and take a lead role in ensuring AI is only used to benefit mankind, not destroy it.

What are your thoughts on the leaders’ comments? Let us know in the comments.

 Interested in hearing industry leaders discuss subjects like this and sharing their use-cases? Attend the co-located AI & Big Data Expo events with upcoming shows in Silicon Valley, London and Amsterdam to learn more. Co-located with the  IoT Tech Expo, Blockchain Expo and Cyber Security & Cloud Expo so you can explore the future of enterprise technology in one place.

The post Leaders warn NATO is unprepared for AI warfare appeared first on AI News.