Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Article: Cyberwarriors: Activists and Terrorists Turn To Cyberspace

Expand Messages
  • ellisd@cs.ucsb.edu
    Harvard International Review, Summer 2001 Cyberwarriors: Activists And Terrorists Turn To Cyberspace ABSTRACT: Cyberspace is increasingly used as a digital
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 31, 2001
      Harvard International Review, Summer 2001

      Cyberwarriors: Activists And Terrorists Turn To Cyberspace


      Cyberspace is increasingly used as a digital battleground for rebels,
      freedom fighters, terrorists, and others who employ hacking tools to
      and participate in broader conflicts. Whereas "hacktivism" is real and
      widespread, "cyberterrorism" exists only in theory. Terrorist groups
      using the internet, but they still prefer bombs to bytes as a means of
      inciting terror. Cyberspace is now much more than a place for
      commerce and communication. It has become a digital battleground for
      hacker warriors.


      As Palestinian rioters clashed with Israeli forces in the fall of
      2000, Arab and Israeli hackers took to cyberspace to participate in
      the action.
      According to the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, the cyberwar began
      in October, shortly after the Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah movement
      abducted three Israeli soldiers. Pro-Israeli hackers responded by
      crippling the guerrilla movements website, which had been displaying
      of Palestinians killed in recent clashes and which had called on
      Palestinians to kill as many Israelis as possible. Pro-Palestinian
      retaliated, shutting down the main Israeli government website and the
      Israeli Foreign Ministry website. From there the cyberwar escalated.
      Israeli hacker planted the Star of David and some Hebrew text on one
      of Hezbollah's mirror sites, while proPalestinian hackers attacked
      additional Israeli sites, including those of the Bank of Israel and
      the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. Hackers from as far away as North and
      America joined the fray, sabotaging over 100 websites and disrupting
      Internet service in the Middle East and elsewhere.

      The Israeli-Palestinian cyberwar illustrates a growing trend.
      Cyberspace is increasingly used as a digital battleground for rebels,
      fighters, terrorists, and others who employ hacking tools to protest
      and participate in broader conflicts. The term "hacktivism," a fusion
      hacking with activism, is often used to describe this activity. A
      related term, "cyberterrorism," refers to activity of a terrorist
      nature. However,
      whereas hacktivism is real and widespread, cyberterrorism exists only
      in theory. Terrorist groups are using the Internet, but they still
      bombs to bytes as a means of inciting terror.

      Hacktivists see cyberspace as a means for nonstate actors to enter
      arenas of conflict, and to do so across international borders. They
      that nation-states are not the only actors with the authority to
      engage in war and aggression. And unlike nation-states, hacker
      warriors are not
      constrained by the "law of war" or the Charter of the United Nations.
      They often initiate the use of aggression and needlessly attack

      Hacktivism is a relatively recent phenomenon. One early incident took
      place in October 1989, when antinuclear hackers released a computer
      worm into the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration SPAN
      network. The worm carried the message, "Worms Against Nuclear
      Killers.... Your System Has Been Officically [sic] WANKed.... You talk
      of times of peace for all, and then prepare for war." At the time of
      attack, anti-nuclear protesters were trying (unsuccessfully) to stop
      the launch of the shuttle that carried the plutonium-fueled Galileo
      probe on
      its initial leg to Jupiter. The source of the attack was never
      identified, but some evidence suggested that it might have come from
      hackers in

      In recent years, hacktivism has become a common occurrence worldwide.
      It accounts for a substantial fraction of all cyberspace attacks,
      are also motivated by fun, curiosity, profit, and personal revenge.
      Hacktivism is likely to become even more popular as the Internet
      continues to
      grow and spread throughout the world. It is easy to carry out and
      offers many advantages over physical forms of protest and attack.

      The Attraction of Hacktivism

      For activists, hacktivism has several attractive features, not the
      least of which is global visibility. By altering the content on
      popular websites,
      hacktivists can spread their messages and names to large audiences.
      Even ofter the sites are restored, mirrors of the hacked pages are
      on sites such as Attrition.org, where they can be viewed by anyone at
      any time and from anywhere. Also, the news media are fascinated by
      cyberattacks and are quick to report them. Once the news stories hit
      the Internet, they spread quickly around the globe, drawing attention
      to the
      hackers as well as to the broader conflict.

      Activists are also attracted to the low costs of hacktivism. There are
      few expenses beyond those of a computer and an Internet connection.
      Hacking tools can be downloaded for free from numerous websites all
      over the world. It costs nothing to use them and many require little
      or no

      Moreover, hacktivism has the benefit of being unconstrained by
      geography and distance. Unlike street protesters, hackers do not have
      to be
      physically present to fight a digital war. In a "sit-in" on the
      website of the Mexican Embassy in the United Kingdom, the Electronic
      Theater (EDT) gathered over 18,000 participants from 46 countries.
      Hacktivists could join the battle simply by visiting the EDT's

      Hacktivism is thus well-suited to "swarming," a strategy in which
      hackers attack a given target from many directions at once. Because
      Internet is global, it is relatively easy to assemble a large group of
      digital warriors in a coordinated attack. The United Kingdom-based
      Electrohippies Collective estimated that 452,000 people participated
      in their sit-in on the website of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
      cyberattack was conducted in conjunction with street protests during
      the WTO's Seattle meetings in late 1999.

      Another attraction of hacktivism is the ability to operate anonymously
      on the Internet. Cyberwarriors can participate in attacks with little
      risk of
      being identified, let alone prosecuted. Further, participating in a
      cyberbattle is not life-threatening or even dangerous: hacktivists
      cannot be
      gunned down in cyberspace.

      Many hacktivists, however, reject anonymity. They prefer that their
      actions be open and attributable. EDT and Electrohippies espouse this
      philosophy. Their events are announced in advance and the main players
      use their real names.

      Web Defacement and Hijacking

      Web defacement is perhaps the most common form of attack.
      Attrition.org, which collects mirrors and statistics of hacked
      websites, recorded
      over 5,000 defacements in the year 2000 alone, up from about 3,700 in
      1999. Although the majority of these defacements may have been
      motivated more by thrills and bragging rights than by some higher
      cause, many were also casualties of a digital battle.

      Web hacks were common during the Kosovo conflict in 1999. The US
      hacking group called Team Sp10it broke into government sites and
      statements such as, "Tell your governments to stop the war." The
      Kosovo Hackers Group, a coalition of European and Albanian hackers,
      replaced at least five sites with black and red "Free Kosovo" banners.

      In the wake of the accidental bombing of China's Belgrade embassy by
      the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), angry Chinese citizens
      allegedly hacked several US government sites. The slogan "Down with
      Barbarians" was placed in Chinese on the web page of the US Embassy
      in Beijing, while the US Department of Interior website showed images
      of the three journalists killed during the bombing, and crowds
      the attack in Beijing. The US Department of Energy's home page read:

      "Protest USA's Nazi action!.. We are Chinese hackers who take no cares
      about politics. But we can not stand by seeing our Chinese reporters
      been killed which you might have know [sic]... NATO led by USA must
      take absolute responsibility... We won't stop attacking until the war

      Web defacements were also popular in a cyberwar that erupted between
      hackers in China and Taiwan in August 1999. Chinese hackers defaced
      several Taiwanese and government websites with pro-China messages
      saying Taiwan was and always would be an inseparable part of China.
      "Only one China exists and only one China is needed," read a message
      posted on the website of Taiwan's highest watchdog agency. Taiwanese
      hackers retaliated and planted a red and blue Taiwanese national flag
      and an anti-Communist slogan, "Reconquer, Reconquer, Reconquer the
      Mainland," on a Chinese high-tech Internet site. The cyberwar followed
      an angry exchange between China and Taiwan in response to then--
      Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui's statement that China must deal with
      Taiwan on a "state-to-state" basis.

      Many of the attacks during the Israeli-Palestinian cyberwar were web
      defacements. The hacking group GForce Pakistan, which joined the
      proPalestinian forces, posted heartwrenching images of badly mutilated
      children on numerous Israeli websites. The Borah Torah site also
      contained the message, "Jews, Israelis, you have crossed your limits,
      is that what Torah teaches? To kill small innocent children in that
      You Jews must die!" along with a warning of additional attacks.

      Hacktivists have also hijacked websites by tampering with the Domain
      Name Service so that the site's domain name resolves to the IP address
      of some other site. When users point their browsers to the target
      site, they are redirected to the alternative site.

      In what might have been one of the largest mass website takeovers, the
      antinuclear MilwOrm hackers joined with the Ashtray Lumberjacks
      hackers in an attack that affected more than 300 websites in July
      1998. According to reports, the hackers broke into the British
      Internet service
      provider (ISP) EasySpace, which hosted the sites. They altered the
      ISP's database so that users attempting to access the sites were
      redirected to
      a MilwOrm site, where they were greeted by a message protesting the
      nuclear arms race. The message concluded with "Use your power to keep
      the world in a state of PEACE and put a stop to this nuclear

      Web Sit-ins

      Web sit-ins are another popular form of attack. Thousands of Internet
      users simultaneously visit a target website and attempt to generate
      sufficient traffic to disrupt normal service. A group calling itself
      Strano Network conducted what was probably the first such
      demonstration as a
      protest against the French government's policies on nuclear and social
      issues. On December 21, 1995, they launched a one-hour Net'Strike
      attack against the websites operated by various government agencies.
      At the appointed hour, participants from all over the world pointed
      browsers to the government websites. According to reports, at least
      some of the sites were effectively knocked out for the period.

      In 1998, EDT took the concept a step further and automated the
      attacks. They organized a series of sit-ins, first against Mexican
      Ernesto Zedillo's website and later against US President Bill
      Clinton's White House website, the Pentagon, the US Army School of the
      the Frankfurt Stock Exchange, and the Mexican Stock Exchange. The
      purpose was to demonstrate solidarity with the Mexican Zapatistas.
      According to EDT's Brett Stalbaum, the Pentagon was chosen because "we
      believe that the US military trained the soldiers carrying out the
      human-rights abuses." For a similar reason, the US Army School of the
      Americas was selected. The Frankfurt Stock Exchange was targeted,
      Stalbaum said, "Because it represented capitalism's role in
      globalization utilizing the techniques of genocide and ethnic
      cleansing, which is at
      the root of the Chiapas' problems. The people of Chiapas should play a
      key role in determining their own fate, instead of having it pushed on
      them through their forced relocation.. which is currently financed by
      Western capital."

      To facilitate the strikes, the organizers set up special websites with
      automated software. All that was required of would-be participants was
      visit one of the FloodNet sites. When they did, their browser would
      download the software (a Java Applet), which would access the target
      every few seconds. In addition, the software let protesters leave a
      personal statement on the targeted server's error log. For example, if
      pointed their browsers to a nonexistent file such as "human rights" on
      the target server, the server would log the message, "human_rights not
      found on this server."

      When the Pentagon's server sensed the attack from the FloodNet
      servers, it launched a counteroffensive against the users' browsers,
      redirecting them to a page with an Applet program called
      "HostileApplet." Once there, the new applet was downloaded to their
      browsers, where
      it endlessly tied up their machines trying to reload a document until
      the machines were rebooted. The Frankfurt Stock Exchange reported that
      they were aware of the protest but believed it had not affected their
      services. Overall, EDT considered the attacks a success. "Our interest
      is to
      help the people of Chiapas to keep receiving the international
      recognition that they need to keep them alive," said Stalbaum.

      Since the time of the strikes, FloodNet and similar software have been
      used in numerous sit-ins sponsored by EDT, the Electrohippies, and
      others. There were reports of FloodNet activity during the
      Israeli-Palestinian cyberwar. Pro-Israel hackers created a website
      called Wizel.com,
      which offered FloodNet software and other tools before it was shut
      down. Pro-Palestinian hackers put up similar sites.

      The Electrohippies have been criticized for denying their targets'
      right to speech when conducting a sit-in. Their response has been that
      a sit-in
      is acceptable if it substitutes the deficit of speech by one group
      with a broad debate on policy issues and if the event used to justify
      the sit-in
      provides a focus for the debate. The Electrohippies also demand broad
      support for their actions. An operation protesting genetically
      foods was aborted when the majority of visitors to their site did not
      vote for the operation.

      Denial-of-Service Attacks

      Whereas a web sit-in requires participation by tens of thousands of
      people to have even a slight impact, the socalled denial-of-service
      and distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) tools allow lone
      cyberwarriors to shut down websites and e-mail servers. With a DoS
      attack, a hacker
      uses a software tool that bombards a server with network messages. The
      messages either crash the server or disrupt service so badly that
      legitimate traffic slows to a crawl. DDoS is similar except that the
      hacker first penetrates numerous Internet servers (called "zombies")
      installs software on them to conduct the attack. The hacker then uses
      a tool that directs the zombies to attack the target all at once.

      During the Kosovo conflict, Belgrade hackers were credited with DoS
      attacks against NATO servers. They bombarded NATO's web server with
      "ping" commands, which test whether a server is running and connected
      to the Internet. The attacks caused line saturation of the targeted

      Similar attacks took place during the Israeli-Palestinian cyberwar.
      ProPalestinian hackers used DoS tools to attack Netvision, Israel's
      largest ISP.
      While initial attacks crippled the ISP, Netvision succeeded in fending
      off later assaults by strengthening its security.

      Automated e-mail bombings represent another way of disrupting service.
      In what some US intelligence authorities characterize as the first
      known attack by terrorists against a country's computer systems,
      ethnic Tamil guerrillas swamped Sri Lankan embassies with thousands of
      e-mail messages. The messages read, "We are the Internet Black Tigers
      and we're doing this to disrupt your communications." An offshoot of
      the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, which had been fighting for an
      independent homeland for minority Tamils, was credited with the 1998

      The e-mail bombing consisted of about 800 e-mails a day for about two
      weeks. William Church, managing director of the Centre for
      Infrastructural Warfare Studies (CIWARS), observed that "the
      Liberation Tigers of Tamil are desperate for publicity and they got
      exactly what
      they wanted.... Considering the routinely deadly attacks committed by
      the Tigers, if this type of activity distracts them from bombing and
      then CIWARS would like to encourage them, in the name of peace, to do
      more of this type of 'terrorist' activity."

      Future Prospects

      As the Internet continues to grow, its popularity as a digital
      battleground for hacker warriors is likely to increase. There will be
      more targets to
      attack and more people to attack them. Many regions of conflict in the
      world have only recently joined the Internet. When they have, the
      conflict has followed them online. It seems likely that every major
      conflict in the physical world will have a parallel operation in
      Further, there may be cyberspace battles with no corresponding
      physical operations.

      Cyberdefenses will improve, but they are unlikely to fend off all
      attacks. New vulnerabilities are continually uncovered at a faster
      rate than ever
      before. Security lags behind. Cyberwarriors, therefore, will have
      little difficulty finding weak systems to attack. Hacking tools will
      become more
      powerful and easier to use.

      Although hacktivism is certain to be a part of the picture, it is
      harder to predict the extent to which terrorists might engage in
      attacks with
      potentially lethal or catastrophic consequences. While many hackers
      have the knowledge, skills, and tools to attack computer systems, they
      generally lack the motivation to cause violence or severe economic or
      social harm. Conversely, terrorists who are motivated to cause
      seem to lack the capability or motivation to cause that degree of
      damage in cyberspace.

      In August 1999, the Center for the Study of Terrorism and Irregular
      Warfare at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California,
      issued a
      report entitled "Cyberterror: Prospects and Implications." Their
      objective was to articulate the demand side of terrorism.
      Specifically, they
      assessed the prospects of terrorist organizations pursuing
      cyberterrorism. They concluded that the barrier to entry for anything
      annoying hacks is quite high and that terrorists generally lack the
      wherewithal and human capital needed to mount a meaningful operation.
      Cyberterrorism, they argued, was a thing of the future, although it
      might be pursued as an ancillary tool.

      The Monterey team defined three levels of cyberterror capability. The
      first level is simple-unstructured: the capability to conduct basic
      against individual systems using tools created by someone else. The
      organization possesses little target analysis, command and control, or
      learning capability.

      The second is advanced-structured: the capability to conduct more
      sophisticated attacks against multiple systems or networks, and
      possibly to
      modify or create basic hacking tools. The organization possesses
      elementary target analysis, command and control, and learning

      The third is complex-coordinated: the capability to coordinate attacks
      capable of causing mass disruption against integrated, heterogeneous
      defenses (including cryptography). The organization has the ability to
      create sophisticated hacking tools. They possess a highly capable
      analysis, command and control, and organizational learning capability.

      The Monterey team estimated that it would take a group starting from
      scratch two to four years to reach the advanced-structured level and
      to ten years to reach the complex-coordinated level, although some
      groups may get there in just a few years or turn to outsourcing or
      sponsorship to extend their capabilities more rapidly.

      The study examined five types of terrorist groups: religious, New Age,
      ethno-nationalist separatist, revolutionary, and far-right extremist.
      authors determined that only the religious groups are likely to seek
      the most damaging capability level, as it is consistent with their
      indiscriminate application of violence. New Age or single-issue
      terrorists, such as the Animal Liberation Front, pose the most
      immediate threat.
      However, such groups are likely to accept disruption as a substitute
      for destruction. Both the revolutionary and ethno-nationalist
      are likely to seek an advanced-structured capability. The far-right
      extremists are likely to settle for a simple-unstructured capability,
      cyberterror offers neither the intimacy nor the cathartic effects that
      are central to the psychology of far-right terror. The study also
      that hacker groups are psychologically and organizationally illsuited
      to cyberterrorism, and that it would be against their interests to
      cause mass
      disruption of the information infrastructure.

      For a terrorist, digital battles have other drawbacks. Systems are
      complex, so controlling an attack and achieving a desired level of
      damage may
      be harder than using physical weapons. Unless people are injured,
      there is also less drama and emotional appeal. Further, terrorists may
      be less
      inclined to try new methods unless they see their old ones as
      inadequate, particularly when the new methods require considerable
      and skill to use effectively. Terrorists generally stick with tried
      and true methods. Novelty and sophistication of attack may be much
      important than the assurance that a mission will be operationally
      successful. Indeed, the risk of operational failure could be a
      deterrent to
      terrorists. For now, the truck bomb poses a much greater threat than
      the logic bomb.

      The next generation of terrorists will grow up in a digital world,
      with ever more powerful and easy-to-use hacking tools at their
      disposal. They
      might see greater potential for cyberterrorism than do the terrorists
      of today, and their level of knowledge and skill relating to backing
      will be
      greater. Hackers and insiders might be recruited by terrorists or
      become self-recruiting cyberterrorists, the Timothy McVeighs of
      Some might be moved to action by cyberpolicy issues, making cyberspace
      an attractive venue for carrying out an attack. Cyberterrorism could
      also become more attractive as the real and virtual worlds become more
      closely coupled, with a greater number of physical devices attached to
      the Internet. Some of these may be remotely controlled. Unless these
      systems are carefully secured, conducting an operation that physically
      harms someone may be as easy as penetrating a website is today.

      Although cyberterrorism is likely to be at least a few years into the
      future, hacktivism is here today and likely to stay. Cyberspace is now
      more than a place for electronic commerce and communication. It has
      become a digital battleground for hacker warriors.


      Whereas hacktivism is real and widespread, cyberterrorism exists only
      in theory.Terrorist groups are using the Internet, but they still
      bombs to bytes as a means of inciting terror.

      It seems likely that every major conflict in the physical world will
      have a parallel operation in cyberspace. Further, there may be
      battles with no corresponding physical operations. (back to home)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.