Is NATO’s new definition of what constitutes an armed attack under Article V more bark than bite? That is the view of certain cybersecurity experts, according to a CNBC Report. The report highlights three main obstacles, discussed by those experts. For more information on NATO’s declaration, read this recent post.
The first obstacle, according to the report, is the difficulty of attributing the origin of the cyberattack. While certain NATO members may have the capacity to determine the origin, the experts cited by the article counter that those member states may not be eager to reveal their intelligence and technological capabilities.
The second obstacle, according to the report, is that evidence is less concrete in the digital world than with physical warfare, where satellites can capture images. The report notes that the ambiguity that results from the less than clear evidence is likely to allow reluctant NATO members to argue that they are not persuaded.
Finally, the third obstacle discussed by the report, is the absence of an exact standard that would be used to determine when there is amble evidence of a cyberattack that would require retaliation.
According to the report, NATO will consider each cyber incident on a case-by-case basis, but that may not be enough to identify, attribute and respond to cyberstrikes in a timely manner.
wcsnyder
What is “NATO’s new definition of what constitutes an armed attack under Article V?”
wcsnyder
What is “NATO’s new definition of what constitutes an armed attack under Article V?”