Posted by Scott Charney
Corporate Vice President, Trustworthy Computing
 
For more than two decades, people have struggled to understand the cyber threat, evaluate the risks to individuals, organizations (including nation-states), and society at large, and craft appropriate responses. Although many organizations have invested significantly in information assurance, most computer security experts believe that a well-resourced and persistent adversary will more often than not be successful in attacking systems, especially if raising defenses is the only response to an attack. For this reason, increasing attention is being paid to deterring such attacks in the first instance, especially by governments that have the power to investigate criminal activity and use a wide range of tools to respond to other public safety and national security concerns.
 
Notwithstanding this emerging discussion, it appears to many people that neither governments nor industry are well-positioned to respond to this highly complex threat and that, from a policy and tactical perspective, there is considerable paralysis. In my Rethinking Cyber Threats and Strategies paper I discuss a framework for categorizing and assessing cyber threats, the problem with attribution, and possible ways for society to prevent and respond to cyber threats.
 
In my speech today at the International Security Solutions Europe (ISSE) Conference in Berlin, Germany, I proposed one possible approach to addressing botnets and other malware impacting consumer machines.  This approach involves implementing a global collective defense of Internet health much like what we see in place today in the world of public health. I outline my vision in a new position paper Microsoft is publishing today titled “Collective Defense: Applying Public Health Models to the Internet.”
 
In the paper I discuss how commonly available cyber defenses such as firewalls, antivirus and automatic updates for security patches can reduce risk, but they’re not enough. Despite our best efforts, many consumer computers are host to malware or are part of a botnet. “Bots,” networks of compromised computers controlled by hackers, can provide criminals with a relatively easy means to commit identity theft and also lead to much more devastating consequences if used for an attack on critical government infrastructure or financial systems.
 
Just as when an individual who is not vaccinated puts others’ health at risk, computers that are not protected or have been compromised with a bot put others at risk and pose a greater threat to society.  In the physical world, international, national, and local health organizations identify, track and control the spread of disease which can include, where necessary, quarantining people to avoid the infection of others.  Simply put, we need to improve and maintain the health of consumer devices connected to the Internet in order to avoid greater societal risk.  To realize this vision, there are steps that can be taken by governments, the IT industry, Internet access providers, users and others to evaluate the health of consumer devices before granting them unfettered access to the Internet or other critical resources.
 
Cyber security policy and corresponding legislation is being actively discussed in many nations around the world and there is a huge opportunity to promote this Internet health model.  As part of this discussion, it is important to focus on building a socially acceptable model. While the security benefits may be clear, it is important to achieve those benefits in a way that does not erode privacy or otherwise raise concern. 
 
With both security and privacy in mind, the following statements reflect proposed principles for progress outlined in my paper and are intended to help guide stakeholders’ efforts, promote action, address challenges, and influence future initiatives. 
 
•         The risk that botnets present to Internet users and critical infrastructures must be addressed.
•         Collective defense can and should be used to help improve the security of consumer   devices and protect against such cyber threats.
•         A public health model can empower consumers and improve Internet security.
•         Voluntary behavior and market forces are the preferred means to drive action but if those means fail, then governments should ensure these concepts are advanced. 
•         Privacy concerns must be carefully considered in any effort to promote Internet security by focusing on device health.  In that regard, examining health is not the same as examining content; communicating health is not the same as communicating identity; and consumers can be protected in privacy-centric ways that do not adversely impact freedom of expression and freedom of association.
 
Within the current legal and political landscape, and with the current state-of-the-art in technology, there are collective defense actions we can take now and we should commit to continued cooperation, collaboration and investment to fully leverage current tools and technology.  With examples like France’s Signal Spam or Japan’s Cyber Clean Center as models, industry and governments need to build upon the successes to more systematically help improve and maintain the health of Internet connected systems and to disrupt cybercrime and other threats to individuals and society. 
 
For its part, Microsoft looks forward to continuing to provide and promote research and development that will make system scanning and cleanup more cost effective, along with looking to solve current technical barriers. We will also advocate for legislation and policies worldwide that help advance the model, but does so in a way that advances principles supporting user control and privacy.