QUICKLOOK: Unveiling Covert State-sponsored Cyber Espionage: A Threat to Commercial Prosperity
PDF debrief: Shedding Light on the Unseen Danger Lurking in Cyberspace, Jeopardizing Economic Growth
Introduction:
In the report authored by Dr. Gatra Priyandita, Bart Hogeveen, and Dr. Ben Stevens, the authors delve into the increasing importance of intellectual property (IP) in the modern economic landscape. As the global economy becomes more digital and innovative, IP has become a central part of commercial success. This is true for both advanced and emerging economies. As the value of IP grows, so does the investment by businesses and research institutes in securing their data and communication systems. The goal is to protect their sensitive business information and trade secrets from malicious actors. The Covid-19 pandemic has brought to light the challenges that come with dependencies on trust and confidence in a safe and secure digital environment. The surge in cybersecurity incidents during this period has underscored the importance of robust cybersecurity measures.
Event Summary:
The report provides a comprehensive overview of state-sponsored economic cyber-espionage for commercial purposes. It discusses the norm of responsible state conduct in cyberspace and the challenges in operationalizing the norm against cyber-enabled theft of IP. The authors also delve into the current state practices of economic cyber-espionage. They highlight the difference between 'targeted' and 'affected' in the context of cyber-espionage and discuss the scale of reported incidents of economic cyber-espionage.
Assessment:
The authors assess that strategic competition has spilled into the economic and technological domains. States have become more comfortable and capable of using offensive cyber capabilities. The state practice of economic cyber-espionage appears to have resurged to pre-2015 levels and tripled in raw numbers. State-sponsored and cyber-enabled theft of IP has increased in scale, geographical spread, and severity. In an increasing number of situations, the private sector and universities have been specifically targeted. This assessment is based on publicly recorded incidents. Given the clandestine and invisible nature of these acts, and the lag in time before the effects of IP theft are noticeable and disclosed or reported, there’s reason to believe that the real scale, spread, and severity are even higher.
Conclusion:
The report concludes that addressing this invisible but persistent threat to economic competitiveness and prosperity first requires awareness. The government needs to acknowledge and recognize the nature of the risk. This could be enabled through more rigorous and specific assessments of the impact of lost IP on the national economy in terms of financial costs, jobs, and industry competitiveness. National cybersecurity authorities and (counter)intelligence agencies could invest more in efforts to determine the scale and severity of state-sponsored economic cyber-espionage in their territory.
The report also makes several recommendations. It suggests that the G20 leaders reaffirm their commitment made in 2015 to refrain from economic cyber-espionage for commercial purposes. It also recommends that the chair establishes a cross-sectoral working group with the tasks of developing concrete guidance for the operationalization and implementation of the agreement and of assessing the scale and impact of ICT-enabled theft of IP while accounting for different geographies and economic sectors.