Network security has always been something of balancing act between maximizing sharing and ease of use, and erecting barriers.

When computer networks first emerged, there were few limitations on what could be transmitted over them. However, after the world’s first major network computer security incident—the Morris Worm of 1988—organizations began to retreat behind network-level firewalls and anti-virus software. Some defenders even tried to completely disconnect their networks from the outside world via “air gaps.”

This paper argues that it is time to move beyond the security paradigm of separating networks, as epitomized by the air gap. Instead, network defenders should embrace an approach which allows sharing and connectedness, anticipates that adversaries will penetrate the network, and is able to detect, and ultimately eject those adversaries before they can do harm.

In this paper, we propose a way of thinking about cybersecurity that unifies the various forms of attack. The framework is two-dimensional, looking at both the goal of the attack and the mechanism for launching the attack. The first dimension looks at the goal of the attack by using the common “CIA” triad to categorize the target—that is, whether the attack affects a system’s confidentiality, integrity, or availability (CIA). The second dimension is unique to our knowledge and differentiates attacks based on how the attacks obtain a thread of control.

Democracy is built on the crucial compact that citizens will have access to reliable information and can use that information to participate in government, civic, and corporate decision-making. The technologies of the Information Age were largely built on the assumption that they would strengthen this compact. However, as typified by Russia’s ongoing use of information operations against the United States and Europe, key information technologies have evolved quickly over the past five years and been weaponized against democracies. 

This paper addresses the question: how should Australia respond to the rising threat of cyber-enabled interference operations? While its focus is Australia, its findings and recommendations are intended to be relevant to a global audience. Australia has already been something of a ‘canary in the coal mine’ in putting the issue of foreign interference on the global agenda. Its geostrategic position—as a democracy in the middle of the increasingly volatile Indo-Pacific region—is likely to ensure it remains on the leading edge of the CEI-OPS threat.