Headline Feb 17, 2018/ ''' *CYBER*- CYKES '''

''' *CYBER*- CYKES '''

THE WORLD STUDENTS SOCIETY - HAS THE SINGULAR HONOR to coin a new word : *Cyber-Cykes* for Cyber-Nukes.

!BEWARE : FOR STATES FIRE *CYBER-NUKES*........ AND MARRY CLASSIC - propaganda techniques with newest ways to spread a divisive message!:

For North Korea, $81 million had passed through the Swift System, the international *clearinghouse* for transactions, after the New York Fed found a spelling error : ''fandation'' for ''foundation''.

*American and European officials raise alarm whenever they find implants in their electrical grids. But they also quietly place them in hundreds of thousands of foreign networks*.

As James Lewis for the Center for Strategic and International Studies   
puts it, ''North Korea is both cautious and cunning in its use of force, including cyberattacks.'' But he added -

''The North has been successful only against poorly protected targets, of which there are many, suggesting that that there is a relatively low ceiling for its cyberattacks capabilities.''

IN FACT, the explosion of state-sponsored, sophisticated cyberattacks over the past seven or eight years has been fueled, in large part, by expansion of poorly protected targets.

Yes, banks and major utilities have, for the large part, tightened their defenses, and tens of billions of dollars have been made by companies promising all kinds of cyber protections. 

But none of that has prevented cyberspace from becoming what President Barack Obama termed the  ''Wild, Wild West.'' a territory of anarchy, where adversaries take fresh shots at one another.

In the past five years, these attacks have become the cheapest way for nations to undercut one another in the name of bigger strategic goals.

YET, the world has been unable to decide what constitutes fair game, and what should be off limits. For years officials talked about their fear of a ''cyber Pearl Harbor,'' a devastating strike against the  power grid that would turn out the lights from Boston to Washington, or London to Rome.

That has not happened, save for limited strikes in Ukraine, widely attributed to Russian Hackers, that seemed intended to prove they could attack critical targets. Countries have sensed what would happen if they went too far.

Instead, cyberattacks have taken a far more subtle turn, the Russian-led-attacks on the 2016 American election - and similar efforts in France and Germany last year - are prime examples.

While United Nations experts had been struggling to come up with ''norms of behavior'' in cyberspace, a consensus of what was off limits - like attack on power grids or safety systems  - few were thinking about the use of the technology to influence elections.

In fact, the election systems in the United States - the foundation of American democracy - was never on the list of ''critical infrastructure'' until Mr. Obama's Homeland secretary, Jeh Johnson, added them in the last days of the administration.

But it was too late.

Infrastructure is only part of the problem. The evidence that poured out of the United States after more than a year of Congressional investigations has left no doubt that Russian Hackers - working largely on behalf of two of Moscow's spy services -

The S.V.R and the G.R.U - did far more than use cyber tools to break into the Democratic National Committee and the accounts of key players in Hillary Clinton's Campaign.

The sophisticated use of ''BOTS'' to target demographic groups with Twitter messages, Facebook ads and just ordinary-looking socialmedia exchanges made it clear that we entered a ''new world,'' in which-

States marry some of the oldest propaganda techniques with the newest ways to disseminate a divisive message.

Yet thinking about how to regulate that kind of activity is tying the West in knots.

President Macron is proposing that government authorities be able to take down ''fake news'' during elections, declaring in his New Year's speech that ''if we want to protect liberal democracies, we must be strong and have clear rules.''

Yet those rules clearly not survive in the United States, where First Amendment protections would prohibit the government from declaring what is fake and what is not.

There have been a few successes in setting norms of behavior, particularly when it comes to banning child pornography or cracking down on intellectual theft.

But those are the easiest issues on which to agree.

The United States for example, would never support rules that banned espionage. And what about rules prohibiting the placement of ''implants'' in foreign computer networks, so-

That in the future they could monitor activity or plant malware to bring a network down?

American and European officials raise the alarm whenever they find such implants in their electrical grids. But they also quietly place them in hundreds of thousands of foreign networks.

It is a power that the United States and its allies have no intention of giving up.

Seeking an elusive cure for cyberattacks remains as elusive as ever.

With respectful dedication to the Leaders, Students, Professors and Teachers of the world. See Ya all on !WOW! - the World Students Society and Twitter-!E-WOW! - the Ecosystem 2011:

''' Keeping Cyber Watch '''

Good Night and God Bless

SAM Daily Times - the Voice of the Voiceless