Guerra Híbrida: o emprego da tecnologia da informação no conflito Rússia-Ucrânia (2014-2015)

Marcos Aurélio Guedes de Oliveira, Fernando Henrique Casalunga

Resumo


Como a tecnologia da informação amplia a assimetria de poder entre os Estados contemporâneos? Com o objetivo de responder ao questionamento, o artigo descreve o processo de utilização do ciberespaço para consecução dos objetivos estratégicos da Federação Russa em seu entorno regional, durante o conflito desencadeado com a Ucrânia (2014-2015). A partir da análise de relatórios de empresas especializadas em segurança cibernética e instituições governamentais, aplicamos as técnicas qualitativas da dependência da trajetória e rastreamento de processos para explicitar a complexidade das operações conjuntas entre as forças especiais russas e hackers civis, bem como a sofisticação das principais ameaças e armas utilizadas nos ataques cibernéticos. Desse modo, identificamos o mecanismo responsável por conectar os níveis estratégico, tático e operacional militar ao verificarmos o processo de ação simbiótica entre os atores envolvidos no conflito. As evidências coletadas indicam como a guerra híbrida empregada pela Federação Russa incorporou a dimensão cibernética como peça chave para a desestabilização de territórios e consecução de interesses em seu entorno estratégico.


Palavras-chave


Guerra Cibernética. Estratégia. Hacker. Russia

Texto completo:

PDF

Referências


Assant, Michael and Lee Robert. 2018. “The Industrial Control System Cyber Kill Chain.” SANS Institute Information Security Reading Room: 1–21.

https://www.sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/ICS/industrial-control-sys- tem-cyber-kill-chain-36297.

Bergen, Peter and Tim Maurer. 2018. “Cyberwar hist Ukraine.” CNN: 1–3. ht- tps://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/07/opinion/bergen-ukraine-cyber-attacks/.

Chuka, Neil. 2014. Hybrid warfare implications for CAF force development. Ottawa: Defence Research and Development Canada.

Collier, David. 2011. “Understanding Process Tracing.” Political Science and Politics 44, no. 4 (Outubro): 823–30.

Crowdstrike. 2014. “Global Threat Intel Report.” Crowdstrike: 4–76. https://www.crowdstrike.com/2014-global-threat-report.

Crowdstrike. 2015. “Global Threat Intel Report.” Crowdstrike: 3–89. https://go.crowdstrike.com/rs/281-OBQ-266/images/15GlobalThreatReport.pdf.

Crowdstrike. 2016. “Cyber Intrusion Services Casebook.” Crowdstrike: 2–25. https://www.crowdstrike.com/resources/reports/crowdstrike-cyber-intrusion-services-casebook-2016/.

E-ISAC. Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center. 2016. “Analysis of the Cyber Attack on the Ukranian Power Grid.” SANS ICS TLP:White: 1–29.

https://ics.sans.org/media/E-ISAC_SANS_Ukraine_DUC_5.pdf.

FireEye. 2014. “APA28: A Window Into Russia’s Cyber Espionage Operations?” FireEye: 3–44. https://www.fireeye.com/current-threats/APA-groups/rpt-A- PA28.html.

_____. 2016. “Overload Critical Lessons From 15 Years of ICS Vulnerabilities.” Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Vulnerability Trend Report: 3–11. https://www.fi- reeye.com/solutions/industrial-systems-and-critical-infrastructure-security/rp- t-industrial-control-systems-vulnerability-trend-report-2016.html.

F-Secure Labs. 2014. “BlackEnergy Rootkit, Sort Of. News From The Lab Archive.” News From The Lab Archive, 1-2. https://www.f-secure.com/weblog/ archives/00002715.html.

F-Secure Labs. 2016. “Blackenergy & Quedagh: The convergence of crimeware and APA attacks.” F-Secure Labs Security Response Malware Analysis Whitepaper: 1–16. https://www.fsecure.com/documents/996508/1030745/blackenergy_ whitepaper.pdf.

Gartzke, Erik. 2013. “The Myth of Cyberwar: Bringing War in Cyberspace Back Down to Earth.” International Security 38, no. 2: 41–73.

Geers, Kenneth. 2015. “Introduction: Cyber war in Perspective.” NATO CCD COE / Atlantic Council / Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv: 13–8. In:

_____. “Cyber War in Perspective: Russian Aggression Against Ukraine”. Tallinn: NATO CCD COE.

Greenberg, Andy. 2017. “Your Guide to Russia’s Infrastructure Hacking Teams. Wired Security.” Wired Security: 1–11. https://www.wired.com/story/russian-

-hacking-teams-infrastructure/.

Hacquebord, Feike. 2015. “Pawn Storm’s Domestic Spying Campaign Revealed: Ukraine and US Top Global Targets.” Trendmicro Security Intelligence: 1–7. http:// blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-security-intelligence/pawn-storms-domestic-s- pying-campaign-revealed-ukraine-and-us-top-global-targets/.

_____. 2017. “Two Years of Pawn Storm Examing and Incresingly Relevant Threat.” A TrendLabs Research Paper: 4–42. https://documents.trendmicro.com/ assets/wp/wp-two-years-of-pawn-storm.pdf.

Hoffman, Frank. 2007. Conflict in the 21 Century The Rise of Hybrid Wars. Arlington, Virginia: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.

ICS-CERT, Industrial Control Systems. 2016. “Cyber-Attack Against Ukrainian Critical Infrastructure”. Department of Homeland Security (IR- ALERT-H-16-056-01): 1–5. https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/alerts/IR- ALERT-H-16-056-01.

Janz, Scott and Maurer, Tim. 2014. “The Russia-Ukraine Conflict and Information Warfare in a Regional Context.” Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich: 1–4. https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/187945/ISN_184345_en.pdf.

Kello, Lucas. 2013. “The meaning of the Cyber Revolution Perils to Theory and Statecraft.” International Security 38, no. 2: 7–40.

Kjennerud, Erik and Cullen, Patrick. 2016. “What is Hybrid Warfare?” Norwegian Institute of International Affaris 1 (Jan): 1–4.

Koval, Nikolay. 2015. “Revolution Hacking.” Cys Centrum LLc, 55-58. In: . “Cyber War in Perspective: Russian Aggression Against Ukraine”. Tallinn: NATO CCD COE.

Lindsay, Jon. 2013. Stuxnet and the Limits of Cyber Warfare. Security Studies 22, no. 3: 365-404.

Lindsay, Jon. 2015. The impact of China on Cybersecurity. Journal of Strategic Security 39, no. 3: 7-47.

Lipovsky, Robert. 2014. “Back in BlackEnergy: 2014 Targeted Attacks in Ukraine and Poland.” Welivesecurity ESET: 1–12. https://www.welivesecurity. com/2014/09/22/back-in-blackenergy-2014.

LookingGlass. 2015. “Operation Armageddon: Cyber Espionage as a Strategic Component of Russian Modern Warfare.” Lookingglass Cyber Threat Intelligence Group: 3–51. https://www.lookingglasscyber.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/08/ Operation_Armageddon_Final.pdf.

Mahoney, James. 2012. “The logic of Process Tracing Tests in the Social Sciences.” Sociological Methods & Research 41, no. 4: 570–97.

Maurer, Tim. “Cyber Proxies and the Crisis in Ukraine.” New America, 79–86. In: . “Cyber War in Perspective: Russian Aggression Against Ukraine”. Tallinn: NATO CCD COE.

Meyers, Adam. 2016. “Danger close: FancyBear Tracking of Ukrainian Field Artillery Units.” Crowdstrike blog: 1–6. https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/dan- ger-close-fancy-bear-tracking-ukrainian-field-artillery-units/.

Olszewski, Boguslaw. 2018. “Advanced Persistent Threats as a Manifestations of State Military Activity in Cyber Space.” Institute of International Studies 189, no. 3: 57–71.

Pierson, Paul. 2000. “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics.” American Political Science Review 94, no. 2: 251–67.

USAOC. The United States Army Special Operations Command. 2015. “Little Green Men: a prime on Modern Russian Unconventional Warfare Ukraine 2013- 2014.” Johns Hopkins University Apllied Physics laboratory: 1–65.

Vaczi, Norbert. 2016. “Hybrid Wafare: How to Shape Special Operations Forces” Army Command and General Staff College: 3–88.

Weedon, Jen. 2015. “Beyond Cyber War: Russia’s use of Strategic Cyber Espionage and Information Operations in Ukraine.” FireEye: 67–78. In: _____. “Cyber War in Perspective: Russian Aggression Against Ukraine”. Tallinn: NATO CCD COE.

Weiss, Moritz and Jankauskas, Vytautas. 2019. “Securing Cyberspace How States Design Governance Arrangements.” International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 32, no. 2: 259–75.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.26792/rbed.v7n2.2020.75208

Apontamentos

  • Não há apontamentos.


INDEXADORES