Thread by @JackieGSchneid

My first thoughts on the strategic impact of Solar Winds: this is appears to be a large infiltration of networks that contain important information about US government operations. This could be a huge intelligence loss for the US with long term implications for national security

As of yet, no released evidence that hack led to disruptions, deletions, or manipulations of data (still waiting here). Unclear whether this was restraint by (presumable) Russian actors, lack of opportunity, or a combination of both, i.e. intel benefit outweighed attack benefit.

Lessons learned: 1) there is a proliferation of private & public US actors that have the capability and willingness to attribute. Attribution may become less of a political decision as these private attribution actors become more influential & capable.

Lessons learned: 2) these kinds of cyber exploits for intelligence will continue. Recommend reading @JoshRovner1 & @jonrlindsay on cyber as an intelligence framework. tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…
warontherocks.com/2019/09/cyber-…

Lesson learned: 3) I largely agree w/folks that point to these exploits as evidence that deterrence of intelligence-motivated cyber exploits is a flawed strategy. I still believe that defense, counter-cyber ops, & info sharing is the best response to these kinds of hacks.

@jacklgoldsmith has important ?s about whether US would conduct similar hacks & if so whether the US' current toolbox is appropriate for dissuading (or degrading) adversaries from these hacks. Are we on the losing side of this competition? @lawfareblog
lawfareblog.com/quick-thoughts…

The US can better shape rules of the road, but I'm pessimistic we can dissuade adversaries from attempting these cyber hacks. I do believe declaratory restraint can help build norms about not using accesses for cyber attacks that cause civilian violence. tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…