Security threats Toolkit

Story: Police ask for more Internet powers

• 
• 

Counterstrike through aggressive defence

The concept of counterstrike through aggressive defence presupposes the adoption and use of information technology to produce legitimate and legalised disabling and reasonably destructive effects. Some adopted measures completely destroys the functioning of the offending computer while others simply disable the computer for the time being by either shutting it down or making it temporarily non-functional. Thus, the adopted measure to gain public support and legitimacy must be “proportionate” to the harm that could have caused had that measure not been adopted. For instance, the shutting down of the computer of the person using the malware is permissible whereas the destruction or procurement of data and information stored in such computer, having no connection and association with that malware, may not be commensurate with the protection requirements. Such destruction or procurement of data may be unlawful and perhaps exceed the limits of self-defence. Thus, technology adopted must not only be safe and effective, but it must also be “legal and law-abiding”. A countermeasure, which is not very accurate, and law abiding would be a remedy worst than the malady and hence it should be avoided. For instance, if a virus has been launched by using a public server, then by disabling that server the genuine and legitimate users will be unnecessarily harassed and they would be denied the services which they are otherwise entitled to. Thus, the countermeasure measure adopted must be job specific and not disproportionate to the injury sought to be remedied.

The problems associated with the use of malware are not peculiar to any particular country as the menace is global in nature. The countries all over the world are facing this problem and are trying their level best to eliminate this problem. The problem, however, cannot be effectively curbed unless popular public support and a vigilant judiciary back it. The legislature cannot enact a law against the general public opinion of the nation at large. Thus, first a public support has to be obtained not only at the national level but at the international level as well. The people all over the world are not against the enactment of statutes curbing the use of malware, but they are conscious about their legitimate rights. Thus, the law to be enacted by the legislature must take care of public interest on a priority basis. This can be achieved if a suitable technology is supported by an apt legislation, which can exclusively take care of the menace created by the computers sending the malware. Thus, the self-help measures recognised by the legislature should not be disproportionate and excessive than the threat received by the malware. Further, while using such self-help measures the property and rights of the general public should not be affected. It would also not be unreasonable to demand that such self-help measures should not themselves commit any illegal act or omission. Thus, a self-help measure should not be such as may destroy or steal the data or secret information stored in the computer of the person sending the malware. It must be noted that two wrongs cannot make a thing right. Thus, a demarcating line between self-help and taking law in one’s own hand must be drawn. In the ultimate analysis we must not forget that self-help measures are “watchdogs and not blood-hounds”, and their purpose should be restricted to legitimate and proportionate defensive actions only. In India, fortunately, we have a sound legal base for dealing with malware and the public at large has no problem in supporting the self-help measures to combat cyber terrorism and malware. If still there remains any doubt or objection, then it will be sufficient to mention that only a computer can react fast enough to take care of the menace of malware and the traditional methods of law enforcement are helpless in this regard. The problems of lack of harmonisation, doubt rega

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 

Full Talkback thread