We are approaching Easter, but cyber news does not take the calmness of this period. Cyber continues to grow as if it were just another physical weapon. Countries are under attack, such as Finland through a denial of service, most likely due to its new interest in joining NATO. To what extent can cyber-attack tools constrain the decisions of sovereign countries?

The trickle of cases related to zero-click agents taking remote control of devices, especially iPhones, continues. No one is showing evidence that points specifically to a particular vendor, but that does not stop the names we are all familiar with being bandied about. However, no one talks about which countries are carrying out these acts using these tools. I know that these suppliers only serve governments pre-approved by Israel and, as with most things to do with physical or virtual weapons, its “special” partner, the United States. The clauses for the use of these tools are draconian and require a representation that their use is only to be established against “major crimes” such as terrorism or drug trafficking. Who gets around this? No one is saying… at the moment.

Finally, it is clear that the threat of cyber security can no longer be restricted only to broad concepts and general regulations. The individual contribution to cyber security is becoming increasingly necessary. This includes entities as well as individuals. The philanthropist and billionaire Craig Newmark, who once founded Craigslist, has donated 50 million dollars to promote individual cyber-resilience. What is usually the weakest link in the cyber-resilience chain? ...

Best,

Francisco Canos

For further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to send an email to [email protected]