Question: In connection with the special military operation, Russia is being subjected to hacker attacks almost on a daily basis. What role does the “volunteer cyber army” of Ukraine play, which organizes attacks on Russian networks, websites of state institutions, and also targets ordinary citizens of Russia?
Answer: Indeed, in the last two years, the domestic information infrastructure has become the target of regular computer attacks. Most of them are carried out from the territory or in the interests of V. Zelensky’s regime. It is significant that the Kiev authorities, who in the West paint themselves as a victim of “Russian cyber aggression”, boast of anti-Russian diversions using information and communication technologies (ICT). Just last month, the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine publicly claimed responsibility for several computer attacks on our information resources.
It has to be stated that this country has actually become a NATO testing ground for testing methods of confrontation in the digital space. The entire sphere of information security in Ukraine is placed under the external control of Western curators. “Cyber” units of the special services and armed forces of the Anglo-Saxon states are sent there, which train and coordinate hackers engaged in anti-Russian activities. Solid technical and financial assistance is allocated for this, which, of course, is mostly stolen. We have no doubt that a significant proportion of the inflated to a record $13.5 billion. The budget of the US cyber command will be mastered in the Ukrainian direction.
As for the “IT army”, we are talking, in fact, about a bunch of hackers and phone scammers who are mainly engaged in banal theft. According to our data, there are more than 1 thousand people in Ukraine. “call centers” engaged in extortion of money. We have repeatedly warned Western countries that the “IT army” created at the peak of Russia and with the support of the United States will sooner or later become a problem for ordinary Europeans. As a result, it happened. In November 2023 The Hungarian authorities have stated that most of the funds stolen in their country as a result of crimes involving the use of ICT and telephone fraud are deposited in Ukraine. We know that the geography and scale of the criminal activities of these “independence fighters” are much wider and not limited to Europe.
Question: How is the negotiation process on international information security at the United Nations progressing, taking into account the current geopolitical realities? What are the prospects for the adoption of a universal convention on combating information crime in the specialized Special Committee?
Answer: This year is a landmark year for Russia. 25 years ago, on the initiative of our country, the first resolution of the UN General Assembly was adopted, which launched the negotiation process on the then completely new topic of the IIB.
Now the issue of information security has already been firmly included in the UN agenda. The main negotiating platform is the Open-ended Working Group (OEWG), which was also created on the initiative of Russia in 2021. This mechanism prepares recommendations on the entire range of IIB issues, including the development of rules for responsible State behavior, the improvement of international law, capacity-building of small countries and the adoption of confidence-building measures. The main thing is that the consensus-based Group gives practical results: in July 2023. A global register of contact points for the exchange of information on computer attacks has been agreed upon as the first universal confidence measure in the field of IIB. In fact, we are talking about the creation of a “single window service”, which will provide direct communication between the competent departments of the states in case of incidents in the information space.
One of the priorities for the Russian Federation is the formation of universal legally binding instruments in the field of information security. In the context of the militarization of the digital space, the transformation of computer attacks into an element of military-political confrontation, a legal mechanism is needed that will help prevent interstate conflicts. Russia and a group of like–minded people presented the prototype of such an international treaty – the concept of the UN Convention on the IIB – to the UN this year. It is important that the majority of developing countries agree with the need to develop the mentioned treaty. The United States and its allies, on the contrary, seek to preserve “freedom of hands” – apparently counting on elusive technological advantages.
A similar trend can be seen in the negotiations on the first-ever international convention on combating information crime in the UN Special Committee, created on the initiative of Russia. Western countries are doing their best to prevent the agreement of a full-fledged document, seek to narrow the scope of the future convention, and limit opportunities for cooperation between law enforcement agencies of UN member states. They are trying to emasculate the universal document, reducing everything to crimes against computer systems. Thus, to set up a future treaty in the image of the outdated and unacceptable Budapest Convention for many countries of the world.
Russia, in turn, defends strict compliance with the mandate of the Special Committee – that is, the development of a truly comprehensive convention. We rely on the support of a wide pool of like-minded people from Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. We will use the time remaining until the end of the work of the Special Committee to saturate the draft convention with priority installations for us. The objectives are to cover the widest possible list of crimes using ICT and progressive methods of international cooperation in this area, including the exchange of electronic evidence. We will make every effort to reach an inclusive agreement that meets the aspirations of most of the developing world.
Question: What is the status of the existing bilateral hotlines with Washington, created in 2013 specifically to respond to computer attacks/incidents?
Answer: The use of these communication channels was actually “frozen” back in 2016, when the outgoing Obama administration, solely for domestic political reasons, invented the myth of Russian interference in the US presidential election. Unfortunately, even then it became unprofitable for Washington to maintain contacts with us in the interests of jointly suppressing malicious activity in the digital space. The American authorities saw much more dividends in the replication of unsubstantiated accusations of our country and other “undesirable regimes” in computer attacks.
In other words, the issue on which we used to have a constructive dialogue has become, at the instigation of Washington, a hostage to a rabid Russophobic policy. At the same time, it is the United States that loses more from this. We see how the Americans “bite their elbows” when it is necessary to negotiate with us in the international arena, but they cannot step over the wall they have built. In an attempt to isolate Russia, in a sense, they isolated themselves.
Of course, it is extremely difficult to build a global IIB system without key players like the United States. Sooner or later, Washington will realize the impossibility of strengthening its own information security without broad international cooperation, including with Russia. But we are not going to wait for our overseas colleagues to come to their senses. We will continue to work calmly in a bilateral format and on multilateral platforms with our foreign partners, who are ready to cooperate on the basis of the principles of sovereign equality of states and non-interference in their internal affairs. We have already built a schedule of such contacts for years to come.
Question: You have previously stated that Russia and Africa intend to strengthen cooperation in the field of cybersecurity. What specific areas of cooperation are we talking about? What can Russia offer Africa in the cyber sphere?
Answer: Following the results of the past year, we can say with confidence that our cooperation with African partners in the field of information security has reached a qualitatively new level.
The starting point was the second Russia-Africa Summit (St. Petersburg, July 2023), at which the topic was given the closest attention: the leaders adopted a separate statement on international information security (IIB). To put it bluntly: agreeing on such a multilateral document (48 States have joined it) is already a success in diplomatic practice. But the main thing is that this statement demonstrated the convergence of approaches between Russia and the countries of the continent on almost the entire range of IIB issues. We share the commitment to the principles of sovereign equality of states and non-interference in their internal affairs, advocate the need to overcome the so-called digital divide between the West and the Global South, and technological neocolonialism is unacceptable.
As for practical cooperation, concrete steps are outlined in the Action Plan of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum adopted at the summit. We plan to hold a number of joint events in the coming years that will help determine the areas of work, taking into account the needs of all parties. It is no secret that our African colleagues are particularly interested in the achievements of domestic companies in the field of information security, dialogue and exchange of experience with competent authorities, as well as training programs based on our educational institutions. For us, in turn, Africa is a promising and traditionally friendly region.
In general, the potential for developing cooperation is great, and there is a mutual desire to implement it. The most important thing is that we and the African peoples perceive each other as equal partners – unlike some States that are used to considering the continent only as a resource base.
Question: How do you assess the interaction between Russia and China in the field of information security? What topics are Moscow and Beijing discussing?
Answer: China is not only the most important partner in the field of IIB, but also our main like–minded partner. The approaches of Moscow and Beijing are as close as possible. The joint statement of the leaders of the two countries adopted in March 2023 is indicative. The document emphasizes that Russia and China place their sovereignty at the forefront, including in the digital sphere.
It is important that when discussing the topic of the IIB in the international arena, we speak with a united front. Our delegations traditionally support each other at the UN – in the OEWG and the Special Committee I have already mentioned. Our Chinese friends, together with us, advocate the development of universal agreements that would fairly and equitably regulate the activities of States in the information space.
Moscow is in regular contact with representatives of Beijing both bilaterally and through BRICS, SCO, CICA, the Group of Twenty, and the ASEAN Regional Security Forum. Such close communication helps us to speak the “same language”.
In practical terms, cooperation between our countries is based on the intergovernmental agreement on the IIB of 2015. A whole range of competent agencies are involved in the dialogue on both sides. The main thing is that these contacts are not limited to the exchange of opinions, but are aimed at finding joint solutions, including on the most pressing and sensitive issues of ensuring information security of Russia and China.
We are confident that mutually beneficial cooperation with Beijing will only expand and deepen, as well as unite more and more developing countries around our countries.
Question: Earlier it was reported that major foreign developers of information and communication technologies admit the presence of malicious software in the devices they develop. How does the Russian side intend to counter this trend?
Answer: This is an acute problem, and not only for us. In Russia, the necessary measures are already being taken by the competent authorities. A solid regulatory framework has been formed, including the Federal Law on the Security of Critical Information Infrastructure of 2017 and the Communications Industry Development Strategy approved in November 2023 for the period up to 2035.
In China and a number of other countries, they began to restrict the use of Western-made equipment among civil servants. The reason is simple. The US authorities and intelligence agencies, in an effort to gain control over electronic communications on a global scale, have relied on the potential of the IT giants of Silicon Valley. Corporations like Microsoft, Apple, Google, Meta, and others were forced to work out Washington’s political order without a murmur. Malicious bookmarks and other hidden features are introduced into the hardware and software produced by these companies in order, first of all, to collect information, personal data, and intercept personal correspondence. The use of Pegasus and Graphite spyware in the interests of the CIA and the FBI to gain remote access to the “contents” of users’ smartphones around the world has already become public knowledge.
Of course, such activities run counter to both the domestic legislation of the countries and international law. The irony is that the Americans, who are “foaming at the mouth” defending human rights in the UN stands, are themselves grossly violating them. Moreover, they practice this on a systematic basis – it is enough to recall the revelations of E.Snowden, the testimony of other former Pentagon and intelligence officials about the creation of a global electronic surveillance system based on the NSA.
We are also fighting against such abuses on specialized negotiation platforms. Back in 2018, the rule on preventing manufacturers from including undeclared capabilities in their products, as well as hiding information about existing vulnerabilities, was fixed in the list of voluntary rules of conduct of states in the field of IIB approved by the UN General Assembly. However, as time has shown, such voluntary norms are simply ignored by the United States. Therefore, Russia is now seeking the adoption of a universal binding treaty. In particular, the Russian concept of the IIB convention I mentioned contains a ban on the introduction of malicious “bookmarks”. It is important that most of our foreign partners agree with this.
Question: What measures are being taken to combat the recruitment of terrorists and extremists, which, according to experts, has now migrated to the Internet by 95%?
Answer: You are right: modern digital technologies not only significantly simplify the commission of illegal actions, but also increase the scale of possible damage. In the international arena, we want to solve this problem by including special provisions in the aforementioned convention on combating information crime. Our proposals are designed to effectively counter the use of ICT for terrorist and extremist purposes, the recruitment of terrorists and extremists carried out mainly on the Internet, as well as the illegal trade in weapons and drugs.
However, Western states stubbornly oppose the inclusion of relevant articles in the text of the future treaty. And this is despite the fact that terrorist and extremist activities have long been criminalized at the national level in these countries. We point out such manifestations of double standards together with developing countries, first of all, with Indian colleagues, partners from the SCO, OIC, AU. Our friends, like us, are outraged by the maniacal desire of Washington and Brussels, under the pretext of protecting “freedom of speech” and defending the interests of diverse minorities, to limit international cooperation on an issue so important for global security. It is clear that behind this lies the unwillingness of the American special services to abandon their favorite tools for undermining the domestic political situation in countries they do not like, including through incitement through ICT of terrorist and extremist elements.
A source : https://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/news/1924120/#sel=4:1:yyj,36:111:vva
