Tag: propaganda

The Art of Cyberwar | Part III | Attack by Stratagem

The principle:
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.  Sun Tzu – Chapter III

the golden era

Strategy vs. Stratagem

A strategy is designed for longevity, while a stratagem addresses immediate challenges. Strategy anticipates years ahead to foster resilience. Stratagem focuses on the next breach, exploit, or distraction.

Within cybersecurity, strategy encompasses architectural design, layered controls, validated incident response plans, and a culture prepared to act decisively during crises. Stratagem represents the attacker’s tools, such as persuasive emails, covert code injections, or precisely timed physical penetration tests.

Both approaches are powerful, yet each possesses inherent limitations.

The Modern Battlefield: Fluid and Fractured

The threat landscape evolves continuously. Traditional boundaries are replaced by cloud environments, API vulnerabilities, and interconnected third-party networks. Security architects must prioritize adaptability and fluidity over static defenses to effectively mitigate risks.

Zero Trust principles, continuous validation, and integrated security practices throughout the development lifecycle enable proactive identification and mitigation of vulnerabilities prior to production deployment. In an environment where compromise is presumed and rapid response is critical, these measures are indispensable.

Effective defenders adopt a proactive stance. They anticipate adversary actions, analyze behavioral patterns, and design systems to adapt under attack rather than fail.

Attack by Stratagem: The Psychology of Exploitation

Major breaches often originate through psychological manipulation rather than technical flaws. Techniques such as phishing, vishing, and deepfakes exploit cognitive vulnerabilities to diminish user awareness. This approach mirrors historical propaganda methods, where controlling perception leads to controlling behavior.

While governments previously leveraged headlines and radio broadcasts, contemporary attackers exploit digital interfaces such as login pages and hyperlinks. Both strategies depend on user fatigue, habitual behavior, and misplaced trust. If users believe a fraudulent login page is legitimate, they inadvertently compromise security.

Similarly, if citizens equate fear with patriotism, they may relinquish critical judgment in favor of perceived safety. As Ben Franklin observed, individuals who prioritize temporary safety over essential liberty may ultimately forfeit both: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.“

This tactic operates effectively across a spectrum, from individual email inboxes to broader ideological movements.

The Architecture of Awareness

A resilient security architecture reflects the characteristics of an aware and vigilant mindset.

Network segmentation limits the blast radius. Application hardening predicts misuse before it happens.

Firewalls and Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) systems provide the critical, irreplaceable resource of time.

Knowing your environment is knowing yourself.

Without a thorough understanding of all dependencies, exposures, and behavioral patterns, it is impossible to detect significant changes or anomalies. The same principle applies at the national level: when societies cease to critically evaluate their narratives, division and deception proliferate with ease.

Propaganda Built Into the Code

James Montgomery Flagg, I Want You for U.S. Army, 1917, collection of Chip and Carrie Robertson, photo by Robert Wedemeyer
James Montgomery Flagg, I Want You for U.S. Army, 1917, collection of Chip and Carrie Robertson, photo by Robert Wedemeyer

From Woodrow Wilson’s Committee on Public Information to the televised theater of Desert Storm, America learned how framing shapes belief.

Attackers apply similar principles, constructing their deceptive tactics by exploiting established trust.

Deceptive login pages replicate corporate portals, ransomware communications adopt professional language, and deepfakes are crafted to appear and sound authentic.

The primary threat is not the attack itself, but the absence of awareness regarding potential dangers. Stratagem prevails when critical scrutiny is abandoned.

Reverse Engineering the Present

Post-incident analyses consistently reveal that warning signals were present before breaches. Although alerts, logs, and telemetry data were available, they did not translate into actionable understanding.

Visibility does not equate to genuine situational awareness.

Historical events reinforce this observation.

The United States has engaged in conflicts based on incomplete or inaccurate information, often mistaking perception for certainty.

In both cybersecurity and geopolitics, failure frequently results from conflating raw data with meaningful insight.

Understanding adversaries requires effective intelligence gathering, including threat hunting, reconnaissance, and red-team exercises.

Self-awareness in cybersecurity necessitates discipline, such as maintaining asset visibility, ensuring policy integrity, and sustaining composure during operations.

A deficiency in either area enables adversarial stratagems to succeed.

The Quiet Defense

The most robust networks, analogous to resilient individuals, operate discreetly.
They do not engage in ostentatious displays; instead, they maintain a constant state of preparedness.

Their resilience is embedded within their structural design rather than expressed through rhetoric.

Authentic resilience does not stem from more active dashboards or faster technical tools. Resilience is rooted in organizational culture, situational awareness, and a humble approach. It is defined by the ability to learn, adapt, and respond more rapidly than emerging threats.

Cybersecurity, akin to statecraft, is a continuous endeavor to prevent breaches. Success is achieved not by engaging in every conflict, but by anticipating and neutralizing threats before they materialize, thereby securing victory without ever having to fight. Bringing us full circle back to understanding the fundamental nature of the original principle: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.

The Art of Cyberwar | Part I | The Illusion of Truth

The principle:
All warfare is based on deception. —Sun Tzu

In warfare, there’s a certain irony in how often truth becomes a casualty before the first shot is ever fired. As an American, that line from The Art of War has always carried extra weight. Our history is full of moments when deception wasn’t just a tactic on the battlefield; it was the spark that lit the fuse.

From the smoke and mirrors of the Spanish-American War to the Gulf of Tonkin and the blurred motives of the Gulf Wars and the Global War on Terrorism, we’ve seen how perception shapes permission. Wars don’t always start because one side is stronger; they start because one story feels true enough to believe.

And since “All warfare is based on deception,” Sun Tzu went on to say:

When you’re able to attack, you must appear unable. When using our forces, we must seem inactive. When we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away. When we’re far away, we must make him believe we are nearby.

We must hold out bait to entice the enemy and then crush him. If he is superior in strength, evade him. If your opponent is overconfident in nature, seek to provoke him. Pretend to be weak, so that he may grow arrogant and attack when he otherwise wouldn’t. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected. If he is trying to take rest and recover, give him no rest. If his forces are united, divide them.

The general who loses a battle has made only a few calculations beforehand. Thus, many calculations lead to victory, and making only a few calculations ensures defeat. By paying attention to these points, I can foresee who is likely to win or lose.

Deception as Strategy

The principles articulated by Sun Tzu extend beyond the battlefield to broader strategic contexts. His observations highlight the value of misdirection for leaders and strategists. The objective is not to create disorder, but to control perception and attention. In both conventional warfare and digital security, success frequently depends on understanding the adversary’s perception of reality. This principle underpins the effectiveness and prevalence of social engineering tactics.

Contemporary deception strategies have shifted focus from traditional military maneuvers to achieving information dominance. Modern tools include manipulated narratives, deepfakes, phishing campaigns, propaganda, and misinformation. These methods target cognitive processes rather than physical harm. Once individuals accept misinformation as truth, further manipulation becomes significantly easier. The Committee on Public Information, the United States’ World War I propaganda agency, exemplifies institutionalized information control.

Cybersecurity’s Ethical Deception

In cybersecurity, deception is employed with the intent to enhance defense mechanisms. Techniques such as honeypots attract attackers, sandbox environments facilitate malware analysis, and red team exercises simulate adversarial tactics to maintain robust security postures.

In this context, deception functions as a defensive measure rather than an offensive tool. It is utilized to identify vulnerabilities rather than to exploit them. The underlying principle that can mislead a nation may, when applied ethically, serve to protect it. The distinction lies in the intent: defense and awareness as opposed to manipulation and illusion.

Both approaches depend on psychological insight and require strategic foresight. However, only defensive deception is fundamentally grounded in ethical integrity.

The Martial Mirror

Martial artists understand deception in its purest, most physical form. A feint isn’t a lie, it’s a question. In Wing Chun, they’re called “asking hands.” You draw your opponent’s attention, focus and/or movement one way to reveal where they’re vulnerable. The best fighters aren’t those who hide, but those who read intent faster than it’s shown. It’s why attacks on the halfbeat are so effective. But, that’s a lesson for another time.

Cybersecurity employs similar principles. Confrontation is not always optimal; instead, threats are redirected, absorbed, or neutralized preemptively. The discipline emphasizes anticipating patterns before they fully emerge, rather than merely reacting. This approach is often described as the art of fighting without fighting.

The Modern Maxim

“Deception reveals more than it hides, it shows what we most want others to believe.”

In this context, each act of deception simultaneously reveals underlying motives, strategies, and tactics.

For those responsible for safeguarding systems, individuals, or factual accuracy, the task often begins where clarity diminishes. The primary challenge is not to eliminate deception entirely, but to recognize and understand it without compromising ethical standards.

The initial action in any conflict, whether digital, physical, or psychological, is seldom a direct attack; it is often the creation of a narrative to tell. The essential responsibility is to accurately identify threats based on objective analysis, rather than relying solely on presented information. Illustrating the everlasting importance of learning the principle of this story: All warfare is based on deception.