The note was prepared by Marcel Rutkowski
On 2 October 2024, the 5th edition of the Cyber24Day conference was held in Warsaw. 1 of the biggest events in the cybersecurity manufacture devoted to discussion, cyber safety debates and fresh technologies, was sealed with the presence of over a 1000 visitors.
During expert debates, various cybersecurity topics were addressed, including (cyber) a resilient country, challenges facing cybermilitary forces, artificial intelligence and its function in combat. The focus was besides on building awareness against cyber threats, safe communication. There were besides visionary debates on defence 4.0 and trends in the future of cybersecurity.
1) How do you command cyber-military?
During the panel led by Dr. Jack Raubo – Head of defence Analysis24, whose guest was Gen. Dyw Karol Molenda – Commander of the Cyberspace defence Army, the issue of challenges facing today's cybermilitary was raised. It was noted that the regulation for good leadership was the deficiency of obstacles and good organizational culture. We live in times where we request to be able to combine safety and functionality in specified a way that they work together. During the firechat, it besides pointed to differences between domains, i.e. relations within the military – what distinguishes cyber? In this context, it was noted that cyberspace flows at a different pace than another battlefield domains. The Armed Forces are preparing for conflict, they have sometimes in contrast to cyber, which cannot afford to take a break in action. We request an immediate consequence and a squad operating 24/7. Why is that? The answer is simple – the opponent will break the security, achieving the intended effect, or will not. It is certain that the increased number of attacks on our “cyberinfrastructure” allows you to learn the actions of abroad services. The issue of interoperability between cyber-military components was besides raised, resulting from global cooperation with countries specified as the United States, France, the United Kingdom and Germany. The question of the possible of improvement in the cyber domain was besides attempted. In the context of a dynamically changing planet and the constantly evolving cybersecurity domain, we request to ask ourselves about our work and how to aid the owners of critical infrastructure, essential for military activities.
2. How to safe Critical Infrastructure in Poland?
In the context of this panel, the speakers of which were Paweł Bąkała, Piotr Kubicki, Przemysław Gęsiak, Jan Jakub Śrzyrek, and Tomasz Zdzikot, and led by Dr. Damian Szlachter, many crucial topics were raised. The guests in the discussion highlighted the request for precedence protection of critical infrastructure systems resulting from the situation and geopolitical situation. The question was how to defend the infrastructure, indicating a frequent deficiency of awareness of threats in cyberspace. We cannot bet on alleged soft regulations, or suggestions, but hard to implement. We must remember that safety is not profitable, safety costs. Communication issues have besides been addressed, revealing the challenges facing our country for many years. Attention was drawn to the deficiency of a uniform radio strategy for all services. How do we integrate these systems? Each state has a different 1 – we do not have standardization. Service shall not be able to contact each another at the scene. Communication is simply a key component of critical infrastructure. You gotta look at it holistically, you gotta build 1 communication system. But is it radio? Nope. There are many media that can be utilized simultaneously. We request to think about utilizing modern technologies in critical communications. In the event of events, there should be a connection available, which is not dependent on commercial distributors.
3) Three states #cyber. There's no area here?
The panel led by Dr. Jack Raubo, whose guests were Dominik Kapodowski, Izabela Albrycht, Krzysztof Dyki, prof. dr. hab. Aleksandra Gasztold, Radosław Maćkiewicz and Rafał Wysłoczak. peculiar attention has been paid to the fact that the categories of war and peace diverge from cyber perception, as well as the deficiency of clear opinion on the subject. In cyber security, can we talk about the state of war and peace? Where does that line go? At what point do we start a war? Is the attack on key elements of state infrastructure specified as electronic banking, electricity – a war and an attack on our “ciber boundaries”? Have we always had a state of peace? Even without taking into account the dangers of hostile state adversaries, we cannot talk about full safety in the digital world. Computer discipline inherently involves risks, and where computer systems exist, there are besides threats. Even in situations without direct military threats, we gotta deal with hacker attacks and cybercrime activity, frequently from average users. These questions represent a barrier before us, which we must go through to full realize the cyber state and be able to identify it. The increased number of cyber attacks shows us that the cyber-capacity race is ongoing. We must have the capacity for passive but besides active defense. There is no defence without offense. Our culture requires concessions, we don't want war and we don't want it.
Our function is to form awareness, not only among public officials, but besides among the youngest citizens of our country, who frequently have access to digital technologies. It is our work to invest in future generations, due to the fact that as Prof. hab. Aleksandra Gasztold pointed out at the centre of technology is man. The digital planet has no borders, provides anonymity and promotes action without consequences. Cyberspace generates immense financial gains and opportunities to rise funds. Infiltration through cybernetic channels is more effective than conventional methods specified as sending people. The attacker is well aware that his goal is to succeed. But does the usage of the concepts of war and peace interfere with the real knowing of danger? erstwhile we think of war, we associate it with the military and the services. But what if we're attacked in a time of apparent peace? Poland has more time than Ukraine to prepare for a possible attack on infrastructure, specified as data centres. We must be ready to decision rapidly and safe data abroad. A key challenge is to make a contingency plan for our systems and registers in the case of cyber attacks. Appropriate teams, competences and the previously tested data migration plan are the foundations that will guarantee the safety and continuity of public administration. deficiency of peace means a state of constant anxiety, competition and uncertainty. So how do we win in cyber warfare? The secret lies in the ability to defend ourselves – if, in the face of an expanding number of attacks, we are able to keep access to everything we had before the conflict, we are in fact already winning. Our culture, based on democratic values, predisposes us to defend, not to offensive. We defend ourselves due to the fact that we are not aggressors, but it is this ability to defend effectively that gives us the advantage in this clash. The opponent will usage immoral methods, so we must make attacks expensive, unprofitable, so that they cannot pass through all systems. If the attack doesn't work, the attacker will distract or gotta invest more.
4) Artificial intelligence on the battlefield. Attack and arms
In this panel moderated by Oskar Klimczuk, whose guests were Brig. Gen. Mariusz Chmielewski, Colonel Dr. Inż. Rafał Kasprzyk, Aleksander Klessa and Olga Wojciechowska, pointed out the function of artificial intelligence in the field of combat. There is no uncertainty that in the future a soldier with access to AI will be better than a soldier without specified access. Training AI specialists in combat requires an interdisciplinary approach combining mathematics, data exploration and military technologies. AI as an "intelligent enhancer" gives an advantage in the field of combat, acting without emotion, hesitation or ethical dilemmas. It is crucial that AI not only makes decisions, but besides explains her reasoning.
Ethical restrictions in applying AI are important. We request to defend individual data, which leads to restrictions on AI models. possibly anonymization of data will be a solution that will keep ethical standards without limiting AI functionality. Attention should besides be paid to the work for AI activities. Who will be liable for the mistakes? For example, in American law, there is simply a rule of assessing the intentions of the commander who will decide whether the commander has decently utilized the AI, which in the future will avoid abuses and errors.
5) Defence manufacture 4.0
The panel led by Dr. Jack Raubo, who spoke to SOP Colonel Dr. Jarosław Cymerski, Marcin Idziak, Paul Poncilyusz, and Daniel Czarno, focused his thoughts on the improvement of the defence industry. It has been noted that the cyber manufacture is ahead of solutions without which we will be silenced and muted.
Industry 4.0, based on digitisation and automation, has the possible to transform sectors, including defence. Poland, although not equal to global rivals in terms of pace, can drive them distant with quality, based on modern technologies. In the absence of a war economy, we must look for the advantage in innovation, taking care of human resources. The cybernetic domain is increasingly embedded in the defence industry, as we see in examples of NATO command systems integration and technology development, specified as unmanned vehicles. The key challenge is the manipulation of GPS, on which most NATO weapons are based. The defence manufacture in Poland has a chance to build advantages in areas specified as the production of drone equipment or anti-aircraft defence systems, which shows the example of “Pioruna” – a completely Polish product.
Risks to industrial improvement 4.0 include a time deficit, the request for independency and problems with the integration of communication systems. 3 key elements are needed to transform the defence industry: funds, human resources and clear procurement. Poland lacks courage to order fresh products, which slows the improvement of the sector. Public-private integration and contracting education are essential to exploit the full possible of manufacture 4.0.
Conclusions and summary
A rapidly changing cybersecurity environment puts newer opportunities and threats ahead of us. Determining us as if to redefine the function the cyber domain is beginning to play in today's world. There are many challenges ahead of us as a state, but besides a nation and an global community that will enable us to overcome any degree of cyber resilience and cyber awareness. Our function as safety experts is to constantly educate citizens in this area, to present newer risks and to build awareness among the public. We request to jointly consider how to overcome and correct any shortcomings in our national cybersecurity system, i.e. how to guarantee the protection of critical infrastructure, how to harmonise the inter-service communication system, so that communication becomes accessible. Our attention should besides be directed at the usage of artificial intelligence in the field of combat, taking into account the ethical and moral challenges facing the usage of AI. Finally, how to make defence manufacture 4.0, taking into account all the changes that happen in the cyber domain, how to compete on the marketplace and build a real region of enemy deterrence.
We are all vulnerable, and the hazard of multi-domain conflict increases with each day. Therefore, the best summary will be the words of the Roman General Vegetius – If you want peace, prepare for war.
