Supporting American Small Businesses Against Foreign Threats
from RealEcon and Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies
from RealEcon and Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies

Supporting American Small Businesses Against Foreign Threats

U.S. Department of Homeland Security employees work inside the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center in Arlington, VA.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security employees work inside the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center in Arlington, VA. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Small businesses are critical to U.S. national security. They’re also increasingly targeted by foreign cyberattacks. The federal government can do more to protect them.

June 11, 2024 8:33 am (EST)

U.S. Department of Homeland Security employees work inside the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center in Arlington, VA.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security employees work inside the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center in Arlington, VA. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
Article
Current political and economic issues succinctly explained.

Introduction

In her January testimony before Congress on the cybersecurity threats from a rising China, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Director Jen Easterly noted that the supply chain was made up not just of enterprises in the cloud, but every small business in the country. She identified clearly an entire class of “target-rich, cyber-poor” U.S. businesses that CISA is working to help. Small businesses comprise 43 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). It is time that more officials noticed the perilous state of small business cybersecurity in this country.

More From Our Experts

Government officials should understand that (1) foreign actors are targeting U.S. small businesses because their cybersecurity posture tends to be poor, (2) small businesses cannot meet their own cyber and information technology (IT) needs internally, and (3) the U.S. government needs to support the managed service providers who are often small businesses’ only IT and cybersecurity support.

U.S. Small Businesses Are Being Targeted by Foreign Actors

More on:

RealEcon

Economic Security

National Security

Cybersecurity

In June 2023, a forty-four-bed hospital that had operated for over 120 years with approximately 100 employees in the small town of Spring Valley, Illinois, announced that it would close its doors to the public, partly because of a ransomware attack that took place in 2021. The closure means that Spring Valley residents will now need to drive more than thirty minutes to reach the nearest hospital, significantly lowering patients’ odds of surviving a critical incident such as a heart attack. Many other vital small businesses and services are under attack each day, and make no mistake, a hospital under 500 employees is absolutely both critical infrastructure and a small business.

There is a disconnect between the cybersecurity resources being provided to large enterprises and their employees and the reality lived by small businesses and their service providers. Small businesses in the United States are very low-hanging fruit for hackers and cybercriminals. Increasingly, small businesses are being farmed by government and criminal groups from China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia via ransomware, business email compromise, and invoice fraud. It has been a rich harvest. China in particular has targeted small business routers and U.S. critical infrastructure, often serviced by state and local organizations. Yet even after small businesses pay off their attackers, having experienced a cyberattack dramatically increases the chance that a small business will fail, with 60 percent of targeted U.S. small businesses going out of business within six months.

Anyone can start a business in this country. In doing so, they can collect customer data, sell it, and secure it—or fail to secure it. However, many of the smallest businesses doing so do not know about or understand their obligations under federal compliance frameworks, which could keep them safe. The security of small businesses overall has direct ties to national security, so the government should balance security and the freedom to engage in commerce.

More From Our Experts

Small Businesses Cannot Meet Their Cyber and IT Needs Internally

Small business owners are often surprised to be targeted by cybercrime. In reality, harvesting a few thousand dollars a year from U.S. small businesses via various forms of cyber fraud is a fruitful way for foreign actors to raise funds.

The federal government has frequently given mixed messages as to its own stance on the role of small business in national security via cybersecurity. It has issued guidelines but not regulations, and regulations and standards are not necessarily the same: one comes with a stick attached to it, and the other is a strongly worded suggestion.

More on:

RealEcon

Economic Security

National Security

Cybersecurity

Federal grants are one way to assist small businesses in achieving cybersecurity goals, but they often reach a smaller recipient pool or are not granted to the businesses themselves but to nonprofits or government agencies to assist them. A quick search of the grants.gov database for the keyword “cybersecurity” with eligibility for small businesses shows a scattered few misclassified grants for state governments. Otherwise, there are no federal cybersecurity grants for small business cybersecurity improvement. It is a bleak landscape.

Supporting Managed Service Providers

Small businesses are not able to know or apply all of the current Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code to their taxes. It is why they hire accountants. In the same way, it is unreasonable to expect small businesses to know and understand all the cybersecurity and compliance regulations that apply to them.  

Managed service providers (MSPs), or outsourced IT (information technology) are the unsung and underappreciated heroes securing the United States’ small businesses. Almost half of U.S. workers work for a small business, and there is no doubt they fall under what distinguished cybersecurity researcher Wendy Nather called the “Security Poverty Line.” Most small businesses, having surpassed the point of existential survival, rely on MSPs or IT service providers, the equivalent of accountants or lawyers that they outsource legal and financial work to, in order to handle their technology needs. However, contracting an MSP for baseline services is not, on its own, enough to ensure effective cybersecurity.

Ignorance is bliss, and it is cheap. For small businesses, technology almost always costs money, both in initial implementation and ongoing costs. People and process improvements are as important as technology, and should be embraced by small businesses, particularly as there are low-to-no cost actions businesses can take to improve their own security. Small businesses will often reach out to their service providers to improve their security. The number of small businesses served by MSPs account for 10 to 30 percent of U.S. GDP (likely a bit less than the number of small businesses served by accountants instead of doing their own taxes).

There is not enough time nor resources to train every small business owner, which is why MSPs are where to start training and equipping small businesses that are large enough to be targets and too small to muster their own defenses.

Conclusion

In 2023, the Small Business Administration (SBA) launched a cybersecurity for small business pilot program, which granted six public entities $1 million each in 2023 to “assist small businesses in advancing cybersecurity infrastructure and mitigating cyber threats.” For perspective, the SBA’s $6,000,000 budget to start helping small businesses is not much when divided out between 33,185,550 American small businesses. That comes to eighteen cents per business or less than the cost of adding whipped cream to your morning coffee. It’s time to do better.

Policymakers and the press are celebrating new regulations to curtail the influence of Big Tech platforms, but this viewpoint risks either ignoring the unique qualities of MSPs or sweeping them up in the wake of that regulation, which will hurt small businesses in the process. The defense industrial base, supply chain, and critical infrastructure are the understandable focus of legislation and regulation, but it is time to acknowledge the country’s responsibility to small businesses. They are critical infrastructure and a vital part of national security, and supporting them means supporting their vital service providers.

Tara Donohue Bartels is Manager of Advisory Services, Dataprise

Tarah Wheeler is CEO of Red Queen Dynamics & Senior Fellow for Global Cyber Policy, Council on Foreign Relations

Creative Commons
Creative Commons: Some rights reserved.
Close
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License.
View License Detail
Close

Top Stories on CFR

Trade

President Trump doubled almost all aluminum and steel import tariffs, seeking to curb China’s growing dominance in global trade. These six charts show the tariffs’ potential economic effects.

Ukraine

The Sanctioning Russia Act would impose history’s highest tariffs and tank the global economy. Congress needs a better approach, one that strengthens existing sanctions and adds new measures the current bill ignores.

China Strategy Initiative

At the Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore last week, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that the United States would be expanding its defense partnership with India. His statement was in line with U.S. policy over the last two decades, which, irrespective of the party in power, has sought to cultivate India as a serious defense partner. The U.S.-India defense partnership has come a long way. Beginning in 2001, the United States and India moved from little defense cooperation or coordination to significant gestures that would lay the foundation of the robust defense partnership that exists today—such as India offering access to its facilities after 9/11 to help the United States launch operations in Afghanistan or the 123 Agreement in 2005 that paved the way for civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries. In the United States, there is bipartisan agreement that a strong defense partnership with India is vital for its Indo-Pacific strategy and containing China. In India, too, there is broad political support for its strategic partnership with the United States given its immense wariness about its fractious border relationship with China. Consequently, the U.S.-India bilateral relationship has heavily emphasized security, with even trade tilting toward defense goods. Despite the massive changes to the relationship in the last few years, and both countries’ desire to develop ever-closer defense ties, differences between the United States and India remain. A significant part of this has to do with the differing norms that underpin the defense interests of each country. The following Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) memos by defense experts in three countries are part of a larger CFR project assessing India’s approach to the international order in different areas, and illustrate India’s positions on important defense issues—military operationalization, cooperation in space, and export controls—and how they differ with respect to the United States and its allies. Sameer Lalwani (Washington, DC) argues that the two countries differ in their thinking about deterrence, and that this is evident in three categories crucial to defense: capability, geography, and interoperability. When it comes to increasing material capabilities, for example, India prioritizes domestic economic development, including developing indigenous capabilities (i.e., its domestic defense-industrial sector). With regard to geography, for example, the United States and its Western allies think of crises, such as Ukraine, in terms of global domino effects; India, in contrast, thinks regionally, and confines itself to the effects on its neighborhood and borders (and, as the recent crisis with Pakistan shows, India continues to face threats on its border, widening the geographic divergence with the United States). And India’s commitment to strategic autonomy means the two countries remain far apart on the kind of interoperability required by modern military operations. Yet there is also reason for optimism about the relationship as those differences are largely surmountable. Dimitrios Stroikos (London) argues that India’s space policy has shifted from prioritizing socioeconomic development to pursuing both national security and prestige. While it is party to all five UN space treaties that govern outer space and converges with the United States on many issues in the civil, commercial, and military domains of space, India is careful with regard to some norms. It favors, for example, bilateral initiatives over multilateral, and the inclusion of Global South countries in institutions that it believes to be dominated by the West. Konark Bhandari (New Delhi) argues that India’s stance on export controls is evolving. It has signed three of the four major international export control regimes, but it has to consistently contend with the cost of complying, particularly as the United States is increasingly and unilaterally imposing export control measures both inside and outside of those regimes. When it comes to export controls, India prefers trade agreements with select nations, prizes its strategic autonomy (which includes relations with Russia and China through institutions such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS), and prioritizes its domestic development. Furthermore, given President Donald Trump’s focus on bilateral trade, the two countries’ differences will need to be worked out if future tech cooperation is to be realized.