Americans now say they approve of free trade by 64%-27%, a margin of better than two to one. That's up from 57%-37% early in Trump's presidency, and 51%-41% near the end of...Politicsread more
CNBC combed through Wall Street research to see which stocks are still a buy after their earnings reports.Marketsread more
Fraud investigator Harry Markopolos' accusations extended beyond GE's management to actuaries, auditors and analysts who he claims overlooked billions in liabilities.Marketsread more
The company's S-1 lays the groundwork for what is widely expected to be one of the largest initial public offerings of the year, second only to Uber's IPO in May. It's also...Technologyread more
President Donald Trump held a call on Wednesday with the CEOs of three major U.S. banks, according to people with knowledge of the situation.Marketsread more
Trump's tweet comes a day after Apple put out a press release describing the money it spends on U.S.-based suppliers and vendors.Technologyread more
Despite aggressive strides, Waymo needs one thing before their self-driving cars become a seriously useful transportation system: people. We talked to the ones closest to it.Technologyread more
Scientists say the smoke plumes, filled with megatons of tiny, harmful particles, could travel to other areas of the world and cause serious respiratory problems for people.Weather & Natural Disastersread more
Some Weight Watchers loyalists applaud Kurbo by WW. But nutritionists worry Kurbo promotes an unhealthy relationship with food during an especially impressionable time.Health and Scienceread more
Benefits from what President Trump called "the biggest reform of all time" to the tax code have dwindled to a faint breeze just 20 months after its enactment, writes John...Politicsread more
Epstein, 66, was found in his cell in Manhattan federal lockup Saturday morning and transferred to a nearby hospital, where he was subsequently pronounced dead.Politicsread more
The Western world's central military alliance last week took a hard line against cyberwarfare, saying that a cyberattack against any one of its members could draw a military response from the whole group. But experts say such a retaliation is easier for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to talk about than to actually pull off.
One of several major stumbling blocks ahead of any NATO military response to cyberwarfare is that an actual attack is hard to prove. In 2007, a cyberattack crippled NATO member Estonia's private and public computer networks, and even though that attack was traced to servers in Russia, it's never been proven that the Kremlin was behind it.
Just as Russia's government-controlled news media and unwilling Western allies have questioned U.S. claims about recent Russian incursions into Ukraine, so too could a cyberattack be dismissed—especially in a murky digital world where evidence is even less concrete than satellite images of tanks crossing a border.
"The problem with ambiguity is that it allows reluctant NATO members to say, 'No I'm not persuaded by that,'" said Martin Libicki, a senior management scientist at Rand Corp. and the author of "Cyberdeterrence and Cyberwar."
But even if a NATO member can prove that it suffered a cyberattack, the exact standard by which a digital offensive would lead to retaliation is unclear.
In a Friday communique from its summit last week in Wales, NATO leaders wrote that the alliance would consider whether a cyberattack triggered "the invocation of Article 5" on a case-by-case basis. The rule in question is NATO's primary defensive principle that "an armed attack against one or more of them ... shall be considered an attack against them all."
While NATO has previously stressed cybersecurity—after the 2007 attacks against Estonia, and then continuing through to the June 2014 endorsement of a new cyberdefense policy—last week's announcement marks the first time that the retaliatory principle of Article 5 had been confirmed as a possibility in cyberwarfare.
But the assurances of a military response tied to Article 5 are not easily converted to the digital world, Libicki said.
"In most categories of war, you have to defeat the other guy shooting back, but in the cyberworld you can do a lot just by building up your defenses," he said. "When you put cyberwarfare into the template of conventional warfare, you end up drawing a lot of conclusions that don't make sense."
But Dave Merkel, CTO of cybersecurity firm FireEye, said he isn't surprised by Friday's announcement, given the severe damage that can be caused by a cyberattack. Still, he said, governments may find it difficult to attribute the origin of a digital offensive.
While both Libicki and Merkel agreed that many NATO members could determine the origin of an attack, those governments may not be eager to reveal their intelligence and technological capabilities.
Yet even nongovernmental firms are sometimes able to positively identify cyberattacks: In 2013, Mandiant (since acquired by FireEye) released a report detailing a wide body of evidence that a Chinese government group had conducted a widespread cyber-espionage campaign. China denies engaging in cyber-espionage.
NATO's biggest problem with enforcing a hard line against cyberattacks may simply be the wide proliferation of such warfare.
A single hacker can launch hundreds of varied attacks in a short period of time, meaning that governments may find it nearly impossible to identify, attribute and respond to cyberstrikes in a timely manner, Merkel said.
—By CNBC's Everett Rosenfeld