Super Intelligence-Era Critical Infrastructure Cyber Defense PlanA Public-Private Partnership to Defend America’s Critical Infrastructure
A16Z’s Anne Neuberger, General Partner and Head of Global Affairs, writes today in the Wall Street Journal: AI is shrinking the time between when a weakness is found and when it is exploited. Defenders who still work at human speed will lose that race. The same AI can work for defenders: finding exposed systems, ranking which matter most and generating fixes. For old equipment that can’t be patched, AI can create workarounds, such as a firewall rule or a settings change. The question is whether it can be applied fast enough. The most significant national risk is concentrated, fortunately. Failures that would cascade across the country run through a few hundred operators and their shared vendors: large transmission substations, the Fedwire and ACH payment systems, water utilities serving big cities, core telecom networks and 911 systems, regional trauma centers and the health-record vendors. Smaller operators matter too, often as soft entry points, but protecting the critical few first buys time to fix the rest. Drawing on her experience as Deputy National Security Advisor for Cybersecurity and Emerging Threats for the United States, Anne outlines a plan for a new model to drive national cyber resilience, accountable to the White House’s Super Intelligence Force, and led by CEOs of key American companies responsible for critical infrastructure: Executive summaryThe U.S. must address the significant risk that a cyber attack disrupts the operation of critical infrastructure that a large number of Americans rely on. This cyber defense plan outlines the governance and actions that are necessary to identify and contain the exposure at the few hundred operators and shared vendors whose failure would cascade nationally. The plan of action aims to (a) put in place adequate cybersecurity in each sector, accounting for many old, unmanaged systems, (b) use SI to find and fix vulnerabilities in sector-specific, broadly used code, and (c) create AI guides or harnesses for organizations’ unaddressed vulnerabilities to allow for rapid ID’ing of necessary patches as new models come out. A second phase of this work would establish digital replicas or “twins” of critical, shared systems across sectors to enable regular testing of shared systems. The public-private partnership plan activates and makes accountable leading companies in each sector as they understand the most significant operational risks in the sector, and without their role, the scale of U.S. infrastructure makes rapid, broad progress difficult. The White House’s Super Intelligence Force would establish a CEO council that is accountable for overall results. The sector Information Sharing and Analysis Centers would become the AI-enabled drivers that deliver them to each sector’s designated regulator.
The threat and the regulatory gapAI is shrinking the time between finding a flaw and exploiting it. Meanwhile, much of critical infrastructure cannot be patched on that timeline today. Operational technology (OT, the systems that run physical equipment) often stays in service for more than 20 years. Some of it cannot be patched without risking outages. Current regulatory rules were not built for this threat, with fixed patch windows and a compliance mindset, measuring whether controls are in place rather than the exposure and containment speed. Organizing for ImpactA National Governance Model to Drive Rapid Scaling of Cyber DefenseAccountable to the White House’s SI Force, led by CEOs, run through the (Existing) Sector Coordinating Councils and Information Sharing Analysis Centers (ISACs) and Regulators The U.S. lacks a governance model to drive a purposeful, rapid effort to secure the most critical infrastructure. This plan outlines that model in a public-private partnership. In summary, the White House’s Super Intelligence Force sets national targets, CEOs commit their sectors to them, and the SCCs/ISACs deliver the work within each sector and measure the results. The U.S. has a governance system to drive this work – established twenty years ago by executive order, each sector has a strategic Sector Coordinating Council and an operational Information Sharing and Analysis Center – but it needs renovation. Sector Coordinating Councils (SCCs) and Information Sharing Analysis Councils (ISACs) are private sector led, non profit entities that function under federal directives and established public private partnership frameworks. The most effective ones have two layers, a CEO and CISO layer, to enable both strategic and operational action on cybersecurity across the sector. Today, the power and financial services sector ISACs have CEO-level involvement; the water, telecom and hospital ISACs do not. The White House’s established Super Intelligence Force should leverage these ISACs, to coordinate work with critical infrastructure sectors. The SI Force will need to work with the most influential CEOs in sectors where the ISACs do not currently have a CEO-level layer to ensure those ISACs are upgraded to create a CEO layer to drive the action needed. In addition to the existing ISACs, this plan activates two other groups: (a) cloud, cybersecurity providers, and telecoms to identify technical cyber defenses that could be scaled broadly, if there were appropriate legal liability protections, and (b) AI labs and technology firms to partner with critical infrastructure firms to scan their code and firmware and produce fixes and workarounds. AI labs should also work with makers of industrial control systems to build digital twins of standard equipment, so fixes can be tested before they touch a live grid or water plant with findings flowing through Gold Eagle, the administration’s new AI-enabled vulnerability clearinghouse, which should expand from software into industrial equipment. Equipment makers, many of them foreign, should have to act on findings by a deadline as a condition for selling to critical operators. Success should be measured by how quickly flaws are contained and whether essential services can keep running under attack. The following chart summarizes the participants and their roles in this national cyber defense plan: How accountability would work
What each ISAC becomesToday ISACs mostly share threat alerts at the CISO level. Under this plan they would expand to drive the sectors’ work:
Note: CEOs will not authorize sensitive data sharing without legal cover and firms may have legal liability for vulnerabilities they identify. Hence the SI Force must identify mechanisms to provide legal protection in both instances. The first would be addressed by the reauthorization of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015, the second by some form of time-based liability protection. The Technical StrategyStrategic technical approach: contain, prove resilience, scale with AIThe overall technical strategy is to protect the targets that matter most first, contain what cannot be patched, and use AI so a small number of defenders can cover thousands of operators. 1. Rank the targets per sector and identify the critical ones to participateRank operators by how much harm a failure causes and how many others depend on them, not by size. Shared vendors often carry more risk than any single operator. Below is the suggested approach for the five first sectors.
2. Contain what can’t be patched
3. Scale defense with AI (delivered through the ISACs)
Guardrails: AI defense tools are read-only for control networks by default, and a human approves any change. Sector playbooksEach sector has one top risk, priority plans, an ISAC to run it, and a short list of CEOs chosen by the size and influence of the firms they lead in that sector. Policy, Funding and MetricsCross-sector membersEvery sector runs on the major cloud providers (Microsoft, AWS, Google) and increasingly on frontier AI labs. They join the SI Force CEO Council as members responsible for the AI defense tools and for discovering flaws in vendor products. Policy levers, funding and proposed timeframesThe White House’s Super Intelligence Force must address policy, legal liability and regulatory issues to incentivize the necessary participation. The bullet points below outline the priority fixes needed.
Timeline and metricsThe top targets should be contained within 6 months. Some have proposed replacing unsupported equipment but that is costly and can take 2–5 years, which is why containment comes first. The cost of addressing the scale of national tech debt is likely to be significant. It must be prioritized for those operators and shared vendors whose failure would cascade nationally and who lack the resources to upgrade their systems unilaterally. |





