In certain instances, we may earn revenue when a reader makes a purchase or completes a form through our pages or on a partner’s website. We adhere to a strict 
When warzones stretch beyond physical terrain into the uncharted digital sphere, what happens to the symbols we rely on to distinguish safety from threat?
For 160 years, the Red Cross, Red Crescent, and Red Crystal have done precisely that: signaled protection under international humanitarian law. But with hospitals and aid groups increasingly facing threats from ransomware and malware rather than mortar fire, a new question has emerged. How do we protect what can’t be seen?
Samit D’Cunha, a legal advisor at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), sits down with Techopedia to unpack the Digital Emblem Project. Our conversation examines how this initiative aims to replicate the protective function of the Red Cross symbol in cyberspace.
Key Takeaways
- Cyberattacks on hospitals endanger lives, not just data or infrastructure.
- The Red Cross Digital Emblem applies existing war protections to virtual humanitarian systems.
- Recognition, not invisibility, can act as a deterrent in digital conflict.
- The emblem’s cryptographic design enables trust without central control.
- Respecting humanitarian symbols must extend beyond the physical world.
From Bombs to Bytes
“We’re seeing hospitals, humanitarian organizations, even supply chains being targeted not only by bombs but by bytes,” Samit D’Cunha told Techopedia.
“The digital battleground is very real. And unfortunately, healthcare has been on the front lines. We’ve seen cyber operations that disable hospital IT systems in war zones. They are also knocking out critical infrastructure like electronic health records or even life support equipment.”
In some cases, he noted, these incidents aren’t accidental. “Sometimes, these are deliberate operations. They have a real significant human cost.”
The physical battlefield has been supplemented and, in some cases, replaced by a digital one, where malware can render a hospital’s systems useless or lock aid agencies out of their logistics tools.
The stakes are not theoretical. “When these systems are compromised, it’s not just an IT issue. It does put human lives at risk,” D’Cunha said.
💻 Armed conflicts are not just fought on the battlefield, but also on the Internet.
We are seeking the support of states around the world to create a ‘digital red cross/crescent emblem’ to protect those affected by armed conflicts online. This is how 👇 pic.twitter.com/8bqfa25a2P
— ICRC (@ICRC) January 26, 2024
A Legal Shield
The Digital Emblem doesn’t create new laws. “It’s about recognition, distinction, and restraint,” D’Cunha explained.
Under the Geneva Conventions, the physical emblem signals an obligation: warring parties must avoid targeting marked entities and take steps to protect them. D’Cunha said:
“In the physical world, the Red Cross emblem is used by medical services of the armed forces, civilian medical services, and the components of the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement. It tells anyone participating in hostilities: do not shoot. This is a hospital. It’s an ambulance. It’s a humanitarian worker.
“What the digital emblem is trying to do is extend that same recognition and legal protection into cyberspace. This is a protected entity. Don’t target it.”
He made clear that the aim is not to write new laws. “It helps apply existing protections to the digital domain. It signals that a server, a system, or a domain is protected under the laws of war.”
Dr. Wen Zhou of @ICRC highlighted the immense harm that digital warfare inflicts on #Civilians and #Civilianobjects in armed conflicts. pic.twitter.com/quRfe2Fkps
— ICRC to AfricanUnion (@ICRC_AfricUnion) May 16, 2025
What Does It Look Like?
This is where technical architecture meets international law. The emblem’s digital twin relies on cryptographic certificates and DNS records. D’Cunha said:
“We’re using certificates to build a chain of trust. From a server that carries the emblem, you can trace the endorsement back to a national authority.”
Early discussions explored broader approaches. “We started out looking at big-picture options, like setting aside dedicated IP ranges or even creating whole top-level domains. But pretty quickly, we realized that kind of centralization doesn’t align with how the Red Cross works,” D’Cunha explained.
Instead, they turned to a proposal from ETH Zurich. “It gives us authenticity, accountability, and decentralization all at once,” he said. “It also gives us flexibility. The emblem can be verified by systems that recognize it, but it can also be hidden or withdrawn if needed.
“We’re designing it so that inspections can be covert, meaning no one can tell if the system is being checked or not. That helps avoid turning the emblem into a honeypot. And it also happens to be how the physical emblem works, if you think about it.”
He added: “If a hospital displays the physical emblem, the hospital doesn’t know when militaries are looking at its emblem. There are cogent reasons, both legal and operational, why that has to be true for the digital emblem as well.”
Risks, Misuse & the Honeypot Dilemma
Could the digital emblem make an organization more vulnerable by revealing what should be kept hidden?
Samit responded plainly:
“We’ve talked about this a lot. We’ve had consultations with states, militaries, cyber commands, and the technical sector.
“There’s a worry that marking a system might make it more visible to attackers. But if someone wants to find critical infrastructure, they already have tools like Shodan or Censys.”
Instead, he argued, legal recognition acts as a deterrent:
“State actors, as parties to the Geneva Conventions, are legally bound to respect it. For criminal groups, there is a potential deterrent effect. Misusing the emblem could be considered a serious international crime.”
Importantly, visibility is not mandatory. “The emblem can be turned off temporarily if the situation gets too risky. That mirrors how the physical emblem works as well. You don’t have to use it all the time.”
Building Consensus: One Protocol at a Time
This project is not being built in a vacuum. “Honestly, we’ve been humbled by the response,” Samit shared. “Several tech companies have been interested in the Digital Emblem project, notably Microsoft. But also many others.”
He described the engagement with the IETF as both rigorous and productive. “They’ve asked tough questions, but it’s exactly the kind of scrutiny we need. Because eventually, the technical solution we propose has to be one that states are comfortable integrating into international humanitarian law.”
We were convened today by @ICRC President Mirjana Spoljaric to discuss “Protecting Civilians against Digital Threats during Armed Conflict.”
We can & must rigorously uphold intl law & IHL in the digital realm.
I thank @LuxembourgUN & @ICRC_NYC for organizing this event. pic.twitter.com/Hl1JyuA097
— Maritza Chan (@MaritzaChanV) October 26, 2023
What Comes Next?
When asked what success looks like, D’Cunha didn’t hesitate. “Honestly, it’s all of the above. We need the Digital Emblem to be integrated into international humanitarian law. We need domestic implementation. We need support from the tech sector.”
He stressed that the project’s multidisciplinary nature is one of its greatest strengths. “I work with a colleague who’s a technical expert. We don’t always speak the same language. But we’re learning, too. This work needs that kind of cooperation.” And perhaps most importantly, it needs trust.
D’Cunha told Techopedia:
“Medical and humanitarian workers need to trust that when they display the emblem, it will be respected. States need to trust that their medical services will be protected, even by adversaries.”
He circled back to the history: “A lot of the risks and doubts people have today about the digital emblem mirror what states were asking 160 years ago when the Geneva Conventions were first being drafted. Will it be respected? Will it put people at risk?
“But look at the story of the physical emblem. Today, it’s widely recognized and known all over the world. It has saved lives. The digital emblem can do the same if we build it right.”
The Bottom Line
As cyberattacks continue to target the digital lifelines of humanitarian and medical services, the Red Cross’s initiative to bring its emblem into cyberspace is not theoretical. It is timely and necessary.
As Samit D’Cunha put it, “When digital infrastructure is compromised, it’s not just an IT issue. It puts human lives at risk.” The Digital Emblem Project is not about creating new humanitarian law but about applying existing protections to where they are urgently needed the most.
Servers, networks, and systems are now as vital as ambulances and hospitals. Whether it succeeds will depend not just on legal frameworks or technical standards but on a shared belief that even in cyberspace, some lines must never be crossed.
