Cyber Operations: Difference between revisions

From Cybersecurity Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Line 18: Line 18:
==Synopsis==
==Synopsis==


''This could be an abstract from the article.''
The article seeks to explore today's normalcy in cyberspace.
 
Taking as a starting example Russia's CNA attacks on Georgia in 2008, the author looks at how the attacks used tools from a Web site hosted by a Texan company to attack a Web site that was hosted by a company based in Atlanta, Georgia. The U.S experienced collateral damage during these attacks. 
 
The next example is Mumbai, where terrorists used Google Earth, BlackBerry phones and GPS to form an integrated, low-cost command and control system that enabled a modicum of information superiority. The author's view is that nonstate actors "do not fear network0centric warfare because they have already mastered it." Mumbai is the new cyber normalcy.
 
NEW NORMALCY IN THE MODERN AMERICAN EXPERIENCE
 
New normalcy has become an episodic policy construct in US strategy ideation; national leadership has relied on its clario to illuminate moments of transcending reorientation. New normalcy signals a cardinal shift in the nature of U.S. security.
 
In 1953, President Dwight Eisenhower
viewed the atomic realities of Soviet nuclear
weapons as a new and untenable threat.
Reflective of this thinking, a White House
aide wrote a secret memorandum highlighting the nuclear age of peril as “the new and to all intents permanent normalcy.”
 
On October 25, 2001, echoing a deep
national sense of insecurity after the 9/11 ter-
rorist attacks, Vice President Richard Cheney
lamented, “Many of the steps we have now
been forced to take will become permanent in
American life. They represent an understand-
ing of the world as it is, and dangers we must
guard against perhaps for decades to come. I
think of it as the new normalcy.”
 
New normalcy defines a quintessential
dichotomy: the urge to return to the comfort
and routine of a normal state, confronted
by the realization that the prior condition
no longer exists. For example, many in the
U.S. foreign policy community viewed the
collapse of the Soviet Union as an opportu-
nity for a return to normalcy in American
foreign policy, allowing the United States
to cash in the peace dividend.
 
U.S. joint military doctrine includes
new normalcy as a central concept. From this
perspective, new normalcy is the condition
achieved whereby an adversary is rendered
unable to oppose U.S. strategic objectives.
After achieving the operational endstate, new
normalcy becomes a strategic goal in transition from conflict, which disrupts normal life, to a new level of stability.
 
Although primarily understood from  
a policy development point of view, there is
also a socioscientific basis for comprehension
of new normalcy. Thomas Kuhn posits that
when the current normal condition cannot
explain or resolve an anomaly, a crisis ensues,
leading to a fundamental paradigm shift,
concluding in a new state of normalcy. In
Kuhn’s normative transformation theory, a
professional community “alter[s] its conception of entities with which it has long been
familiar, and . . . shift[s] the network of theory
through which it deals with the world.”new normalcy in the American experience signals a cardinal
shift in the nature of U.S. security
 
NEW NORMALCY IN CYBERSPACE
 
There is a growing national sentiment regarding the fear of a major cyber disaster—thus, the dramatic rise in predictions of a “cyber Pearl Harbor” or an “e-9/11” event. Vint Cerf even likens the rampant spread of malware to a “pandemic that could undermine the future of the Internet.”
 
In the end, Cerf reflects circumspectly, “It seems every machine has to defend itself. The Internet was designed that way. It’s every man for himself.”
 
A December 2008 Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) report on cybersecurity concludes that protecting cyberspace is “a battle we are losing.” In testimony before Congress, Jim Lewis, a member of the panel that wrote theCSIS report, stated that “the U.S. is disorganized and lacks a coherent national [cybersecurity] strategy.”
 
As early as 2003, the Gilmore Commission’s report on Forging
America’s New Normalcy predicted the onset of cyber new normalcy conditions, including cyberterrorism.
 
FEATURES OF THE NEW NORMALCY IN CYBERSPACE:
 
Commoditization:Under old normalcy,
individuals developed malware. Under cyber
new normalcy, anyone can obtain malware at the “cyber drive-through window.” The Inter- net is a profit-generating machine for criminal syndicates that have perfected malware-as-a-service.


==Additional Notes and Highlights==
==Additional Notes and Highlights==

Revision as of 11:20, 20 July 2010

Full Title of Reference

Cyber Operations: The New Balance

Full Citation

Stephen W. Korns, Cyber Operations: The New Balance, 54 Joint Force Quarterly 97 (2009). Web

BibTeX

Categorization

Issues: Cyberwar

Key Words

See the article itself for any key words as a starting point

Synopsis

The article seeks to explore today's normalcy in cyberspace.

Taking as a starting example Russia's CNA attacks on Georgia in 2008, the author looks at how the attacks used tools from a Web site hosted by a Texan company to attack a Web site that was hosted by a company based in Atlanta, Georgia. The U.S experienced collateral damage during these attacks.

The next example is Mumbai, where terrorists used Google Earth, BlackBerry phones and GPS to form an integrated, low-cost command and control system that enabled a modicum of information superiority. The author's view is that nonstate actors "do not fear network0centric warfare because they have already mastered it." Mumbai is the new cyber normalcy.

NEW NORMALCY IN THE MODERN AMERICAN EXPERIENCE

New normalcy has become an episodic policy construct in US strategy ideation; national leadership has relied on its clario to illuminate moments of transcending reorientation. New normalcy signals a cardinal shift in the nature of U.S. security.

In 1953, President Dwight Eisenhower viewed the atomic realities of Soviet nuclear weapons as a new and untenable threat. Reflective of this thinking, a White House aide wrote a secret memorandum highlighting the nuclear age of peril as “the new and to all intents permanent normalcy.”

On October 25, 2001, echoing a deep national sense of insecurity after the 9/11 ter- rorist attacks, Vice President Richard Cheney lamented, “Many of the steps we have now been forced to take will become permanent in American life. They represent an understand- ing of the world as it is, and dangers we must guard against perhaps for decades to come. I think of it as the new normalcy.”

New normalcy defines a quintessential dichotomy: the urge to return to the comfort and routine of a normal state, confronted by the realization that the prior condition no longer exists. For example, many in the U.S. foreign policy community viewed the collapse of the Soviet Union as an opportu- nity for a return to normalcy in American foreign policy, allowing the United States to cash in the peace dividend.

U.S. joint military doctrine includes new normalcy as a central concept. From this perspective, new normalcy is the condition achieved whereby an adversary is rendered unable to oppose U.S. strategic objectives. After achieving the operational endstate, new normalcy becomes a strategic goal in transition from conflict, which disrupts normal life, to a new level of stability.

Although primarily understood from a policy development point of view, there is also a socioscientific basis for comprehension of new normalcy. Thomas Kuhn posits that when the current normal condition cannot explain or resolve an anomaly, a crisis ensues, leading to a fundamental paradigm shift, concluding in a new state of normalcy. In Kuhn’s normative transformation theory, a professional community “alter[s] its conception of entities with which it has long been familiar, and . . . shift[s] the network of theory through which it deals with the world.”new normalcy in the American experience signals a cardinal shift in the nature of U.S. security

NEW NORMALCY IN CYBERSPACE

There is a growing national sentiment regarding the fear of a major cyber disaster—thus, the dramatic rise in predictions of a “cyber Pearl Harbor” or an “e-9/11” event. Vint Cerf even likens the rampant spread of malware to a “pandemic that could undermine the future of the Internet.”

In the end, Cerf reflects circumspectly, “It seems every machine has to defend itself. The Internet was designed that way. It’s every man for himself.”

A December 2008 Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) report on cybersecurity concludes that protecting cyberspace is “a battle we are losing.” In testimony before Congress, Jim Lewis, a member of the panel that wrote theCSIS report, stated that “the U.S. is disorganized and lacks a coherent national [cybersecurity] strategy.”

As early as 2003, the Gilmore Commission’s report on Forging America’s New Normalcy predicted the onset of cyber new normalcy conditions, including cyberterrorism.

FEATURES OF THE NEW NORMALCY IN CYBERSPACE:

Commoditization:Under old normalcy, individuals developed malware. Under cyber new normalcy, anyone can obtain malware at the “cyber drive-through window.” The Inter- net is a profit-generating machine for criminal syndicates that have perfected malware-as-a-service.

Additional Notes and Highlights

* Outline key points of interest

* Include quotes if relevant/useful
* Consider how these themes relate to other cases, broader thematic areas, etc