Cyber Operations and the Warfighting Functions – USCYBERCOM, Cyber Attacks and Cyber War, Distributed Denial of Service attack (DDoS), SCADA, Russian and Georgian Conflict, Hacktivism

Amazon Price: N/A (as of August 18, 2017 16:06 – Details). Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on the Amazon site at the time of purchase will apply to the purchase of this product.

In 2005, the Department of Defense recognized cyberspace as the fifth operational domain. In 2009, the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command directed the creation of U.S. Cyber Command on the heels of recently reported cyber attacks against Estonia and Georgia. These cyber attacks negatively affected the state's ability to provide effective governance. Sovereign nations across the world took notice. Cyber terrorism, at best cyber hacktivism, had crossed the threshold to embody what most consider acts of war. This strategic research paper utilizes the Estonia and Georgia cyber attacks to observe how cyber forces draw on the joint functions like a Brigade Combat Team or Air Expeditionary Wing uses the functions in their respective domains. The paper briefly describes cyber criminal activity, cyber hacktivism, and cyber terrorism to differentiate those activities from offensive cyber operations. The paper succinctly discusses U.S. Cyber Command's three mission areas, further defining the discipline of military offensive cyber operations. The paper then explores how Joint Force Commanders may utilize the joint warfighting functions depicted in Joint and Army doctrine to integrate and synchronize offensive cyber operations.

The cyber attacks on Estonia and Georgia negatively affected their ability to provide effective governance. Nations across the world took notice. Cyber terrorism, or at best cyber hacktivism, had crossed the threshold to embody what most sovereign nations consider acts of war. The Estonia and Georgia cyber attacks were not happenstance events, rather planned, integrated, and synchronized operations to achieve intended effects. The joint functions / warfighting functions provide an operational framework for Joint Force Commanders (JFC) to coordinate, integrate, and synchronize cyber operations. The ensuing analysis illustrates that cyber operations share many of the same qualities as the more traditional operations in the land, sea, air, and space domains. But, before any analysis can begin, we must review a few key actions the military has taken over the last ten years, define what constitutes cyberspace, and understand how cyber operations differs from cyber crimes, cyber hacktivism, and cyber terrorism.
Continue reading “Cyber Operations and the Warfighting Functions – USCYBERCOM, Cyber Attacks and Cyber War, Distributed Denial of Service attack (DDoS), SCADA, Russian and Georgian Conflict, Hacktivism”

Realities of Deterrence and Retaliatory Options to Attacks in Space and Cyberspace – Characterizing the Asymmetric Threat, Hacking, Antisatellite Capabilities, Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDOS)

Amazon Price: N/A (as of August 18, 2017 08:51 – Details). Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on the Amazon site at the time of purchase will apply to the purchase of this product.

Professionally converted for accurate flowing-text e-book format reproduction, this unique book discusses the realities of deterrence and retaliatory options to attacks in space and cyberspace.

Since the last years of the 20th Century, threats in space and cyberspace have become prominent, to the point where an attack can threaten state sovereignty and have regional, if not global consequences. These threats are emerging at the same time that the United States' reliance on its own space and cyber capabilities increases to maintain international diplomatic leadership and conventional military superiority. US national policy speaks to deterring and defending against such attacks, but a lack of international precedent and the legal limitations of war, specifically attribution, proportionality and discrimination, limit United States response options to an unprovoked attack in these domains. In order to establish an effective deterrence, the United States must move away from the Cold War model and fashion a global environment that fosters effective deterrent strategies. Building this new order requires the United States lead the international debate to define attacks in space and cyberspace and appropriate "self-defense" responses under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. The United States must demonstrate the political will to take action unilaterally, if necessary, to set precedent, and erase the failures of past transgressions, including NATO's failure to respond to the Estonia cyber attacks in 2007. As deterrence is predicated on the ability to attribute in order to hold an adversary at risk, the United States must improve its ability to detect and attribute attacks in space and cyberspace. Finally, the United States must reduce its space and cyberspace vulnerabilities and prove to any potential adversary that its military can successfully fight through any degradation and win. Unless the United States takes prominent actions on these fronts and establishes an international recognized lexicon on space and cyberspace, any deterrent posture will likely fail and it will remain at risk to asymmetric attacks by adversaries emboldened by a veil of anonymity, who see the benefits of attacking the United States outweighing the risk of an unprovoked first strike.

Russian Operational Art in the Russo-Georgian War of 2008 – Decisive Campaign Gaining Control of Two Breakaway Republics, Roots of Soviet Thought and Practice, Cyberwar, South Ossetia

Amazon Price: N/A (as of August 17, 2017 23:32 – Details). Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on the Amazon site at the time of purchase will apply to the purchase of this product.

This excellent report has been professionally converted for accurate flowing-text e-book format reproduction. This paper is about the Russian military's use of operational art to achieve its strategic objectives during the Russo-Georgian War of August 2008. In this brief war, the Russian military in a quick and decisive campaign overwhelmed Georgian forces to gain control of two breakaway republics, destroyed much of Georgia's armed forces on land and sea, and caused NATO to reconsider its offer of membership to Georgia. This study focuses on the Russian military's present conception of operational art, the relationship between operational art and strategy, and the ability of the Russian armed forces to apply it in a war, a matter of strategic importance to Russia. To accomplish this, this study examines the roots of Soviet thought and practice on operational art and points out the significant changes over time which have affected current thought and practice. The paper analyzes significant aspects of the campaign in Georgia that reflect not only Russia's rich tradition of operational art, but also reflect Western thinking and new Russian thinking. The study examines the future of Russian operational art based on recently announced military reforms and the implications of those reforms on Russian strategy.

For over a century, Russian and Soviet military thinkers have developed the operational art and have produced quality works on the subject. They have prepared for and practiced operational art in a series of wars under widely varying conditions over the last 80 years. These wars are rich in lessons of success and failure in operational art.1 The campaigns and major operations within these wars reveal both the Russian military's conception of operational art as well as their capacity to craft it to achieve strategic objectives at that time. The Russo-Georgian War of August 2008 is no exception. It reflects the current state of operational art within the armed forces of the Russian Federation. Furthermore, the reforms announced immediately following the war by the president and other senior leaders reflect the nation's and military's intentions to improve their capacity to effectively wage campaigns in the near future and present additional insights into some of Russia's strategic objectives.

Examining Cyber Command Structures – History of Air and Space Domains, Nuclear Weapons Mission, Alternative Force Structures for Cyber Command and Control (C2), USCYBERCOM

Amazon Price: N/A (as of August 18, 2017 15:39 – Details). Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on the Amazon site at the time of purchase will apply to the purchase of this product.

This important report has been professionally converted for accurate flowing-text e-book format reproduction. As the Department of Defense executes its mission in its newest warfare domain, cyberspace, some have questioned its choices with regard to command and control of its cyber forces. This thesis examines historical cases of new warfare domains and how the Department of Defense structured the command and control elements of its forces dedicated to the air and space domains. It explores the current cyber command and control construct, and looks at two others that would likely be employed if a change in command and control were to occur. Those examined include a new functional combatant command focused on cyber, similar to U.S. Special Operations Command, and a stand-alone U.S. Cyber Force. This thesis considers the benefits and drawbacks of each, and seeks to serve as an informative tool should policymakers determine a new command and control model is necessary for cyber forces.
CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION * A. BACKGROUND * B. RESEARCH QUESTIONS * C. BENEFITS OF STUDY * D. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS * E. METHODOLOGY * F. ORGANIZATION OF THESIS * CHAPTER II – AIR DOMAIN * A. HISTORY * B. WHY AN AIR FORCE? * 1. The Nuclear Mission * 2. Airpower Strategy * C. RELATIONSHIP TO CYBER DOMAIN * D. SUMMARY * CHAPTER III – SPACE DOMAIN * A. HISTORY * B. WHY NOT A SPACE FORCE? * C. RELATIONSHIP TO CYBER DOMAIN * D. SUMMARY * CHAPTER IV – COMPETING CYBER COMMAND STRUCTURES * A. HISTORICAL APPLICATION TO CYBER DOMAIN * B. CURRENT STRUCTURE * 1. Benefits of Current Structure * 2. Drawbacks of Current Structure * C. MODIFIED JOINT STRUCTURE * 1. Benefits of a Modified Joint Structure * 2. Drawbacks of a Modified Joint Structure * 3. Application to the Cyber Domain * D. STAND-ALONE FORCE * 1. Benefits of a Stand-Alone Force * 2. Drawbacks of a Stand-Alone Force * E. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES * 1. Comparison of Modified Joint Structure to Current Structure * 2. Comparison of Stand-Alone Force Structure to Current Structure * F. SUMMARY * CHAPTER V – CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK * A. CONCLUSION * B. FUTURE WORK * LIST OF REFERENCES

Cyber Analogies: Historical Parallels to Cyber Warfare, Cyber and Computer Security, Cyber Pearl Harbor Surprise Attack, Nuclear Scenarios, Internet and Web Attacks, Vulnerabilities

Amazon Price: N/A (as of August 18, 2017 02:38 – Details). Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on the Amazon site at the time of purchase will apply to the purchase of this product.

This anthology of cyber analogies will resonate with readers whose duties call for them to set strategies to protect the virtual domain and determine the policies that govern it. Our belief it that learning is most effective when concepts under consideration can be aligned with already-existing understanding or knowledge. Cyber issues are inherently tough to explain in layman's terms. The future is always open and undetermined, and the numbers of actors and the complexity of their relations are too great to give definitive guidance about future developments. In this report, historical analogies, carefully developed and properly applied, help indicate a direction for action by reducing complexity and making the future at least cognately manageable.

The Cyber Analogies Project was launched in 2012 to assist U.S. Cyber Command in identifying and developing relevant historical, economic, and other useful metaphors that could be used to enrich the discourse about cyber strategy, doctrine, and policy. The intent of the project is to provide useful insights, both for those with little technical background in or direct connection to cyberwar and cyber security and for those whose job it is to think about the spectrum of cyber-related issues every day. The project was conceived and carried out to help very senior, busy, responsible people understand topics and issues that are fast-moving and dynamic, and have potentially great consequences for society, security, and world affairs.
Continue reading “Cyber Analogies: Historical Parallels to Cyber Warfare, Cyber and Computer Security, Cyber Pearl Harbor Surprise Attack, Nuclear Scenarios, Internet and Web Attacks, Vulnerabilities”