Dailydave mailing list archives
Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki
From: Kevin Noble <knoble () terremark com>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:20:40 -0400
If we are seeking to retrofit military terminology to explore offensive actions in the 'cyber' domain then perhaps the best fit is 'special operations' or 'special warfare' as mentioned in a post. Conventional force-on-force just does not seem apt to the discussion. The tomahawk scenario is like a DDoS barrage and still does not mold well into the discussion in my view. Cyber requires special training and considerable practice and preparation to achieve 'relative superiority' over a given opponent. "Special operations defies conventional wisdom by using a small force to defeat a much larger or well-entrenched opponent." Any action is short lived and require a series of successful action to conduct espionage, issue false orders to military units or entire commands, sabotage systems or markets. A given cyber attack can be measured from the initial point of vulnerability (detection, deterrence etc.) through the gradual rise to 'mission completion'. Perhaps somewhere along the way 'Murphy's law increased the probability of failure and as an attacker you regroup and determine if you have lost the element of surprise. Conventional special ops is usually measures in hours yet a cyber attack is inverse, it would be mere seconds for well-planned attacks or months of entrenching in preparation for a possible mission. These ideas are not new but p erhaps mapping them to cyber is novel. You can find these concepts in the very first chapter of McRaven's Spec ops book. A very big factor in all this is surprise, either in the audacity of the objective or the events that lead up to it. This list has been throwing darts in the shifting sands of cyber for quite some time, does any model really map to cyber or are we forced to wait for the language develop organically. Kevin N. _______________________________________________ Dailydave mailing list Dailydave () lists immunityinc com https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave
Current thread:
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki, (continued)
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki Michal Zalewski (Mar 25)
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki dave (Mar 25)
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki Michal Zalewski (Mar 25)
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki Dominique Brezinski (Mar 25)
- Message not available
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki Dominique Brezinski (Mar 27)
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki Michal Zalewski (Mar 27)
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki Michal Zalewski (Mar 25)
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki Jim O'Gorman (Mar 27)
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki beenph (Mar 25)
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki Yiorgos Adamopoulos (Mar 25)
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki Nate Lawson (Mar 25)
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki Kevin Noble (Mar 25)
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki Marsh Ray (Mar 25)
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki Nate Lawson (Mar 25)
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki Miles Fidelman (Mar 27)
- Message not available
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki Nate Lawson (Mar 27)
- Message not available
- Re: Quick Review: Cyberwar as a Confidence Game by Martin C. Libicki delchi delchi (Mar 25)