Defining cyberwar: towards a definitional framework

Abstract

For nearly thirty years scholars have offered changing definitions of cyberwar. The continued ambiguity demonstrates that efforts at establishing definitional clarity have not been successful. As a result, there are many different and contradictory definitions, ranging from cyberwar's non-existence to cyberwar as an imminent threat. Ongoing definitional ambiguity makes interdisciplinary research and policy communications challenging in this diverse field. Instead of offering a new definition, this paper proposes that cyberwar can be understood through a fluid framework anchored in three themes and five variables identified in a broad interdisciplinary survey of literature. This framework's applicability is demonstrated by constructing an example definition of cyberwar utilising these themes and variables.

Preparing for hybrid warfare and cyberattacks on health services' digital infrastructure: What nurse managers need to know

“…'Hybrid threats' include misinformation through broadcast, social and print media, economic espionage, sabotage, terrorism and the fostering of insurgency. A significant threat is exploiting and disrupting digital infrastructure through cyberattack perpetrated by APT groups (Ashraf, 2021). The objective of hybrid warfare is to:…”

“…The strategic aim can be either wide scale (in which health services are one of many institutional targets)-for example, Estonia in 2007-or focused-for example, a specific attack on health services such as occurred in Ireland in 2021. A cyberwar strategy consists of five variables (Ashraf, 2021)-actions (widespread or focused), actors (state actor or APT or both-APT-S), effects (level of disruption), geography (the intersection between digital and physical space) and targets (infrastructure, information or people).…”

“…‘Hybrid threats’ include misinformation through broadcast, social and print media, economic espionage, sabotage, terrorism and the fostering of insurgency. A significant threat is exploiting and disrupting digital infrastructure through cyberattack perpetrated by APT groups (Ashraf, 2021). The objective of hybrid warfare is to: (1) undermine a population's trust in the functioning of institutions, (2) undermine social unity of a society through degrading and subverting its capacity to oppose or resist a political demand/goal and (3) avoid attribution of the attack and consequent retribution (Qureshi, 2020).…”

Mensurando forças no ciberespaço: uma aplicação de Social Network Analysis para mensurar a influência de Estados Unidos e China na rede do backbone da Internet (2011-2017)

“…Desde a década de 1990, o termo Cyberwar tomou diferentes vertentes, com distintos enfoques disciplinares. Hughes e Colarik (2017), a partir de uma meta-análise de 159 publicações sobre o tema, afirmam que existem 44 definições explicitas acerca do termo Ashraf (2021),. a partir das definições exploradas por Hughes e Colarik (2017), subdivide as diferentes visões de guerra cibernética em duas vertentes centrais: A Alarmista e a Cética.A Alarmista, de acordo comAshraf (2021), se inicia com um dos principais textos do campo, escrito porArquilla e Ronfeldt (1993).…”

“…Hughes e Colarik (2017), a partir de uma meta-análise de 159 publicações sobre o tema, afirmam que existem 44 definições explicitas acerca do termo Ashraf (2021),. a partir das definições exploradas por Hughes e Colarik (2017), subdivide as diferentes visões de guerra cibernética em duas vertentes centrais: A Alarmista e a Cética.A Alarmista, de acordo comAshraf (2021), se inicia com um dos principais textos do campo, escrito porArquilla e Ronfeldt (1993). Os autores são pioneiros a incorporar o prefixo cyber (do grego guiar, governar, controlar) na literatura de segurança e estratégia, préanunciando uma nova dinâmica de conflito resultante dos avanços tecnológicos da área da computação e transmissão de informação das décadas anteriores (CEPIK; CANABARRO;BORNE, 2015).…”