Rough-and-Ready: A Policy Framework to Determine if Cyber Deterrence is Working or Failing

Jason Healey, N. Jenkins
{"title":"Rough-and-Ready: A Policy Framework to Determine if Cyber Deterrence is Working or Failing","authors":"Jason Healey, N. Jenkins","doi":"10.23919/CYCON.2019.8756890","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper addresses the recent shift in the United States' policy that emphasizes forward defense and deterrence and to “intercept and halt” adversary cyber operations. Supporters believe these actions should significantly reduce attacks against the United States, while critics worry that they may incite more adversary activity. As there is no standard methodology to measure which is the case, this paper introduces a transparent framework to better assess whether the new U.S. policy and actions are suppressing or encouraging attacks.11This work was funded in part by the Office of Naval Research under the OSD Minerva program: Grant number N00014-17-1-2423. Determining correlation and causation will be difficult due to the hidden nature of cyber attacks, the veiled motivations of differing actors, and other factors. However even if causation may never be clear, changes in the direction and magnitude of cyber attacks can be suggestive of the success or failure of these new policies, especially as their proponents suggest they should be especially effective. Rough-and-ready metrics can be helpful to assess the impacts of policymaking, can lay the groundwork for more comprehensive measurements, and may also provide insight into academic theories of persistent engagement and deterrence.","PeriodicalId":114193,"journal":{"name":"2019 11th International Conference on Cyber Conflict (CyCon)","volume":"2019 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2019 11th International Conference on Cyber Conflict (CyCon)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23919/CYCON.2019.8756890","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

This paper addresses the recent shift in the United States' policy that emphasizes forward defense and deterrence and to “intercept and halt” adversary cyber operations. Supporters believe these actions should significantly reduce attacks against the United States, while critics worry that they may incite more adversary activity. As there is no standard methodology to measure which is the case, this paper introduces a transparent framework to better assess whether the new U.S. policy and actions are suppressing or encouraging attacks.11This work was funded in part by the Office of Naval Research under the OSD Minerva program: Grant number N00014-17-1-2423. Determining correlation and causation will be difficult due to the hidden nature of cyber attacks, the veiled motivations of differing actors, and other factors. However even if causation may never be clear, changes in the direction and magnitude of cyber attacks can be suggestive of the success or failure of these new policies, especially as their proponents suggest they should be especially effective. Rough-and-ready metrics can be helpful to assess the impacts of policymaking, can lay the groundwork for more comprehensive measurements, and may also provide insight into academic theories of persistent engagement and deterrence.
粗糙准备:确定网络威慑是否有效或失败的政策框架
本文论述了最近美国政策的转变,即强调前沿防御和威慑以及“拦截和制止”对手的网络行动。支持者认为,这些行动将大大减少对美国的攻击,而批评者则担心,这些行动可能会激起更多的敌对活动。由于没有标准的方法来衡量这种情况,本文引入了一个透明的框架来更好地评估美国的新政策和行动是在压制还是鼓励攻击。这项工作部分由海军研究办公室在OSD Minerva项目下资助:授权号N00014-17-1-2423。由于网络攻击的隐蔽性、不同行为者的隐蔽动机以及其他因素,确定相关性和因果关系将是困难的。然而,即使因果关系可能永远不会清楚,网络攻击方向和规模的变化也可能暗示这些新政策的成功或失败,特别是因为它们的支持者认为它们应该特别有效。粗略的衡量标准有助于评估政策制定的影响,可以为更全面的衡量奠定基础,也可以为持续接触和威慑的学术理论提供见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信