公共秘密:攻击性网络行动中公开与保密的动态

IF 1.7 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Gil Baram
{"title":"公共秘密:攻击性网络行动中公开与保密的动态","authors":"Gil Baram","doi":"10.1093/jogss/ogad013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Historically, offensive cyber operations (OCOs) have been considered a practice that states could carry out covertly, away from the public eye, with both perpetrators and defenders having incentives to remain silent. Over the past few years, however, perpetrators and defenders have publicly acknowledged their involvement in OCOs. How common is this strategic choice among states? What are its characteristics? In this research note I show that this is not a binary choice, and that there is variance in the strategies available to either side. I then examine what state behavior patterns can be identified by using compiled data of OCOs between 1996 and 2019. I show that this phenomenon of giving up secrecy is occurring and point out on states’ characteristics and probabilities of choosing each strategy. Initial findings show significant use of public strategies by perpetrators (20 percent) and more so by defenders (50 percent), and that democracies tend toward public credit claiming and attribution, while less democratic countries tend toward public denial. As governments increasingly engage in OCOs, the implications of this research note are of interest to scholars and practitioners alike.","PeriodicalId":44399,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Security Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Public Secrets: The Dynamics of Publicity and Secrecy in Offensive Cyber Operations\",\"authors\":\"Gil Baram\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jogss/ogad013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Historically, offensive cyber operations (OCOs) have been considered a practice that states could carry out covertly, away from the public eye, with both perpetrators and defenders having incentives to remain silent. Over the past few years, however, perpetrators and defenders have publicly acknowledged their involvement in OCOs. How common is this strategic choice among states? What are its characteristics? In this research note I show that this is not a binary choice, and that there is variance in the strategies available to either side. I then examine what state behavior patterns can be identified by using compiled data of OCOs between 1996 and 2019. I show that this phenomenon of giving up secrecy is occurring and point out on states’ characteristics and probabilities of choosing each strategy. Initial findings show significant use of public strategies by perpetrators (20 percent) and more so by defenders (50 percent), and that democracies tend toward public credit claiming and attribution, while less democratic countries tend toward public denial. As governments increasingly engage in OCOs, the implications of this research note are of interest to scholars and practitioners alike.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44399,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Global Security Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Global Security Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogad013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Global Security Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogad013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

从历史上看,攻击性网络行动(oco)一直被认为是一种国家可以秘密实施的做法,远离公众视线,肇事者和辩护人都有保持沉默的动机。然而,在过去几年中,犯罪者和维护者公开承认他们参与了军事行动组织。这种战略选择在各国之间有多普遍?它的特点是什么?在这篇研究笔记中,我表明这不是一个二元选择,双方可用的策略都有差异。然后,我研究了通过使用1996年至2019年之间的oco汇编数据可以识别哪些状态行为模式。我展示了这种放弃保密的现象正在发生,并指出了状态的特征和选择每种策略的概率。初步调查结果显示,犯罪者(20%)大量使用公共策略,而辩护人(50%)则更多地使用公共策略,民主国家倾向于公开索赔和归因,而民主程度较低的国家倾向于公开否认。随着政府越来越多地参与oco,本研究报告的含义引起了学者和实践者的兴趣。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Public Secrets: The Dynamics of Publicity and Secrecy in Offensive Cyber Operations
Abstract Historically, offensive cyber operations (OCOs) have been considered a practice that states could carry out covertly, away from the public eye, with both perpetrators and defenders having incentives to remain silent. Over the past few years, however, perpetrators and defenders have publicly acknowledged their involvement in OCOs. How common is this strategic choice among states? What are its characteristics? In this research note I show that this is not a binary choice, and that there is variance in the strategies available to either side. I then examine what state behavior patterns can be identified by using compiled data of OCOs between 1996 and 2019. I show that this phenomenon of giving up secrecy is occurring and point out on states’ characteristics and probabilities of choosing each strategy. Initial findings show significant use of public strategies by perpetrators (20 percent) and more so by defenders (50 percent), and that democracies tend toward public credit claiming and attribution, while less democratic countries tend toward public denial. As governments increasingly engage in OCOs, the implications of this research note are of interest to scholars and practitioners alike.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Global Security Studies
Journal of Global Security Studies INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
34
×
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