VOLUME 5 M NUMBER 3 FALL 2020 The Cyber Defense Review
VOLUME 5 M NUMBER 3FALL 2020The Cyber Defense ReviewTo Defend Forward, US Cyber StrategyDemands a Cohesive Vision forInformation OperationsThe Honorable Patrick MurphyDr. Erica BorghardA Legal Framework EnhancingCybersecurity throughPublic-Private PartnershipThe Honorable Joe R. ReederProfessor Robert E. BarnsbyJack Voltaic : Bolstering Critical Infrastructure ResilienceMaj. Gen. Robin L. FontesMaj. Erik Korn, Lt. Col. Doug Fletcher, Maj. Jason Hillman,Lt. Col. Erica Mitchell, Maj. Steven WhithamCyber Maneuver and Schemes of Maneuver:Preliminary Concepts, Definitions, and ExamplesDr. Patrick D. AllenBeyond Hyperbole: The Evolving Subdisciplineof Cyber Conflict StudiesDr. Aaron BrantlyWhy the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC)Must be Expanded to Cover Vital Civilian DataCol. Beth GraboritzLt. Col. James MorfordMaj. Kelley TruaxRick HowardRyan OlsonImplementing Intrusion Kill Chain Strategiesby Creating Defensive Campaign Adversary PlaybooksCOVID-19: The Information Warfare Paradigm ShiftINTRODUCTIONExpanding the Cyber DiscussionDr. Jan KallbergDr. Rosemary A. BurkDr. Bhavani ThuraisinghamCol. Jeffrey M. EricksonBOOK REVIEWCybercrime and Societyby Majid Yar and Kevin F. SteinmetzA R M YC Y B E RI N S T I T U T E mW E S TStanley MierzwaP O I N T
The Cyber Defense ReviewmFall Edition m FALL 2020 1
2 THE CYBER DEFENSE REVIEW
The Cyber Defense ReviewA DYNAMIC MULTIDISCIPLINARY DIALOGUEDIRECTOR, ARMY CYBER INSTITUTEEDITOR IN CHIEFCol. Jeffrey M. EricksonDr. Corvin J. ConnollyDEPUTY DIRECTOR, ARMY CYBER INSTITUTEMANAGING EDITORSERGEANT MAJOR, ARMY CYBER INSTITUTEASSISTANT EDITORSMr. Christopher L. HartleyDr. Jan KallbergSgt. Maj. Samuel CrislipWest Point Class of '70AREA EDITORSDr. Harold J. Arata III(Cybersecurity Strategy)(Systems Engineering/Information Assurance)Dr. Michael GrimailaSgt. Maj. Jeffrey Morris, Ph.D.Prof. Robert Barnsby, J.D.(Cyber & International Humanitarian Law)Dr. Steve Henderson(Data Mining/Machine Learning)Ms. Elizabeth OrenMaj. Nathaniel D. Bastian, Ph.D.(Advanced Analytics/Data Science)Ms. Elsa Kania(Indo-Pacific Security/Emerging Technologies)Dr. David RaymondDr. Aaron F. Brantly(Policy Analysis/International Relations)Maj. Charlie Lewis(Military Operations/Training/Doctrine)Lt. Col Robert J. Ross, Ph.D.Dr. Dawn Dunkerley GossDr. Fernando MaymiDr. Paulo Shakarian(Quantum Information/Talent Management)(Cultural Studies)(Network Security)(Information Warfare)(Cybersecurity Optimization/Operationalization)(Cyber Curricula/Autonomous Platforms)Dr. David GioeLt. Col. Erica Mitchell, Ph.D.Col. Paul Goethals, Ph.D.Lt. Col. William Clay Moody, Ph.D.(History/Intelligence Community)(Operations Research/Military Strategy)(Social Threat Intelligence/Cyber Modeling)Dr. David Thomson(Human Factors)(Cryptographic Processes/Information Theory)(Software Development)Lt. Col. Natalie Vanatta, Ph.D.Dr. Robert Thomson(Learning Algorithms/Computational Modeling)Lt. Col. Mark Visger, J.D.(Threatcasting/Encryption)(Cyber Law)EDITORIAL BOARDDr. Andrew O. Hall, (Chair.)Col. (Ret.) W. Michael GuillotCol. Suzanne Nielsen, Ph.D.Dr. Amy AponDr. Martin LibickiDr. Hy S. RothsteinDr. Chris ArneyDr. Michele L. MalvestiDr. Bhavani ThuraisinghamDr. David BrumleyDr. Milton MuellerMarymount UniversityAir UniversityClemson UniversityU.S. Military AcademyU.S. Naval AcademyU.S. Military AcademyNaval Postgraduate SchoolFinancial Integrity NetworkCarnegie Mellon UniversityThe University of Texas at DallasMs. Liis VihulGeorgia Tech School of Public PolicyProf. Tim WatsonCyber Law InternationalProf. Samuel WhiteUniversity of Warwick, UKArmy War CollegeCREATIVE DIRECTORSLEGAL REVIEWPUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICERSergio AnalcoGina DaschbachCourtney Gordon-Tennant, Esq.Maj. Lisa BeumKEY CONTRIBUTORSClare BlackmonNataliya BrantlyKate BrownNeyda CastilloCONTACTArmy Cyber InstituteSpellman Hall2101 New South Post RoadWest Point, New York 10996Erik DeanIndigo EriksonMartha EspinozaCol. Michael JacksonSUBMISSIONSThe Cyber Defense Reviewwelcomes submissions atmc04.manuscriptcentral.com/cyberdrLance LatimerAlfred PacenzaDiane PelusoMichelle Marie WallaceWEBSITEcyberdefensereview.army.milThe Cyber Defense Review (ISSN 2474-2120) is published by the Army Cyber Institute at West Point. The views expressed in the journal are those ofthe authors and not the United States Military Academy, the Department of the Army, or any other agency of the U.S. Government. The mention ofcompanies and/or products is for demonstrative purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by United States Military Academy,the Department of the Army, or any other agency of the U.S. Government. U.S. copyright protection is not available for works of the United States Government. However, the authors of specific content published inThe Cyber Defense Review retain copyright to their individual works, so long as those works were not written by United States Governmentpersonnel (military or civilian) as part of their official duties. Publication in a government journal does not authorize the use orappropriation of copyright-protected material without the owner's consent.This publication of the CDR was designed and produced by Gina Daschbach Marketing, LLC, under the management of FedWriters.The CDR is printed by McDonald & Eudy Printers, Inc. Printed on Acid Free paper. FALL 2020 3
THE CYBER DEFENSE REVIEWVOL. 5 mNO. 3 mFALL 2020INTRODUCTIONCol. Jeffrey M. Erickson9The Cyber Defense Review:Expanding the Cyber DiscussionSENIOR LEADER PERSPECTIVEThe Honorable Patrick MurphyDr. Erica Borghard15To Defend Forward, US CyberStrategy Demands a Cohesive Visionfor Information OperationsThe Honorable Joe R. ReederProfessor Robert E. Barnsby31A Legal Framework EnhancingCybersecurity throughPublic-Private PartnershipMaj. Gen. Robin L. FontesMaj. Erik KornLt. Col. Doug FletcherMaj. Jason HillmanLt. Col. Erica MitchellMaj. Steven Whitham45Jack Voltaic : Bolstering CriticalInfrastructure ResiliencePROFESSIONAL COMMENTARYRick HowardRyan Olson59Implementing Intrusion Kill ChainStrategies by Creating DefensiveCampaign Adversary PlaybooksRESEARCH ARTICLES Dr. Patrick D. Allen79Cyber Maneuver and Schemes ofManeuver: PreliminaryConcepts,Definitions, and ExamplesDr. Aaron Brantly99Beyond Hyperbole: The EvolvingSubdiscipline of CyberConflict Studies4 THE CYBER DEFENSE REVIEW
THE CYBER DEFENSE REVIEWVOL. 5 mNO. 3 mFALL 2020RESEARCH ARTICLESCol. Beth GraboritzLt. Col. James MorfordMaj. Kelley Truax121Why the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC)Must be Expanded to CoverVital Civilian DataMaxim Kovalsky133Contesting Key Terrain: Urban Conflictin Smart Cities of the FutureLt. Col. Robert J. Ross, Ph.D.Greg LindsayRESEARCH NOTES1st Lt. Hugh Harsono153Prioritizing SOF Counter-ThreatFinancing Efforts in the Digital DomainDr. Jan KallbergDr. Rosemary A. BurkDr. Bhavani Thuraisingham161COVID-19: The Information WarfareParadigm ShiftBOOK REVIEWStanley Mierzwa171Cybercrime and Societyby Majid Yar and Kevin F. Steinmetz FALL 2020 5
6 THE CYBER DEFENSE REVIEW
PATRICK J. MURPHY : ERICA BORGHARDThe Cyber Defense ReviewmIntroduction m FALL 2020 7
8 THE CYBER DEFENSE REVIEW
VOL. 5 mNo. 3The Cyber Defense Review:Expanding theCyber DiscussionColonel Jeffrey M. EricksonINTRODUCTIONWelcome to The Cyber Defense Review (CDR) Fall 2020 edition. As the newDirector for the Army Cyber Institute (ACI), I am honored to be joining theCDR team and very excited about this most recent issue of the journal.The CDR plays a critical role in expanding the discussion within the cybercommunity, from tactical units to national leadership to industry partners to academia.The quality of articles from a diverse group of leaders and thinkers within the community, coupled with an extensive reach that includes foreign allies, partners, and international educational institutes, is a testament to the impact of this journal. The CDR is trulyadding to the body of knowledge in the cyberspace domain.Our Leadership Perspective portion provides unique perspectives with national impacts.Major General Robin Fontes (Deputy Command General (Operations), U.S. Army CyberCommand) and the ACI’s Critical Infrastructure Team (Lieutenant Colonel Doug Fletcher,Lieutenant Colonel Erica Mitchell, Major Jason Hillman, Major Erik Korn, and Major StevenWhitham) address ways to increase the resiliency of public and private critical infrastructure through ACI’s Jack Voltaic project. Jack Voltaic , which recently completed its thirditeration involving the cities of Savannah, GA, and Charleston, SC, looked specifically atpotential impacts on deploying forces as they utilize these key port cities.This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Foreign copyrights may apply. FALL 2020 9
Colonel Jeffrey M. Erickson is the Directorof the Army Cyber Institute at the United StatesMilitary Academy (USMA) located at WestPoint, New York. As Director, COL Ericksonleads a 60-person, multi-disciplinary researchinstitute focused on expanding the Army’sknowledge of the cyberspace domain. Hebegan his Army career as an Armor officerbefore transitioning to the SimulationOperations functional area, where for thelast 15 years, he has been using simulationsto train from the individual to the Joint andCombatant Command levels. He has a B.S.in Computer Science from the United StatesMilitary Academy, an M.S. in ManagementInformation Systems from Bowie StateUniversity, and an M.S. in National ResourceStrategy from the Eisenhower School(formerly the Industrial College of theArmed Forces). His fields of interest aresimulations for live-virtual-constructivetraining, testing, and wargaming. 10 THE CYBER DEFENSE REVIEWWe are honored to showcase two articles that tacklekey issues from the Cyberspace Solarium Commission. The Honorable Patrick Murphy (former UnderSecretary of the Army) and ACI’s Dr. Erica Borgharddiscuss how the United States should adopt a wholeof-nation, defend forward strategy for informationoperations. From a legal perspective, the HonorableJoe Reeder (former Under Secretary of the Army) andACI’s Professor Rob Barnsby posit that the CyberspaceSolarium Commission may have broken through thepublic-private partnership roadblocks with respect toperforming cybersecurity by reinforcing the necessityof a collaborative approach. The recommendations inboth articles have a potential national-level impact onhow the US organizes for success in the cyberspacedomain.Rick Howard (Chief Analyst, Chief Security Officer,and Senior Fellow at The CyberWire) and Ryan Olson(Vice President of Threat Intelligence for Palo AltoNetworks) provide a Professional Commentary on thevalue of developing adversary playbooks as a framework to enable cyber defense and intelligence sharing.I think you will find their proposed approach movingbeyond Lockheed Martin’s white paper on Cyber (Intrusion) Kill Chain, an interesting solution.Within our Research Articles, authors address a variety of topics to include a proposed operational framework, a look at the tendency to describe the complexcyber-threat environment through exaggerated terms,a method to analyze the ever-growing Smart City environment, and a proposed change to the Law of ArmedConflict concerning civilian data. First, Dr. Patrick Allen (Information Operations Specialist at the JohnsHopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory) articulates both the need and an approach for describing cyber maneuvers at the operational level. His article notonly provides categories of maneuver, but also applicable examples that any maneuver commander coulduse to integrate cyber domain operations with more
conventional operations. Next, in “Beyond Hyperbole: The Evolving Subdiscipline of CyberConflict Studies,” Dr. Aaron Brantley (Assistant Professor of Political Science at Virginia Techand former Army Cyber Institute member) looks at scholarly works and argues for the needto move cyber conflict studies into the broader discipline of International Relations by shiftingthe discussion away from apocalyptic hyperbole to a focus on concrete, real-world examples.Urban warfare has been a constant challenge for military forces. Considering the proliferation of Smart Cities, the increasing likelihood of future conflicts in these environments requiresan understanding of the technologies and trends affecting the environment. Maxim Kovalsky(Senior Manager, Deloitte’s Cyber Risk Advisory), Lieutenant Colonel Robert Ross (formerlyACI’s Information Warfare Team Lead), and Greg Lindsay (non-resident fellow of the AtlanticCouncil) discuss the key trends in Smart Cities and propose a method for analyzing the ecosystems to inform intelligence preparation of the battlefield and enable military operations.Finally, the necessity to reclassify civilian data as an “object” is discussed in “Why the Lawsof Armed Conflict Must Be Expanded to Cover Vital Civilian Data” by Colonel Beth Graboritz(Deputy Director, National Security Agency’s Command, Control, Communications and CyberSystems Directorate), Lieutenant Colonel James Morford (Deputy Director for Communicationsand Information at 7th Air Force), and Major Kelly Truax (Deputy Chief, Strategy and PolicyAnalysis Division, U.S. Transportation Command). This proposal would provide Laws of ArmedConflict protections for civilian data and allow for legal actions in response.In the Research Notes section, First Lieutenant Hugh Harsono (Assistant Operations Officerin a Special Operations Task Force) discusses the challenges of digital threat financing, andthe potential role Special Operations Forces could play in countering this growing challenge.Additionally, to address the current pandemic, Dr. Jan Kallberg, Dr. Rosemary Burk, and Dr.Bhavani Thuraisingham touch on some of the unknown second and third-order effects ofthe virus in “COVID-19: The Information Warfare Paradigm Shift.” Looking ahead, we areaccepting papers for a CDR COVID-19 themed issue in Spring 2021 related to the pandemicand the challenges related to cyberspace concerning security, technology, and policy. If youare interested in submitting a relevant article, please visit the CDR website for additionalinformation: https://cyberdefensereview.army.mil/.Finally, I would like to take a moment to recognize the departure of one of the ACI’s teammembers, Dr. Erica Borghard. In her time with ACI, the impact of Erica’s work has reachedfrom the classroom to the halls of Congress. In addition to instructing at West Point, sheserved as a task force lead for the Cyberspace Solarium Commission, where she providedrecommendations to the Nation’s leadership on national policy and law related to cyberspace. She is departing to accept a position at the Atlantic Council, where she will continueto be a thought leader in the cyberspace realm. Good luck, Erica!In conclusion, I am very honored to join The Cyber Defense Review team and excited aboutcontinuing the important dialogue with this august community. Let’s move forward together! FALL 2020 11
12 THE CYBER DEFENSE REVIEW
The Cyber Defense ReviewmSenior Leader Perspective m FALL 2020 13
JACK VOLTAIC : BOLSTERING CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE RESILIENCE 14 THE CYBER DEFENSE REVIEW
PATRICK J. MURPHY : ERICA BORGHARDTo Defend Forward,US Cyber StrategyDemands a Cohesive VisionforInformationOperationsThe Honorable Patrick J. MurphyDr. Erica BorghardIINTRODUCTIONn 2018, the United States (US) Department of Defense (DoD) published the 2018Cyber Strategy summary featuring a new strategic concept for the cyber domain:defend forward. It states DoD will, “defend forward to disrupt or halt malicious cyber activity at its source, including activity that falls below the level of armed conflict.”[1] This reflects an important shift in DoD’s strategic posture, compared to the 2015Cyber Strategy, in two key ways.[2] First, defend forward rests on the premise that todeter and defeat adversary threats to national security, the US could not solely rely onresponding to malicious behavior after the fact. Rather, the DoD should be proactive inmaneuvering outside of US cyberspace to observe and understand evolving adversaryorganizations and, when authorized, conduct operations to disrupt, deny, or degradetheir capabilities and infrastructure before they reach the intended targets. Implied, butnot explicitly stated, in the 2018 strategy summary is the role of information operations,and the relationship between cyberspace and the information environment. Accordingto US doctrine, the former is a subset of the latter.[3] This article builds on our work asmembers of the US Cyberspace Solarium Commission to offer a conceptual frameworkand policy recommendations for integrating information operations in the context ofdefend forward. Many of the Commission’s 82 recommendations are slated to pass in theFiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).Although the field of information warfare and information operations is not new,there has been a recent resurgence in academic and practitioner interest within the USon the relationship between the information environment and cyberspace operations.[4]The contribution of Erica Borghard is the work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.Foreign copyrights may apply. 2020 Patrick J. Murphy FALL 2020 15
TO DEFEND FORWARD, US CYBER STRATEGY DEMANDS A COHESIVE VISIONThe Honorable Patrick J. Murphy isAmerica's first Iraq War veteran elected to theU.S. Congress and later served as the 32ndUnder Secretary of the Army until January2017. Secretary Murphy is currently a SeniorManaging Director at Ankura, the DistinguishedChair of Innovation at the United States MilitaryAcademy at West Point, and a Commissioneron the U.S. Cyberspace Solarium Commission.Patrick serves as a director on several publicand private-held companies and is a graduateof King’s College Army ROTC Program and theWidener University Commonwealth School ofLaw. He has two young children, Maggie andJack, and they reside in Pennsylvania.In particular, Russia’s use of cyber-enabled informationoperations to interfere in the 2016 US Presidential election, foment social strife, and undermine public faithin democratic institutions was a key event that shapedthe framing of these more recent discussions.[5] Much ofthe conversation has rightly centered on (a) how the UScan better defend itself and thwart such behavior in thefuture;[6] (b) concerns about how other adversaries andcompetitors, such as China,[7] may be taking a page outof Russian President Vladimir Putin’s playbook; and (c)critiques of the US tendency—potentially stemming fromdifferences in American and Russian strategic culture—to neglect the information environment. Arguably, theDoD is ahead of other departments and agencies withinthe Federal government and is best positioned in termsof resources, planning, and conceptualizing the optimal role of information operations in military strategyin general, and in cyberspace in particular.[8] For example, Army Cyber Command (ARCYBER) is pursuing aninitiative to integrate information, electronic, and cyberwarfare capabilities and has even considered changingthe command’s name to Army Information Warfare Operations Command.[9] Moreover, at the 2018 CyberspaceStrategy Symposium, U.S. Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) grappled with the implications of “[s]ynchronizing and coordinating information-related capabilitiestogether in a coherent strategy, [to integrate] IO [information operations] and cyberspace capabilities.”[10]From a grand strategy perspective, it is imperativethat the US considers how best to employ and integratethe full range of diplomacy, information, military, andeconomic instruments of power in furtherance of national objectives.[11] As to strategic objectives in cyberspace more specifically, the Fiscal Year 2019 NDAAestablished the Cyberspace Solarium Commission todevelop a comprehensive strategy to defend the USagainst cybe
of a collaborative approach. The recommendations in both articles have a potential national-level impact on how the US organizes for success in the cyberspace domain. Rick Howard (Chief Analyst, Chief Security Officer, and Senior Fellow at The CyberWire) and Ryan Olson (Vice President of Threat Intelligence for Palo Alto
Find the volume of each cone. Round the answer to nearest tenth. ( use 3.14 ) M 10) A conical ask has a diameter of 20 feet and a height of 18 feet. Find the volume of air it can occupy. Volume 1) Volume 2) Volume 3) Volume 4) Volume 5) Volume 6) Volume 7) Volume 8) Volume 9) Volume 44 in 51 in 24 ft 43 ft 40 ft 37 ft 27 .
Printable Math Worksheets @ www.mathworksheets4kids.com Find the volume of each triangular prism. 1) Volume 36 cm 25 cm 49 cm 2) Volume 3) Volume 4) Volume 5) Volume 6) Volume 7) Volume 8) Volume 9) Volume 27 ft 35 ft t 34 in 21 in 27 in 34 ft 17 ft 30 ft 20 cm m 53 cm 21
Number of unit cubes: Volume: 4 5 Number of unit cubes: Volume: 6 Number of unit cubes: Volume: 3 Number of unit cubes: Volume: Number of unit cubes: Volume: 7 Number of unit cubes: Volume: UNIT 8 LESSON 4 Cubic Units and Volume 179
Printable Math Worksheets @ www.mathworksheets4kids.com 1) Volume 2) Volume 3) Volume 4) Volume 5) Volume 6) Volume 7) Volume 8) 9) Volume Find the exact volume of each prism. 10 mm 10 mm 13 mm 7 in 14 in 2 in 5 ft 5
4.3.klinger volume oscillator 8 4.4.volume keltner channels 9 4.5.volume udr 9 4.6.volume tickspeed 10 4.7.volume zone oscillator 11 4.8.volume rise fall 11 4.9.wyckoffwave 12 4.10.volumegraph 13 4.11.volume sentiment long 14 4.12.volume sentiment short 15 5. beschreibung der cond
Spring Volume 22 Number 3 Summer Volume 22 Number 3 Convention Volume 23 Number 1 1988 Winter Volume 23 Number 2 Spring Volume 23 Number 3 Summer . Spring Summer Fall 2015 Winter Spring Summer Fall 2016 Winter Spring Summer Fall 2017 Winter Spring Summer Fall 2018 Winter Spring Summer Fall . Author: Joan Thomas
eerie archives volume 4 gantz volume 9 gantz volume 10 goon volume 6: chinatown and the mystery of mr. wicker hellboy volume 9 indiana jones omnibus: the further adventures volume 3 jet scott volume 1 kurosagi corpse delivery service volume 10 little lulu: the big dipper and other stories mesmo delivery neon genesis evangelion: the shinji ikari .
Volume of Gas Produced per Mass of Liquid 0.54 m3/kg 8.6 ft3/lb Volume of Gas Produced per Unit Volume of Liquid 274 274 Volume occupied per mass of Liquid 1968.5 litres/tonne 437 gal/ton Volume of Air to burn Unit Volume of Gas 23 23 Volume of Oxygen to burn Unit Volume of Gas 4.8 4.8 Ignition Temperature 460-580 C 860-1076 F
