1 / 11

The cyber-terrorism threat: findings from a survey of researchers

The cyber-terrorism threat: findings from a survey of researchers. Lee Jarvis, Stuart Macdonald and Lella Nouri (all Swansea University). Introduction. Report on findings from a recent survey on cyberterrorism 118 researchers, 24 countries Questions: definition, threat and response Aims:

sybil
Download Presentation

The cyber-terrorism threat: findings from a survey of researchers

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The cyber-terrorism threat: findings from a survey of researchers Lee Jarvis, Stuart Macdonald and Lella Nouri (all Swansea University)

  2. Introduction • Report on findings from a recent survey on cyberterrorism • 118 researchers, 24 countries • Questions: definition, threat and response • Aims: • ‘State of the discipline’ stock-taking exercise • Explore potential explanations for the diversity of responses received • Chart areas of (dis)continuity with debates on terrorism more widely

  3. Academic literature • Cyberterrorism threat • Much contested • In part, a product of definitional differences • Debate between ‘the concerned’ and ‘the sceptics’ • Concerned: • Destructive capacity of cyber- now matches physical. • Prospect of anonymity, and lower financial costs • Vulnerability of Critical Information Infrastructures • Socio-politico-economic dependencies on the Internet • Sceptics: • Cyberterrorism as speculative fantasy • A substitute for now-outdated paradigms of threat and risk • Lack of theatricality and limited destructive capability • Other terrorist uses of the Internet more significant.

  4. Our survey • Purposive sampling strategy: • Targeted literature review • Standing in the field/publication in core journals. • Snowballing • Mailing lists: BISA and TAPVA • Limitations: • Is no (bounded, fixed) (cyber)terrorism ‘research community’ • Academic time lags • Responses: • 118 from 24 countries (out of 600); but 71% from US, UK, Australia, Canada. • 86% permanent or temporary academic staff, or research student. • 50% Politics/IR. • Parallels with other surveys of the terrorism literature

  5. In your view, does cyberterrorism constitute a significant threat? If so, against whom or what? • Yes (58%): • Governments/states (n=23); Critical Infrastructure/Computer networks (n=19); Civilians/individuals (n=10); Private sector corporations (n=10) • No (20%) • Lack of precedents/empirical evidence • Terrorist organisations lack capability to attack CII’s • Lack of motivation amongst terrorist groups. • Differences?: • Different explanations of threat evident in responses: from ‘paralysis’ to ‘disruption’ • Different logics: some hypothetical, others extrapolated from recent events • Competing conceptions of cyberterrorism (e.g. for some: obtaining classified information; ‘online harassment) • Different timescales

  6. With reference to your previous responses, do you consider that a cyberterrorism attack has ever taken place? • 110 responses: 49% yes and 49% no • Examples (selected): • Attacks on Estonia: n=11; Stuxnet, Iran: 6; Attacks on Georgia: 3 • India-Pakistan: 2; Anonymous: 2; PKK collapsing the Govt network: 1 • Wikileaks: 1 • No: • Actor-specific definitions exclude state activities • Lack of violence: “…no person has ever been killed or injured as the result of an attack executed by using weaponised computer code” • Differentiation between cyberterrorism, hacktivism and cybercrime • No production of fear in a wider audience • Lack of political or ideological motive for many candidates • Primarily definitional > empirical

  7. What are the most effective countermeasures against cyberterrorism? Are there significant differences to more traditional forms of anti- or counter-terrorism? • Twelve counter-measures identified (including): • Target-hardening (38%); Refusing to exaggerate the threat (9%); Greater international cooperation (8%); Preventing radicalisation (5%); Employing hackers (3%); Greater private sector involvement (3%)

  8. Disciplinary differences • No countermeasures restricted to one disciplinary background, but some trends: • Engineering/Computer Science: 57% of those arguing for enhanced international cooperation • Psychology/Anthropology: 67% of those arguing for employing hackers. • Politics/International Relations – more sceptical? • 69% believed a cyberterrorist attack had not taken place • 67% of those warning against exaggerating the threat of cyberterrorism

  9. Conclusion • Considerable disagreement: • Threat, occurrence to date, how to respond • Frequently a product of definitional issues • Also, disciplinary differences • Obvious parallels: • Academic literature, and broader debates on terrorism • However: • 50/50 split on whether it has occurred: surprising • The need for domain-specific responses posited by many

  10. To find out more… • Web: http://www.cyberterrorism-project.org/ • Email: ctproject@swansea.ac.uk • Twitter: @CTP_Swansea • Facebook: facebook.com/CyberterrorismProject

  11. Thank you for your time!

More Related