Your project paper “Cyberwarfare” should incorporate to the Capstone Project Topic paper (SEE ATTACHED). Your Capstone Project should add value to the Cybersecurity practice and should be able to used by others to further your research on the subject matter. 100% original work. no plagiarism.
1. 31 Pages in length in APA format (not including a cover page and reference section) covering all eight course objectives listed below.
2. Papers need to be double spaced (NO EXTRA SPACES WHEN BEGINNING A NEW PARAGRAPH OR SUBJECT) and in 12 point times new roman font
3. Cover Page
6. Review of Literature
7. Findings and Recommendations
9. Reference Section (you will need at least 20 references)
– Use current and real world data to make your points, not just the textbook.
– Your references should not be more than 5 years old.
Running head: CAPSTONE PROJECT TOPIC 1
CAPSTONE PROJECT TOPIC 5
Cyber warfare Capstone Project Topic
Combinations of procedures, technology, and behaviors make up cyberwarfare. Programs, applications, networks, processors, and information are all targets of cyber warfare. Cybersecurity and physical security are essential aspects of computer security in a codified form. Computer code or data theft, and disruption of services or redirection, may result from the aggressor. Physical controls over hardware, software, and networks and protection from harm that can be redirected through networks are components of cyber warfare.
When it comes to cyber-warfare, the United States’ external world has a lot to do with its evaluation and conduct. War reliant and its plan of action are influenced by cyber warfare in the U.S, from threats on physical warfare to the decision to execute various combat operations for total defense of cyber and also infrastructure facilities in the U. S. Because of its interconnectedness with the rest of the world, cyber warfare is a complex problem that cannot be overlooked.
In the United States, cyberwarfare has played a significant role, and it has exerted influence on the international conflict environment. However, when adversaries succeed in using military technologies, cyber warfare will be a much more difficult problem to deal with. This is because cyber warfare aims to create friction between the adversary and its adversary rather than creating an impregnable firewall for digital infrastructures utilized in combat.
Many gaps can be used to compel cyber warfare, making it highly important to determine how and what to do physically. What-if scenarios involving cyber warfare are included in this. Cyberwarfare is an example of paralyzing communication, shuttering remote controls, and misleading signals to buy opponents in control of physical conflict through cyberspace.
Both short-term and long-term defense can be achieved through the deployment of cyberwarfare. However, due to the ever-changing and inventive nature of technology, cyber warfare is more significant in the short term than in the long term because of the many loopholes connected with compromising the privacy of others in cyberspace.
This research article examines how cyber warfare, for example, can be used to create friction in the real world by employing communication as the main route of producing conflict. Direct contact between military units is expected to provide a dependable means of transmitting surveillance messages and initiating strikes to ensure proper military coordination. As a result, when an enemy takes advantage of a vulnerability like this, the entire military establishment is doomed to failure owing to poor coordination that weakens even the most effective physical warfare techniques. This article will examine how cyberspace’s functioning aids in cyber warfare through reviewing the literature and comprehensive analysis included in the report.
Cyberwarfare is not a new topic in the United States, primarily due to the high-reliability rate of the internet here. However, cyberwarfare is particularly vulnerable in the United States, owing to the country’s firm reliance on digital infrastructures for day-to-day activity. As an illustration, the United States was hacked during the 2014 midterm elections, and attackers also gained access to the United States’ voter rolls system before the 2016 general election. Crippling cyber activity to perform an attack on a physical battlefield while buying time from the late response illustrates this technique in action.
Today, cyber warfare is a topic found in the news, in instructional articles on cyber warfare, and in tutorials on covert cyber operations and threat management (Stevens, 2018). In recent years, the issue of cyber warfare has become even more critical and relevant. “The state,” “society,” “the nation,” and “the economy” are all intertwined in cyber warfare. So, it is difficult to see it as just a simple matter of ‘network security or ‘individual security.’ What we think is most important to our lives isn’t the only factor influencing the perception of cyber warfare. The government and other powerful actors will also impact the interpretation. Cyberwarfare is difficult to deal with because of the interplay between political expression and various cyber threats. Fortunately, this didn’t deter many children from discussing the issue. ‘Cyber warfare’ (Stevens, 2018) and ‘cyber securitization’ (Stevens, 2018) are two concepts that can be addressed in this literature study. There is a strong connection between these two concepts of cyber warfare, which helps students better understand the current debate on the issue.
Numerous claims have been made that Russians played a role in the inception of cybercrime as a form of warfare in the U. S. and that their involvement was at least indirect (Shad, 2018). When stackers took down Baltimore’s 911 dispatch system in March 2018, it was part of such a cyber-warfare. The implications and impact of cyber warfare on physical activities that rely on cyberspace for comfortable operations were made abundantly clear in this momentous revelation. As a result of this attack, all cyber-dependent operations were effectively shut down.
Here, the assailant was highly successful and employed a sound offensive strategy from the start. After the extortion was officially established in Baltimore’s 911 tracking system, they could not gain entry to their information system for seventeen hours. As a result, they were compelled to manually deploy emergency services throughout this period (Goebel et al., 2019).
This is how cyberwarfare affects the physical world. As in the specific instance of Baltimore 911, armed services digital infrastructures that depend on military users to determine the strategies to be implemented to strike back the enemy would be rendered useless if cyberspace were to be utilized, thereby giving the enemy an advantage in warfare by cutting off military communications and coordination (Lehto, 2016).
In 2018, the United States engaged in a variety of cyber-attacks. For example, the ransomware attack on Atlanta’s internet platforms resulted in a demand for $55,000 from the city’s online service subscribers (Trautman & Ormerod 2018). In addition, the military’s cyber communication systems have been hijacked, locking off military personnel who were in the middle of communicating to evaluate the next step from what they were communicating. Managing cyber warfare in the United States comes at a high price because the country is heavily reliant on the internet. It means that going back to where the perpetrator was before they would be engaged in a cyber-warfare that they lost becomes extremely expensive (Norris et al., 2018).
The evident Russian perpetrators conducted yet another cyber-attack on the United States in May 2019. This time, the invader remarked that America was considering withdrawing from the nuclear accord with Russia. American cybercrime rose during this period, as many people reported getting emails with viruses. This halted the victims’ ability to conduct business online. This was a threat to humans and telecommunications corporations because the virus nature of this software turned their systems inoperable for some time. Cyber-warfare requires a well-executed management plan to recognize and respond to potential signals of a cyber-warfare quickly. Most people are unfamiliar with extreme cyber operations, directly impacting short-term losses and long-term consequences (Schneider, 2020).
An issue of cyber warfare may be worsened. Much literature exists on the subject, but it’s intertwined with various other issues that lead to cyber warfare research and practice success. Cyberwarfare is a national security threat that can be understood, viewed, and handled in two ways, discussed in this literature review. We should expect to hear more about cyber warfare in the future, as the issue is still a contentious one.
Hatcher, W., Meares, W. L., & Heslen, J. (2020). The Cybersecurity of municipalities in the United States: an exploratory survey of policies and practices. Journal of Cyber Policy, 5(2), 302-325.
Lehto, M. (2016). Theoretical Examination of the Cyber Warfare Environment. In 11th International Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security (pp. 223-230).
McGuire, M., & Dowling, S. (2013). Cyber-crime: A review of the evidence. Summary of key findings and implications. Home Office Research report, 75.
Mosca, M. (2018). Cybersecurity in an era with quantum computers: will we be ready? IEEE Security & Privacy, 16(5), 38-41.
Norris, D. F., Mateczun, L., Joshi, A., & Finin, T. (2018). Cyber-attacks at the Grass Roots: American Local Governments and the Need for High Levels of Cybersecurity. Public Administration Review.
Schneider, J. (2020). A strategic cyber no-first-use policy? Addressing the US Cyber strategy problem. The Washington Quarterly, 43(2), 159-175.
Shad, D. M. R. (2018). The cyber threat in interstate relations: Case of US-Russia cyber tensions. Policy Perspectives: The Journal of the Institute of Policy Studies, 15(2), 41-55.
Stevens, T. (2018). Global Cybersecurity: New directions in theory and methods. Politics and Governance, 6(2), 1-4.
Taddeo, M. (2017). Solving Cyber Conflicts. The Philosophers’ Magazine, (79), 79-82.
Trautman, L. J., & Ormerod, P. C. (2018). Wannacry, ransomware, and the emerging threat to corporations. Tenn. L. Rev., 86, 503.