探测、否认、降级、干扰、破坏、欺骗:OCO中哪个是最大的?

Tim D. Grant
{"title":"探测、否认、降级、干扰、破坏、欺骗:OCO中哪个是最大的?","authors":"Tim D. Grant","doi":"10.34190/eccws.22.1.1089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the cyber kill chain literature, possible courses of action are listed as detect, deny, degrade, disrupt, destroy, and deceive (a.k.a. “the 6Ds”). These verbs denote defensive action to be taken against an intruder. By comparison, military doctrine for cyberspace operations encompasses cyberspace exploitation and attack, as well as defence. The question arises whether the 6Ds are also applicable to offensive action, i.e. exploitation and attack, or whether additional action verbs are needed. Military doctrine is evolving towards all-domain operations, in which action in cyberspace is integrated with action in the physical domains of land, sea, air, and space. This prompts the question as to whether the 6Ds are also suited to action in a physical domain. A pilot study of actual military operations that integrated cyber and physical action suggests that deception, delay, and denial of organisational and cyber entities is suited to cyber action, while seizure, capture, and destruction of physical entities is suited to physical action. Preference among action verbs may indicate when it is best to engage targets using cyber or physical resources and which action is preferred. This paper identifies which action verbs are best suited to offensive cyber operations in the context of all-domain operations. The paper reviews related theory on cyberspace and the cyber kill chain. It identifies action verbs in US Department of Defense (DoD) doctrine on information and cyberspace operations, comparing them to those in the US DoD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. After discussing the findings, the paper draws conclusions and recommends further work.","PeriodicalId":258360,"journal":{"name":"European Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Detect, Deny, Degrade, Disrupt, Destroy, Deceive: which is the greatest in OCO?\",\"authors\":\"Tim D. Grant\",\"doi\":\"10.34190/eccws.22.1.1089\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the cyber kill chain literature, possible courses of action are listed as detect, deny, degrade, disrupt, destroy, and deceive (a.k.a. “the 6Ds”). These verbs denote defensive action to be taken against an intruder. By comparison, military doctrine for cyberspace operations encompasses cyberspace exploitation and attack, as well as defence. The question arises whether the 6Ds are also applicable to offensive action, i.e. exploitation and attack, or whether additional action verbs are needed. Military doctrine is evolving towards all-domain operations, in which action in cyberspace is integrated with action in the physical domains of land, sea, air, and space. This prompts the question as to whether the 6Ds are also suited to action in a physical domain. A pilot study of actual military operations that integrated cyber and physical action suggests that deception, delay, and denial of organisational and cyber entities is suited to cyber action, while seizure, capture, and destruction of physical entities is suited to physical action. Preference among action verbs may indicate when it is best to engage targets using cyber or physical resources and which action is preferred. This paper identifies which action verbs are best suited to offensive cyber operations in the context of all-domain operations. The paper reviews related theory on cyberspace and the cyber kill chain. It identifies action verbs in US Department of Defense (DoD) doctrine on information and cyberspace operations, comparing them to those in the US DoD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. After discussing the findings, the paper draws conclusions and recommends further work.\",\"PeriodicalId\":258360,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34190/eccws.22.1.1089\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34190/eccws.22.1.1089","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在网络杀伤链的文献中,可能的行动方案被列出为探测、拒绝、降级、破坏、摧毁和欺骗(又名“6d”)。这些动词都表示对入侵者采取的防御行动。相比之下,网络空间作战的军事理论包括网络空间的利用和攻击,以及防御。问题是6d是否也适用于进攻性行为,即利用和攻击,或者是否需要额外的动作动词。军事理论正朝着全域作战的方向发展,即网络空间的行动与陆地、海洋、空中和太空等物理领域的行动相结合。这就提出了一个问题,即6d是否也适合在物理领域采取行动。一项综合网络和实体行动的实际军事行动的试点研究表明,对组织和网络实体的欺骗、延迟和拒绝适用于网络行动,而对实体实体的扣押、捕获和破坏适用于实体行动。动作动词之间的偏好可能表明何时使用网络或物理资源与目标交战是最好的,以及哪种动作是首选的。本文确定了在全域作战背景下,哪些动作动词最适合进攻性网络作战。本文综述了网络空间和网络杀伤链的相关理论。它识别了美国国防部(DoD)关于信息和网络空间作战的学说中的行为动词,并将其与美国国防部军事及相关术语词典中的行为动词进行了比较。在讨论了这些发现之后,论文得出结论并建议进一步的工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Detect, Deny, Degrade, Disrupt, Destroy, Deceive: which is the greatest in OCO?
In the cyber kill chain literature, possible courses of action are listed as detect, deny, degrade, disrupt, destroy, and deceive (a.k.a. “the 6Ds”). These verbs denote defensive action to be taken against an intruder. By comparison, military doctrine for cyberspace operations encompasses cyberspace exploitation and attack, as well as defence. The question arises whether the 6Ds are also applicable to offensive action, i.e. exploitation and attack, or whether additional action verbs are needed. Military doctrine is evolving towards all-domain operations, in which action in cyberspace is integrated with action in the physical domains of land, sea, air, and space. This prompts the question as to whether the 6Ds are also suited to action in a physical domain. A pilot study of actual military operations that integrated cyber and physical action suggests that deception, delay, and denial of organisational and cyber entities is suited to cyber action, while seizure, capture, and destruction of physical entities is suited to physical action. Preference among action verbs may indicate when it is best to engage targets using cyber or physical resources and which action is preferred. This paper identifies which action verbs are best suited to offensive cyber operations in the context of all-domain operations. The paper reviews related theory on cyberspace and the cyber kill chain. It identifies action verbs in US Department of Defense (DoD) doctrine on information and cyberspace operations, comparing them to those in the US DoD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. After discussing the findings, the paper draws conclusions and recommends further work.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
From Provoking Emotions to fake Images: The Recurring Signs of fake news and Phishing Scams Spreading on Social Media in Hungary, Romania and Slovakia A Commentary and Exploration of Maritime Applications of Biosecurity and Cybersecurity Intersections Cultural Influences on Information Security Processing Model and Classification of Cybercognitive Attacks: Based on Cognitive Psychology Role of Techno-Economic Coalitions in Future Cyberspace Governance: 'Backcasting' as a Method for Strategic Foresight
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1