The digital revolution and the introduction of the World Extensive Internet are among the most vital and impactful international phenomena of the previous three many years. The results of accelerating international networked connectivity department out into each facet of day by day life and worldwide politics at such a velocity that they’re typically elusive, each for the coverage analyst and the policymaker. One of many (comparatively) much less explored areas of the digital revolution issues the connection between our on-line world[1] and political violence, with specific reference to cases by which digital instruments will not be facilitators of violent motion however are its very ends, in addition to the means via which it’s perpetrated. Understanding the theoretical and sensible chance of cyberterrorism is exactly the aim of this paper. Is it doable to conceive of a correctly terrorist motion going down totally in a digital atmosphere? Has an assault that may very well be known as cyberterrorism ever occurred? What are the methodological and operational variations between such an assault and a bodily one, and what are the interpretive and theoretical variations for the terrorism scholar? These are the primary questions guiding the current paper.
Within the first half, I’ll introduce the idea of cyberterrorism by presenting the primary definitional points and a few helpful categorizations. The purpose is to not discover an unambiguous definition of the time period however reasonably to clear the sector of among the terminological confusion by highlighting what can’t be known as cyberterrorism. The second half will analyze 5 case research of actions probably labeled as terrorism carried out in our on-line world. I anticipate that not one of the circumstances into account shall be correctly termed a cyberterrorist assault: The central assumption of this paper, which shall be taken up extensively later, is that such an assault has not but occurred. Within the third half, I’ll set out some issues of the implications that the introduction of our on-line world might need on the ideas and practices of uneven warfare and terrorism. This half would be the most conceptual and speculative: Past the concrete threat of terrorist threats from our on-line world, we are going to use the latter to grasp (and increase on) among the traits peculiar to uneven conflicts. I’ll conclude with some ideas on the way forward for political violence in our on-line world.
Definitional points
The definition of cyberterrorism, like that of terrorism, is slippery and politically contested floor. The addition of the prefix “cyber” provides additional confusion not solely due to the vagueness and generality of an atmosphere as intangible as our on-line world, but additionally due to the absence of any phenomenological reference of (unanimously acknowledged) cyberterrorist motion. The try is, subsequently, that of defining a phenomenon that has most likely by no means occurred.[2] Regardless of this issue, the literature that makes an attempt to outline the idea is intensive.[3] For the reason that goal of this paper is to not present a exact definition of the phenomenon, I’ll proceed to attract its contours by exclusion, highlighting its important options however particularly its distinctions from different ideas pertaining to the cyber sphere.
On this respect, the work of Micheal Kenney[4] is perhaps useful. He distinguishes a cyberterrorist assault from a generic cyberattack, from an act of cyber warfare, and, much more relevantly, from an act of “hacktivism”.[5] Within the first case, we outline a cyberattack as an motion carried out via digital instruments geared toward disrupting, destroying, spying on, or stealing information and communications in a pc or community. Thus, the 2 essential parts are using digital instruments as a method of conducting the assault and the rendering of digital instruments as additionally the goal, whereas the motivations driving the attacker are detached (most often it’s monetary acquire, by which case we communicate of cybercrime or cyberfraud). If the motivation is politico-strategic and the actor behind the assault is a state (or a bunch that may be traced again to a state), we’re doubtless coping with an act of cyberwarfare: Outlined as a politically motivated cyberattack geared toward destroying networks and infrastructure of the focused actor and making certain that it can’t retaliate.[6]
The excellence between cyberterrorism and hacktivism is maybe probably the most delicate. At first sight, the road appears very blurred: A “hacktivist” is a non-state actor who carries out offensive actions in our on-line world to advance a political declare. One would nearly be tempted to translate into the cyber area the well-known maxim “somebody’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter”, turning it into “somebody’s cyberterrorist is another person’s hacktivist”. Nonetheless, such relativism dangers undermining some fundamental democratic freedoms associated to using the Web, such because the free expression of political concepts on-line. At current, actually, within the absence of egregious acts of violence carried out via the community, there’s a threat of extending the label “cyberterrorism” to incorporate nonviolent acts resembling defacing[7] a website or quickly suspending a service, implicitly additionally broadening the label “terrorist” to people or teams who merely carry out a political occasion via the online.
For related causes, it is very important distinguish cyberterrorism from using the Web by terrorist teams. This is among the most basic dichotomies concerning the definition of this time period: A “slim” definition that features solely these assaults that rely upon our on-line world to be carried out (cyber-dependent) is contrasted with a “broader” one that features all circumstances by which digital means merely facilitate the operations of terrorist teams (cyber-enabled).[8] Web of uncommon (albeit related) exceptions,[9] students of the phenomenon typically converge on a slim definition.[10] This strategy can be adopted within the current textual content, for 2 causes. The primary is to keep away from bringing below the label “terrorism” actions that may not be included in the event that they occurred within the bodily world (propaganda, coaching, financing via unlawful actions, and so forth.). The second and extra related cause takes up the purpose concerning freedoms talked about above: Over-extending the class of (cyber)terrorism would produce the sensible impact of constructing anti-terrorism laws relevant to a really giant variety of actions carried out on-line. The numerous dangers of such an extension of the idea embrace the potential of repression of activists and dissidents[11] and the appliance of excessively extreme penalties within the case of nonviolent actions resembling merely consulting materials produced by terrorist organizations and disseminated on-line.[12]
Not surprisingly, prolonged (and sometimes hyper-dramatized) definitions of cyberterrorism have been adopted instrumentally over time by political figures (particularly in the US) to legitimize better management over the digital sphere. Continued references to alleged “Digital Pearl Harbour”, “Cyber 9/11”, or “Cyber-Katrinas” serve, based on Pablo Mazurier, to “emphasize how essential the preventive position of state energy is in controlling the actions of customers on the Web whereas reinforcing within the collective unconscious the concept, if these tragic occurrences haven’t but materialized, it’s only as a result of work of regulation enforcement”.[13] Examples of constructing a political discourse across the alleged terrorist risk from our on-line world will not be missing in Europe, both: In 2016, then French Inside Minister Cazeneuve proposed a European initiative towards sturdy encryption of communications (the identical utilized by messaging apps resembling WhatsApp, and thought of by many consultants to be a useful gizmo for making certain person privateness), as a result of “many messages exchanged by terrorists would now be encrypted and intelligence would battle to intercept them”.[14] Past the sensible utility of blanket opposition to encryption of communications (“there isn’t any solution to take sturdy encryption out of the fingers of those that are decided to make use of it”, as famous by digital rights lawyer Nate Cardozo),[15] these examples make clear that the basic trade-off between particular person liberty and collective safety, already current within the bodily world and central to problems with political violence and terrorism, interprets completely into our on-line world and likewise ends in the adoption of narrower or wider definitions of cyberterrorism.
Case research
On this part, I’ll attempt to apply the classes offered above to some doable case research. First, nevertheless, a premise is so as. The quantity of small- to medium-scale cyberattacks occurring day by day world wide is unprecedented, and growing. Confronted with such a amount of doable case research, it’s needed to offer oneself choice standards. I’ve adopted two: one temporal and one logical. The primary criterion is to contemplate solely assaults which have occurred at the very least 5 years in the past, in order to make sure that the implications may be estimated and that there was enough investigation (though, as we will see, even this timeframe is commonly inadequate to get a transparent image). The second criterion is expounded to the necessity to put into follow the theoretical classes outlined within the earlier part: I’ll attempt to choose a case that exemplifies every idea mentioned to this point.
The primary case is solely speculative: It issues an assault that allegedly occurred as a part of the Nagorno-Karabakh warfare in 1999, when hackers allegedly altered a hospital’s databases by swapping sufferers’ blood varieties, risking their deaths on account of incorrect transfusions. I discovered just one supply[16] mentioning the case, citing “unconfirmed experiences”: The assault, subsequently, may thankfully have by no means occurred. Nonetheless, I selected to current it as illustrative of a case of “pure” cyberterrorism: It’s an assault carried out via the community concentrating on a pc system (a hospital’s database), with a political-strategic goal (as a possible motion carried out within the context of warfare, or at any charge with out pursuing any particular person acquire), with a powerful psychological impact of spreading terror among the many inhabitants and the potential consequence of reaching an enormous variety of victims. Different doable examples, sometimes cited among the many essential dangers of “pure” cyberterrorism, contain tampering with the management techniques of crucial infrastructure with excessive damaging potential resembling dams or nuclear energy crops. As much as this date, there has by no means been such an assault.
The second case into account is among the many most well-known and profitable cyberattacks in historical past. In June 2010, a malware[17] named Stuxnet was launched via a USB stick into the management system of the uranium enrichment plant in Natanz, Iran. Stuxnet took management of the ability’s laptop system and adjusted the velocity of rotation of the generators, which went uncontrolled till they caught hearth and exploded.[18] Stuxnet is remembered as “the primary digital weapon”[19]: It’s the first (and to this point solely) cyber software able to inflicting intensive bodily injury to an infrastructure. Can this assault fall below the definition of cyberterrorism?
Stuxnet was designed in cooperation by the US and Israel as a part of the “Olympic Video games” plan, created with the purpose of sabotaging Iran’s nuclear program. Whereas from the perspective of means and targets the assault occurred totally in our on-line world and with cyber weapons, from the perspective of motivation and goals this seems extra like a basic cyberattack or act of cyber warfare than a cyberterrorist assault. First, the infrastructure hit coincides exactly with the strategic goal the attackers needed to pursue: A nuclear infrastructure is hit to undermine nuclear developments. Thus, the “abstractness” and disconnect between materials goal and strategic goal typical of the “grammar” of terrorism[20] is absent. Second, there’s a lack of proof that inciting terror was among the many attackers’ objectives. The infrastructure hit was removed from inhabitants facilities and the assault didn’t lead to any deaths: Doubtless, the fabric goal of the assault (slowing down or stopping Iran’s enrichment of uranium) was way more essential than any symbolic and psychological objectives.
The third case issues a hacker group linked to the Islamic State. Two months after the Caliphate was proclaimed in 2014, the @KhalifaHackers account emerged on Twitter, run by a hacker group claiming many assaults towards “anti-Islamic” targets.[21] Among the many operations carried out are the hacking of the app of the native newspaper “Albuquerque Journal” and, most significantly, the hacking of the Twitter profile of Centcom, the U.S. Central Army Command, in 2015. Related operations are additionally carried out by a plethora of different varied politically related organizations. It’s price mentioning, for instance, the “Syrian Digital Military”, a bunch of eight Syrian hackers that has carried out cyber operations on behalf of the Assad regime since 2011. The primary targets hit (all throughout 2014) are variously accused of spreading faux information concerning the ongoing warfare (resembling CNN, whose Fb and Twitter profiles are hacked), spying on residents (resembling the corporate Microsoft and the cellphone app Offended Birds), or being direct political enemies (resembling some Saudi authorities websites, defaced or seized).[22]
The issue with categorizing these sorts of operations as “cyberterrorist” is that though the motivations are political and the goals embrace spreading panic and terror among the many inhabitants, their depth is much too low and their penalties meager. The purpose is successfully made by Peter Singer who, in describing related operations carried out by al-Qaeda towards Israeli web sites or by the “Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Cyber Fighters” group towards some U.S. banks, writes that “these assaults the equal of a crowd standing in your foyer blocking entry or a gang of neighborhood youngsters continuously doing “ring and runs” at your entrance doorbell. It’s annoying, to make certain, however nothing that may make the terrorism risk matrix if you happen to eliminated the phrase ‘cyber’”.[23] To quote one other efficient bodily metaphor, Alessandro Curioni describes DDoS assaults[24] (among the many most generally used for this sort of unsophisticated operation) as a “very intense and concentrated bombardment [after which] the system returns to regular operation. […] As if flights at an airport resumed usually after hundreds of bombs have been poured over it”.[25] As a lot because the objectives of the attackers embrace spreading terror among the many inhabitants, the outcomes are nonetheless removed from that purpose.
A related exception, taking on the case of “Cyber Caliphate”, is using cyberattacks to show the situation of targets and thus make it simpler to hit them bodily. That is what occurred in 2014 to activists from the location “Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently”, which was devoted to exposing atrocities dedicated by ISIS within the Syrian metropolis of Raqqa. By way of an e-mail containing malware, the “Caliphate hackers” uncovered their place, making them extraordinarily susceptible to violent reprisals.[26] On this case, the elements of violence and terror are current, however they take form exterior of our on-line world, within the bodily world. That is subsequently an instance of terrorist use of the Web, reasonably than precise cyberterrorism.
We conclude our evaluation of case research with arguably probably the most well-known hacktivist group on the planet. Nameless is just not a company, however reasonably a “fluid, loosely related community of hackers, activists and pranksters who coordinate their actions on an advert hoc foundation”.[27] In some circumstances, it may very well be known as a “model” to be affixed to hacker operations of assorted varieties. The fluidity of the group makes the variety of small assaults attributable to it countless: We are going to restrict ourselves right here to citing a single consultant instance case. In 2012 Nameless gave operational help to a hacker group named OpIsrael in conducting a sequence of assaults towards Israeli authorities websites, with the primary goal of defacing them by displaying messages in favor of the Palestinian trigger.[28] These and different subsequent operations have been framed by the attackers as “a brand new digital warfare towards the Israeli occupation”, however actually, that they had the identical impact as graffiti on authorities buildings would have within the bodily world. As soon as once more, alongside a political motivation and the aim of instilling concern, there are technical capabilities which are nonetheless too restricted to trigger injury similar to that of a bodily terrorist assault.
Our on-line world, terrorism, and uneven warfare
The aforementioned Alessandro Curioni calls warfare carried out in our on-line world “the mom of all uneven warfare”.[29] Certainly, the immateriality of this atmosphere, its pervasiveness, and the potential of working in it whereas simply concealing one’s identification make it a great place for this sort of battle. On this part I’ll contemplate our on-line world purely as an idea: Other than its concrete makes use of—which, as we’ve seen, have to this point been very restricted, at the very least so far as terrorism is worried—I’ll try and establish its potential and conceptual position within the concept and follow of terrorism and uneven warfare. To take action I’ll make use of Alessandro Colombo’s evaluation[30] of the weather of terrorism and uneven warfare, and attempt to transpose its essential ideas into our on-line world.
Colombo first identifies three parts of the “grammar” of terrorism: (1) abstractness (talked about earlier: it consists of the disconnect between the fabric goal of the assault and the political/strategic goal), (2) a peculiar spatiality (hitting targets indiscriminately, even randomly) and (3) a convoluted temporality (the main impact of terrorism is just not the hurt attributable to an assault within the current however the specter of even better struggling to be inflicted sooner or later).[31] The evaluation goes on to explain two different traits peculiar to terrorism: its justification within the identify of exceptionalism, of a supreme good that requires using violence exterior the norm, and its theatricality, a spectacularization of violence that amplifies its unfold and psychological impact.[32] The opposite ideas I’ll borrow from Colombo’s work concern uneven warfare, described as a conflict by which asymmetry is manifested on the planes of energy (when it comes to navy capabilities: the stronger will need to increase the extent of confrontation whereas the weaker will need to maintain it low depth), house (the stronger will need to confine using violence to the battlefield and sanction its territory, the weaker will need to lengthen violence by encroaching on the opponent’s territory) and knowledge (the stronger will need a completely clear battlefield, the weaker will need to conceal as a lot as doable).[33]
How are these traits reworked when coming into our on-line world? Allow us to reply this query by beginning with the “grammar” of terrorism. The primary distinction between assaults towards bodily buildings and operations towards digital targets lies within the line of protection: Whereas in bodily house states equip themselves with armies and counter-terrorism businesses able to defending the civilian inhabitants from assaults, in our on-line world the primary line of protection is the civilian inhabitants.[34] Certainly, behind the pc screens of corporations and significant infrastructures are staff and abnormal residents who might enable malware to interrupt into the pc system even by merely opening the incorrect e-mail. In cybersecurity jargon, such cases are referred to as “human vulnerabilities” and are by far the most typical reason for profitable cyber assaults.[35] Due to such vulnerabilities, the popular targets of any cyberterrorists will at all times be civilian infrastructure even when the long-term political goal is a rustic’s state or navy: The character of our on-line world thus incentivizes the abstractness typical of the terrorist act.
Secondly, the spatiality and temporality of cyberterrorism are then equally undefined. As soon as positioned on the community, a chunk of malware has the potential to unfold even past the management of the attackers themselves: The chance of “pleasant hearth”, that’s, of infecting one’s personal techniques with the malware one is utilizing as a weapon, is an actual hazard that each malicious cyber actor critically considers. If the weapon getting used is so elusive as to be past the management of the attackers themselves, cyberterrorism represents an excessive amplification of the peculiarities of terrorism when it comes to spatiality and temporality: The risk is prolonged indefinitely in each time and house.
Thirdly, the geographic component, which has at all times been crucial within the issues of terrorists and revolutionaries (consider the talk on the effectiveness of “city guerrilla warfare” or “foquismo” from the forests, or the position of mountains within the formation of “sanctuaries” for a lot of fighters) evidently loses which means: The brand new obstacles for the cyberterrorist are the safety techniques now and again employed by the goal, and the brand new alternatives for assault are the vulnerabilities and flaws within the techniques which are found.
What concerning the theatricality of the act? Can an motion carried out completely in our on-line world provoke the identical emotional response of terror attributable to a bomb or mass capturing? The absence of the psychological and emotional component is commonly cited among the many causes for the dearth of precise recorded cyberterrorist assaults.[36] Nonetheless, a examine carried out in 2016 on the psychological results of cyberterrorism would appear to point out {that a} cyberterrorist assault is able to producing the identical states of hysteria and calls for for better safety and management from authority as a bodily assault.[37] Certainly, given the pervasiveness of the Web and digital instruments within the day by day lives of a lot of the world’s inhabitants, it’s comprehensible their impairment has the potential to generate panic in an analogous method {that a} bodily risk would. Developments within the fields of the Web of Issues and Synthetic Intelligence are digitizing increasingly actions of day by day life, producing new potential targets, ever nearer to the inhabitants. A pc display screen, dwelling home equipment, or an organization’s laptop system can thus be the “stage” for terrorist theatrical motion in no totally different method than a crowded sq. may be.
Given the weather of temporal permanence of the risk and pervasiveness of the targets simply highlighted, the justification for the cyberterrorist act will not be that of exceptionalism, as is commonly the case with conventional terrorism (as a result of the malware will stay in circulation indefinitely, probably even after the supposed “emergency” is over), reasonably it would most likely be nearer to the Maoist idea of everlasting warfare, or, to cite two influential modern authors of Chinese language navy technique, “limitless warfare”.[38]
How does uneven warfare change in gentle of the traits of our on-line world highlighted? On the airplane of energy, it appears that evidently cyber weapons present a powerful benefit to the weaker get together, given their relative ease of entry and potential to focus on the weak factors (techniques’ vulnerabilities) of an (particularly Western) computerized and digitized society. On the airplane of house, the try of the stronger actor to “sanitize” its territory to protect it from violence is futile in our on-line world: Connectivity is the elemental and defining attribute of this atmosphere, and the safety of a portion of it for securitarian functions can solely come on the expense of democratic freedoms (as is the case, for instance, in China with the “Nice Firewall”). Even on the info stage, the strongest actor sees its try and have a wonderfully clear battlefield thwarted due to the encryption and anonymity supplied by the community. These are the the reason why the battle waged in our on-line world could certainly turn out to be “the mom of all asymmetrical wars”.
Conclusions: the way forward for political violence in our on-line world
If our on-line world presents such substantial benefits to weaker actors prepared to have interaction in a type of violent political battle towards a stronger enemy, why have we by no means witnessed an precise cyberterrorist assault? One frequent rationalization (that of the absence of theatricality and a powerful psychological impact) has already been addressed within the earlier part, together with the reason why it will not be convincing.
A second cause paradoxically stems from one of many benefits of cyber weapons: anonymity. Those that conduct violent motion for political functions typically have an curiosity in claiming it unequivocally. Perpetrators should make themselves seen to realize concessions[39] and affect the goal’s habits. Our on-line world, nevertheless, surrounds every motion with a blanket of uncertainty that makes it extraordinarily tough to attribute it with certainty to at least one perpetrator, as an alternative making a number of conflicting claims just about inconceivable to substantiate or disprove.
The third (and doubtless the primary) cause why we could by no means have witnessed a cyberterrorist assault is, trivially, that of technical capabilities. Whereas it’s true that lots of the easier assaults examined above (defacement of websites, intrusion into social pages) “present[ed] the absence of capabilities of the attacked […] reasonably than reflecting the capabilities of the attackers”,[40] it’s also true that extra advanced assaults able to producing vital injury require extraordinary technical capabilities in lots of fields of data. To make use of Peter Singer’s phrases once more:
Taking down a hydroelectric generator […] doesn’t simply require the abilities and means to get into a pc system. It’s additionally realizing what to do as soon as you might be in. To trigger true injury requires an understanding of the units themselves and the way they run, the engineering and physics behind the goal. […] To be blunt, neither the 14-year-old hacker in your next-door neighbor’s upstairs bed room, nor the two- or three-person al-Qaida cell holed up in some house in Hamburg are going to carry down the Glen Canyon and Hoover dams.[41]
These phrases date again to 2012. Time will inform whether or not the technical difficulties in inflicting vital injury via our on-line world will proceed to make sure its safety from terrorist assaults. No matter its sensible use for terrorist functions, in any case, the introduction of our on-line world is already an especially vital innovation within the advanced framework of worldwide safety and the follow of uneven warfare.
Notes
[1] On this textual content I’ll use the phrase “our on-line world” within the generic sense of a digital atmosphere by which information and knowledge are exchanged.
[2] Michael Kenney, Cyber-Terrorism in a Publish-Stuxnet World, Orbis 59, no. 1 (2015): 111–28, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orbis.2014.11.009.
[3] For some examples, see Laura Mayer Lux, “Una Definición de Ciberterrorismo,” Revista Chilena de Derecho y Tecnología 7, no. 2 (2018): 5–25, https://doi.org/10.5354/0719-2584.2018.51028; Lee Jarvis and Stuart Macdonald, “What Is Cyberterrorism? Findings from a Survey of Researchers,” Terrorism and Political Violence 27, no. 4 (2014): 657–78, https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2013.847827; and the broad (though not very current) gathering of definitions in Rabiah Ahmad and Zahri Yunos, “A Dynamic Cyber Terrorism Framework,” Worldwide Journal of Laptop Science and Data Safety (IJCSIS) 10, no. 2 (2012): 149–5.
[4] Micheal Kenney, op. cit.
[5] Union of the phrases “hacker” and “activism,” it’s intuitively definable as activism carried out via actions in our on-line world.
[6] Micheal Kenney, op. cit., p.114.
[7] Defacing is the act of illicitly altering or changing the house web page of a web site.
[8] United Nations Workplace on Medication and Crime (UNODC), Counter-Terrorism within the Worldwide Regulation Context (Publishing and Library Part, United Nations Workplace at Vienna, 2021), p.177; “Cybercrime Module 14 Key Points: Cyberterrorism”, UNODC, accessed June 10, 2023, https://www.unodc.org/e4j/zh/cybercrime/module-14/key-issues/cyberterrorism.html; Lee Jarvis and Stuart Macdonald, op. cit., p.659; Babak Akhgar and Eric Luiijf, “Definitions of Cyber Terrorism,” essay, in Cyber Crime and Cyber Terrorism Investigator’s Handbook (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2014).
[9] Eben Kaplan, “Q&A: Terrorists and the Web,” The New York Instances, March 6, 2006, https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/cfr/worldwide/slot2_030606.html, cited in Micheal Kenney, op. cit.
[10] Nonetheless, it is very important observe, as UNODC does on the website cited in footnote 8, that this strategy is just not prevalent amongst policymakers.
[11] UNODC, “Cybercrime Module 14 Key Points: Cyberterrorism”, op. cit.
[12] Fabio Vigneri, “Cyberterrorismo: Realtà O Finzione? Profili Problematici Di Definizione e Contrasto,” Opinio Juris, July 26, 2021, p.22, accessible at https://www.opiniojuris.it/cyberterrorismo-realta-o-finzioneprofili-problematici-di-definizione-e-contrasto/.
[13] Pablo Mazurier, “Sul Concetto Di Cyber-Terrorismo e Cyber(in)Sicurezza”, Centro Interdipartimentale Di Studi Strategici, Internazionali e Imprenditoriali (CCSSII), Università Degli Studi Di Firenze, 2017, p.5.
[14] Carola Frediani, Guerre Di Rete, (Roma: Laterza, 2017), cap. “Reti di terrore”.
[15] Carola Frediani, Op. Cit.
[16] Babak Akhgar and Eric Luiijf, op. cit., p.16.
[17] An umbrella time period that generically signifies “malicious software program”. It’s typically confused with the time period “virus”, which signifies a selected kind of malware. On this case, the malware in query was technically a “worm”.
[18] Data safety knowledgeable Giorgio Sbaraglia gave an in depth and technical description of the Stuxnet case (in italian) at https://www.giorgiosbaraglia.it/la-guerra-cibernetica-caso-piu-famoso/.
[19] Carola Frediani, op. cit., cap. “Stuxnet, la prima arma digitale”.
[20] Alessandro Colombo, “Terrorismo, Radicalismo Politico e Guerra Asimmetrica,” essay, in Violenza e Politica: Dopo Il Novecento (Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino, 2020), p. 180.
[21] Carola Frediani, op. cit., cap. “Reti di terrore”.
[22] Babak Akhgar and Eleanor Lockley, “Understanding the Situational Consciousness in Cybercrimes: Case Research,” essay, in Cyber Crime and Cyber Terrorism Investigator’s Handbook (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2014).
[23] Peter W. Singer, “The Cyber Terror Bogeyman,” Brookings, July 28, 2012, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-cyber-terror-bogeyman/.
[24] Distributed Denial of Service: This is among the technically easiest types of cyberattack, by which a considerable amount of information visitors is directed at a goal to make it quickly unavailable to different customers.
[25] Aldo Giannuli and Alessandro Curioni, Cyber Struggle: La Guerra Prossima Ventura (Milano: Mimesis, 2019), p.54.
[26] Carola Frediani, op. cit., cap. “Reti di terrore”.
[27] Micheal Kenney, op. cit.
[28] Cohen, Daniel. “Cyber terrorism: Case research.” In Cyber Crime and Cyber Terrorism Investigator’s Handbook. Elsevier, 2014 p.167.
[29] Aldo Giannuli and Alessandro Curioni, op. cit., p.49.
[30] Alessandro Colombo, op. cit.
[31] Alessandro Colombo, op. cit., pp.180-183.
[32] Alessandro Colombo, op. cit., pp.183-188.
[33] Alessandro Colombo, op. cit., pp.191-196.
[34] Aldo Giannuli and Alessandro Curioni, op. cit., p.49.
[35] Aldo Giannuli and Alessandro Curioni, op. cit., p.60.
[36] Robert Jackson, Jørgen Møller, and Georg Sørensen. Relazioni internazionali. fifth ed. Milano: Egea editore, 2020, p. 411.
[37] Michael L. Gross, Daphna Canetti, and Dana R. Vashdi, “The psychological results of cyber terrorism,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 72, no. 5 (August 4, 2016), https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2016.1216502.
[38] Quiao Liang, Wang Xiangsui, Guerra senza limiti, Libreria editrice goriziana, Gorizia, 2001.
[39] Robert Jackson, Jørgen Møller, and Georg Sørensen, op. cit., p. 412.
[40] Carola Frediani, op. cit., cap. “Reti di terrore”.
[41] Peter Singer, op. cit.
References
All translations have been made by this creator. All web sites have been final visited on 5th September 2024, at 16:00 ECT.
Ahmad, Rabiah, and Zahri Yunos. “A Dynamic Cyber Terrorism Framework.” Worldwide Journal of Laptop Science and Data Safety (IJCSIS) 10, no. 2 (2012): 149–58.
Akhgar, Babak, and Eleanor Lockley. “Understanding the Situational Consciousness in Cybercrimes: Case Research.” Essay. In Cyber Crime and Cyber Terrorism Investigator’s Handbook. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2014.
Akhgar, Babak, and Eric Luiijf. “Definitions of Cyber Terrorism.” Essay. In Cyber Crime and Cyber Terrorism Investigator’s Handbook. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2014.
Cohen, Daniel. “Cyber terrorism: Case research.” In Cyber Crime and Cyber Terrorism Investigator’s Handbook. Elsevier, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/c2013-0-15338-x.
Colombo, Alessandro. “Terrorismo, Radicalismo Politico e Guerra Asimmetrica.” Essay. In Violenza e Politica: Dopo Il Novecento. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino, 2020.
Frediani, Carola. Guerre di Rete. Roma: Laterza, 2017.
Giannuli, Aldo, and Alessandro Curioni. Cyber Struggle: La guerra prossima Ventura. Milano: Mimesis, 2019.
Gross, Michael L., Daphna Canetti, and Dana R. Vashdi. “The psychological results of cyber terrorism.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 72, no. 5 (August 4, 2016): 284–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2016.1216502.
Jackson, Robert, Jorgen Moller, and Georg Sorensen. Relazioni internazionali. fifth ed. Milano: Egea editore, 2020.
Jarvis, Lee, and Stuart Macdonald. “What Is Cyberterrorism? Findings from a Survey of Researchers.” Terrorism and Political Violence 27, no. 4 (2014): 657–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2013.847827.
Kaplan, Eben. “Q&A: Terrorists and the Web.” The New York Instances, March 6, 2006. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/cfr/worldwide/slot2_030606.html.
Kenney, Michael. “Cyber-Terrorism in a Publish-Stuxnet World.” Orbis 59, no. 1 (2015): 111–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orbis.2014.11.009.
Mayer Lux, Laura. “Una Definición de Ciberterrorismo.” Revista Chilena de Derecho y Tecnología 7, no. 2 (2018): 5–25. https://doi.org/10.5354/0719-2584.2018.51028.
Mazurier, Pablo. “Sul Concetto Di Cyber-Terrorismo e Cyber(in)Sicurezza.” Centro Interdipartimentale di Studi Strategici, Internazionali e Imprenditoriali (CCSSII), Università degli Studi di Firenze, 2017.
Singer, Peter W. “The Cyber Terror Bogeyman.” Brookings, July 28, 2012. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-cyber-terror-bogeyman/.
United Nations Workplace on Medication and Crime (UNODC). Counter-Terrorism within the Worldwide Regulation Context. Publishing and Library Part, United Nations Workplace at Vienna, 2021.
United Nations Workplace on Medication and Crime (UNODC). ”Cybercrime Module 14 Key Points: Cyberterrorism.” UNODC. Accessed June 10, 2023. https://www.unodc.org/e4j/zh/cybercrime/module-14/key-issues/cyberterrorism.html.
Vigneri, Fabio. “Cyberterrorismo: Realtà O Finzione? Profili Problematici Di Definizione e Contrasto.” Opinio Juris, July 26, 2021. https://www.opiniojuris.it/cyberterrorismo-realta-o-finzioneprofili-problematici-di-definizione-e-contrasto/.
Additional Studying on E-Worldwide Relations
