Hypothesis
This research paper, from the Journal of Cybersecurity, first sets the stage for its research hypothesis by discussing the current landscape of cyber conflict. The hypothesis states that adversaries to the United States will become less effective due to the forward defense of the Department of Defense. It includes a deeper discussion of prior research for policy on active defense and cyber deterrence as well as discussing persistent-engagement stability theory and the policy solutions to mitigate associated risks, concluding with the suggestion for a broader theory of stability-enhancing engagement theory.
The Social Science of Persistent Engagement
The social science principles are seven unique principles and I found after reading this paper, it most heavily relate to the principles of political science, psychology, sociology, criminology, and economics. Political science may have the most influence in this paper as the focus is on the Department of Defense’s efforts toward active defense. I found criminology to also play a larger part in influencing this paper, as while discussing the idea of persistent engagement, the author highlights the study from the Defense Science Board calling for the proposal of legislation needed to define the DoD’s role in defending non-DoD systems.
Research Methodology and Analysis
I previously mentioned a summer study conducted by the Defense Science Board (DSB), which resulted in the draft version of the first cyber command allowing the engagement of active defense outside of DoD networks. This set the stage for proceeding studies and methodologies, such as the Defensive Cyber Operations-Response actions (DCO-RA). This term applies to external actions taken in cyberspace without the owner’s permission. It may also result in the use of force [1] and goes much farther than the original draft from the DSB in 1996. Research conducted by Columbia University revealed insights into cyber conflict, such as that characteristics that make deterrence difficult change over time, rather than remaining static.
CYSE 201S and Persistent Engagement
In CYSE 201S, we have discussed lately the relationship between the offense and the offender, trying to explain the reasoning of offenders and understanding the motivations they harbor. Part of this article is looking at motivations and reasoning at a national and international level for active defense. It is the other side of actions taken in cyberspace related to recent class discussions.
Concerning Marginalized Groups
As this paper is focusing on cyber defense from a geopolitical point of view with a focus on United States superiority, we can infer that some of the concerns of marginalized groups may be shared. The open communication of cyber security teams from different nations and ethnic backgrounds can protect marginalized people on a global scale.
This Study’s Contribution to Society
This paper proposes that persistent engagement is expected to affect the willingness of adversaries to attack the United States. To keep the close contact of military and intelligence communities from losing control, there must be diplomatic mechanisms to reduce risk and miscalculation. This strategy relies heavily on the nature of contact between participants and for that reason, it is important to understand that this relationship will last for as long as persistent engagement is employed.
Conclusion
Active defense is a more proactive stance toward security breaches or hacking attempts. It relies on persistent engagement, internal and external to DoD networks, and the constant communication between national and international teams to mitigate escalation of events. The paper aimed to highlight the importance of understanding this, as the definition and thought behind defending networks evolves and priming its audience with an understanding of the risks involved.
Reference:
[1] Department of Defense. Joint Publication 3-12: Cyberspace Operations. 2018: II-4, II-5, II-6. https://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_12.pdf (February 10, 2024, date last accessed).
Journal Research Paper: https://academic.oup.com/cybersecurity/article/5/1/tyz008/5554878?searchresult=1#140575506