The discussion on Fog of War

Cyber war has been including various acts undertaken by various organizations both national and the international. They are used to attack and damage the others computers and different information networks. The Denial of Services or DoS or the Computer Viruses has been the finest epitome of this.

The report is prepared to discuss the Fog of War and the various information environmental decisions. Moreover, it has also assessed the decision making regarding the cyber war and the critical discussions.

Today’s world has been undergoing through a calamity in the cyber world referred to as the Fog of War. It has been including various malicious hacking along with preference of terms like the “cyber espionage” and “cyber conflict”. The people, governments, and the organizations have been facing attacks constantly all through the world (Kott, Swami and West 2016). The raiders utilizing the Internet to rob the vital data, sabotaging the crucial operations and recruiting various terrorists have been carrying on the war. The time has been high at present for the coordinated reactions all through the world.

The conflict of cyber occurring in the current world is denoted as the “Fifth domain of War”. It has been regarded as the conceptual framework, not entirely right by useful enough. More new paths are searched by the military to incorporate the cyber strategies within the operational framework (Rantapelkonen and Salminen 2013). This effort is fraught with very complications as there has been “Fog of War” under the strategy of the cyber centric operations. Further, it has never been possible to think up what the operations of cyber have needed to be undertaken. Moreover, there has no clear conception that has been nourishing the intellectual basis for those kinds of operations.

A clear lens has been provided by the information to witness the developments and the potential effects of the cyber attacks. This has also delivered the high level of situational analysis and used to undertake effective decisions (Zaitsev et al. 2017). It is done without any planning or operational process. This has been meant to collect and then leverage the huge amount of data points. In this way, it became impossible to navigate them effectively.

The first threat involved in the scenario is the targeted countermeasures. These countermeasures are been planned and implemented for the fundamental threats. These are identified by the threat modeling. Then there is the hunting. This is fought with the investigation that has been focused and investigations led by intelligence about the malicious tasks. It is performed over the organization’s endpoints and the network by the adversaries (Applegate 2015).  All these are identified by the various automated security tools. Next to this is the trapping and coercion. The network conditions and endpoints are changed here to provoke the different hidden advisories. This intention is to engage the malicious activities. Lastly, there are the deception technologies. They have been giving rise to vulnerabilities and various fake systems. It has been helping them to attract and disrupt the attack’s progression.

The information environment discussion

The “Multiple Attribute Decision-Making” or “MADM” approach is very much vital in the cyber warfare. Moreover, it shows its usefulness where restricted alternatives exist. The most efficient scope is needed to be selected by the decision makers. The challenges of MADM have been distinguished as the scoring methods, compromising methods and the concordance methods (Forsyth Jr and Pope 2015). It has been seen that the cyber-attacks have been prone to the short-term conflict. These conflicts are restricted to the time and scopes. The damages done by those attacks in the services and logistics are supplying advantages at the first place.

The long conflicts have been increasing the uses and declining the advantages on the other hand. In this way the cyber attacks have been generating the innovative range to create the large section of the “Friction and Fog of the War”, Further, it slows down the making of decisions and raising the awareness and chances to make mistakes. The deception of the opposing commanders has been the part of the war every time. However, the cyber-attacks deliver the latest and more intimate capabilities to go through that. In this way, it has been supplying the crucial advantages to mislead and undermine the confidence.

The term “Fog of War” was coined by Carl von Clausewitz. The term “Fog” has been used metaphorically here to denote the ambiguities of war. As the war begins, the tactically relevant information has been turning to be distorted and confusing. Because of the complicacies to fetch the patterns in midst of the fog, the leaders are needed to be permitted for acting independently on the various operational plans. Hence to make preparation for the war planning has been useless every time. Moreover, the planning is indispensable.

It has been the friction that has been accounting for the distinction between how many times the things has been expected to take on the paper. This also includes the actual time elapsed because of the unexpected distractions. For example, one could go for the group of people for taking information every hour, point to point.

On the other hand, the decision makers require creating and doing activities financially and efficiently to please the investors or shareholders. Moreover, they require going for the innovation and keeping collecting the new services. Further, they should also create new services to satisfy the necessities of the clients. The risks could be avoided by them about the investment done in the communities where they have been active. They should also be careful regarding the various risks arising from the poor effects on the environment. Moreover, they have been also needed to check the risks about the interruption of the current business through the security incidents and the cyber attacks.

Conclusion: 

Although the “Fog of War” has been shrouding the vision and the judgment, the lessons have been helping to make the outcome minimized for the inevitable mistakes. Here the constraint management could be used to seek the sources of the friction. Then the throughputs are to be streamlined. The fundamental motivating values of the decision makers are to gain the optimal or the acceptable outcomes in the external world. Next, the central attitudinal focus of the decision maker should be finding the optimal or acceptable solutions under the constraints given.

References:

Applegate, S., 2015. Cyber Conflict: Disruption and Exploitation in the Digital Age. In Current and Emerging Trends in Cyber Operations (pp. 19-36). Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Backhaus, S., Bent, R., Bono, J., Lee, R., Tracey, B., Wolpert, D., Xie, D. and Yildiz, Y., 2013. Cyber-physical security: A game theory model of humans interacting over control systems. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 4(4), pp.2320-2327.

Bhuiyan, M.Z.A., Wu, J., Wang, G. and Cao, J., 2016. Sensing and Decision Making in Cyber-Physical Systems: The Case of Structural Event Monitoring. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 12(6), pp.2103-2114.

Burnap, P. and Williams, M.L., 2015. Cyber hate speech on twitter: An application of machine classification and statistical modeling for policy and decision making. Policy & Internet, 7(2), pp.223-242.

Cappella, J.N., Kim, H.S. and Albarracín, D., 2015. Selection and transmission processes for information in the emerging media environment: Psychological motives and message characteristics. Media psychology, 18(3), pp.396-424.

Cavelty, M.D., 2014. Breaking the cyber-security dilemma: Aligning security needs and removing vulnerabilities. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(3), pp.701-715.

Forsyth Jr, J.W. and Pope, B.E., 2015. Structural Causes and Cyber Effects: A Response to Our Critics. AIR UNIV MAXWELL AFB AL AIR FORCE RESEARCH INST.

Håkansson, A. and Hartung, R., 2014. An infrastructure for individualised and intelligent decision-making and negotiation in cyber-physical systems. Procedia Computer Science, 35, pp.822-831.

Hanratty, T.P., Newcomb, E.A., Hammell II, R.J., Richardson, J.T. and Mittrick, M.R., 2016. A fuzzy-based approach to support decision making in complex military environments. International Journal of Intelligent Information Technologies (IJIIT), 12(1), pp.1-30.

Jones, A., Vidalis, S. and Abouzakhar, N., 2016, September. Information security and digital forensics in the world of cyber physical systems. In Digital Information Management (ICDIM), 2016 Eleventh International Conference on (pp. 10-14). IEEE.

Kott, A., Swami, A. and West, B.J., 2016. The Fog of War in Cyberspace. Computer, 49(11), pp.84-87.

Kott, A., Swami, A. and West, B.J., 2016. Army Science Planning and Strategy Meeting: The Fog of Cyber War (No. ARL-TR-7902). US Army Research Laboratory Adelphi United States.

Lee, J., Kao, H.A. and Yang, S., 2014. Service innovation and smart analytics for industry 4.0 and big data environment. Procedia Cirp, 16, pp.3-8.

Lee, J., Lapira, E., Bagheri, B. and Kao, H.A., 2013. Recent advances and trends in predictive manufacturing systems in big data environment. Manufacturing Letters, 1(1), pp.38-41.

Orend, B., 2014. Fog in the fifth dimension: The ethics of cyber-war. In The ethics of information warfare (pp. 3-23). Springer International Publishing.

Rantapelkonen, J. and Salminen, M., 2013. The fog of cyber defence. Julkaisusarja 2. Artikkelikokoelma n: o 10.

Shin, J.H., Cheon, S.P. and Eom, J.H., 2014. The Role and Responsibility of Cyber Intelligence in Cyber Warfare. In The proceedings of The 3rd International Conference on Information Technology and Computer Science, ASTL (Vol. 51, pp. 305-308).

Von Solms, R. and Van Niekerk, J., 2013. From information security to cyber security. computers & security, 38, pp.97-102.

Wang, W. and Lu, Z., 2013. Cyber security in the Smart Grid: Survey and challenges. Computer Networks, 57(5), pp.1344-1371.

Zaitsev, A.V., Gostev, S.S., Cherkashin, P.A. and Shcherbakov, A.Y., 2017. Regarding the technology of distributed storage of confidential information in centers of general-purpose data processing. Automatic Documentation and Mathematical Linguistics, 51(3), pp.117-119.