NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL MINEFIELD: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF COLLATERAL DAMAGE IN CYBER WARFARE AND ITS MITIGATION

Dr. Samuel K. Mensah; Prof. Zinaida Zuyeva; Prof. Alla Kornilova

Open Access icon Open Access

ARTICLE

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL MINEFIELD: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF COLLATERAL DAMAGE IN CYBER WARFARE AND ITS MITIGATION

Dr. Samuel K. Mensah ¹ , Prof. Zinaida Zuyeva ² , Prof. Alla Kornilova ²

¹ Department of Computer Science, University of Cape Town, South Africa

² Faculty of Computational Mathematics and Cybernetics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia

Issue Vol. 1 No. 01 (2024): Volume 01 Issue 01 --- Section Articles --- Published Date: 2024-12-30

Citations: Loading…

ABSTRACT VIEWS: 33 | FILE VIEWS: 16 | PDF: 16 HTML: 0 OTHER: 0 | TOTAL: 49

Views + Downloads (Last 90 days)

Cumulative % included

Abstract

Offensive cyber operations (OCOs) have rapidly evolved into a critical component of modern statecraft and conflict, offering diverse capabilities ranging from intelligence gathering to the disruption and destruction of adversary systems. However, the inherent characteristics of cyberspace—its pervasive interconnectedness, intricate complexity, and often ambiguous nature—introduce profound challenges, particularly concerning collateral damage. This comprehensive systematic literature review delves into the conceptualization, ramifications, and strategies for mitigating unintended harm arising from OCOs. By synthesizing insights from academic scholarship, military doctrine, and policy discourse, this review categorizes the multifaceted forms of collateral damage, scrutinizes the legal and ethical frameworks designed to govern such effects, and identifies prevailing approaches and future trajectories for minimizing inadvertent harm. The findings unequivocally highlight the urgent necessity for robust assessment methodologies, enhanced international collaboration, and the responsible development and deployment of cyber capabilities to safeguard non-combatant civilians and vital infrastructure from the far-reaching and often pervasive ripple effects of contemporary cyber warfare.

Keywords

Cybersecurity, Cyber Warfare, Offensive Cyber Operations, Collateral Damage

References

1. Aiyer, B.; Caso, J.; Russell, P.; Sorel, M. Mckinsey: New Survey Reveals $2 Trillion Market Opportunity for Cybersecurity Technology and Service Providers. 2022. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/risk-and-resilience/our-insights/cybersecurity/new-survey-reveals-2-trillion-dollar-market-opportunity-for-cybersecurity-technology-and-service-providers (accessed on 30 January 2024).

2. IBM Security; the Ponemon Institute. Cost of a Data Breach Report 2022. 2022. Available online: https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/3R8N1DZJ (accessed on 31 January 2024).

3. Hanson, F.; Uren, T. Australia’s Offensive Cyber Capability. 2018. Available online: https://www.aspi.org.au/report/australias-offensive-cyber-capability (accessed on 31 January 2024).

4. Farwell, J.P.; Rohozinski, R. Stuxnet and the Future of Cyber War. Survival 2011, 53, 23–40.

5. U.S. Department of Justice. Three North Korean Military Hackers Indicted in Wide-Ranging Scheme to Commit Cyberattacks and Financial Crimes Across the Globe. 2022. Available online: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/three-north-korean-military-hackers-indicted-wide-ranging-scheme-commit-cyberattacks-and (accessed on 1 February 2024).

6. Schelling, T.C. Dispersal, deterrence, and damage. Oper. Res. 1961, 9, 363–370.

7. U.S. Air Force. Air Force Doctrine Publication 3–60, Targeting. 2021. Available online: https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDP_3-60/3-60-AFDP-TARGETING.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2024).

8. Schmitt, M.N. (Ed.) Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2017.

9. Arquilla, J.; Ronfeldt, D. Cyberwar is coming! Comp. Strategy 1993, 12, 141–165.

10. Lee, E.A.; Seshia, S.A. Introduction to Embedded Systems: A Cyber-Physical Systems Approach, 2nd ed.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017.

11. Romanosky, S.; Goldman, Z. Cyber Collateral Damage. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2016, 95, 10–17.

12. U.S. Air Force. Intelligence Targeting Guide, Attachment 7. 1998. Available online: https://irp.fas.org/doddir/usaf/afpam14-210/part20.htm (accessed on 1 February 2024).

13. Romanosky, S.; Goldman, Z. Understanding Cyber Collateral Damage. J. Natl. Secur. Law Policy 2017, 9, 233–257.

14. Dinstein, Y. The Principle of Distinction and Cyber War in International Armed Conflicts. J. Confl. Secur. Law 2012, 17, 261–277.

15. Ablon, L.; Binnendijk, A.; Hodgson, Q.E.; Lilly, B.; Romanosky, S.; Senty, D.; Thompson, J.A. Operationalizing Cyberspace as a Military Domain, Perspective, RAND Corporation 2019. Available online: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE300/PE329/RAND_PE329.pdf (accessed on 30 January 2024).

16. U.S. Department of Defense. Department of Defense Law of War Manual; William S. Hein & Company: Getzville, NY, USA, 2023.

17. Maathuis, C.; Pieters, W.; Van den Berg, J. Assessment Methodology for Collateral Damage and Military (Dis)Advantage in Cyber Operations. In Proceedings of the MILCOM 2018—2018 IEEE Military Communications Conference (MILCOM), Los Angeles, CA, USA, 29–31 October 2018; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 1–6.

18. Maathuis, C.; Pieters, W.; van den Berg, J. Decision support model for effects estimation and proportionality assessment for targeting in cyber operations. Def. Technol. 2021, 17, 352–374.

19. Grant, T. Building an Ontology for Planning Attacks That Minimize Collateral Damage: Literature Survey. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Cyber Warfare & Security (ICCWS 2019), Stellenbosch, South Africa, 28 February–1 March 2019; pp. 78–86.

20. University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. What Are the Criteria for the Inclusion of Reviews on DARE? 2014. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285222/ (accessed on 31 January 2024).

21. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71.

22. Vaismoradi, M.; Snelgrove, S. Theme in Qualitative Content Analysis and Thematic Analysis. Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 2019, 20, 3.

23. Wanyama, S.B.; McQuaid, R.W.; Kittler, M. Where you search determines what you find: The effects of bibliographic databases on systematic reviews. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2022, 25, 409–422.

24. Gusenbauer, M. Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases. Scientometrics 2019, 118, 177–214.

25. Schmitt, M.N. Wired warfare: Computer network attack and jus in bello. Int. Rev. Red Cross 2002, 84, 365–399.

26. Naeem, M.; Ozuem, W.; Howell, K.; Ranfagni, S. A Step-by-Step Process of Thematic Analysis to Develop a Conceptual Model in Qualitative Research. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2023, 22, 1–18.

27. Randolph, J.J.; Bednarik, R. Publication Bias in the Computer Science Education Research Literature. J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 2008, 14, 575–589.

28. Robinson, M.; Jones, K.; Janicke, H. Cyber warfare: Issues and challenges. Comput. Secur. 2015, 49, 70–94.

29. Hare, F.B. Precision cyber weapon systems: An important component of a responsible national security strategy? Contemp. Secur. Policy 2019, 40, 193–213.

30. Hathaway, O.A.; Crootof, R.; Levitz, P.; Nix, H.; Nowlan, A.; Perdue, W.; Spiegel, J. The Law of Cyber-Attack. Calif. Law Rev. 2012, 100, 817–885.

31. Wingfield, T. International law and information operations. In Cyberpower and National Security; Kramer, F.D., Starr, S.H., Wentz, L.K., Eds.; NDU Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2009; pp. 525–542.

32. Sklerov, M. Responding to International Cyber Attacks as Acts of War. In Inside Cyber Warfare; Carr, J., Ed.; O’Reilly Media: Sebastopol, CA, USA, 2009.

33. Wang, Q. Applicability of Jus in Bello in Cyber Space: Dilemmas and Challenges. Int. J. Cyber Warf. Terror. 2014, 4, 43–62.

34. Schmitt, M.N. Computer Network Attack and the Use of Force in International Law: Thoughts on a Normative Framework. Columbia J. Transnatl. Law 1998, 37, 885.

35. Jensen, E.T. Unexpected Consequences From Knock-On Effects: A Different Standard for Computer Network Operations? Am. Univ. Int. Law Rev. 2003, 18, 1145–1188.

36. O’Donnell, B.T.; Kraska, J.C. Humanitarian Law: Developing International Rules for the Digital Battlefield. J. Confl. Secur. Law 2003, 8, 133–160.

37. Efrony, D.; Shany, Y. A Rule Book on the Shelf? Tallinn Manual 2.0 on Cyberoperations and Subsequent State Practice. Am. J. Int. Law 2018, 112, 583–657.

38. Normelli, N. Proportionality in Attack on Data: Balancing Military Advantage and Collateral Damage in Cyberspace; Uppsala University: Uppsala, Sweden, 2021.

39. Pascucci, P. Distinction and Proportionality in Cyberwar: Virtual Problems with a Real Solution. Minn. J. Int. Law 2017, 26, 419–460.

40. Bannelier, K. Is the principle of distinction still relevant in cyberwarfare? From doctrinal discourse to States’ practice. In Research Handbook on International Law and Cyberspace; Tsagourias, N., Buchan, R., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2015; pp. 343–365.

41. Beard, J.M. The principle of proportionality in an era of high technology. In Complex Battlespaces: The Law of Armed Conflict and the Dynamics of Modern Warfare; Ford, C.M., Williams, W.S., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2018.

42. Geiß, R.; Lahmann, H. Cyber Warfare: Applying the Principle of Distinction in an Interconnected Space. Isr. Law Rev. 2012, 45, 381–399.

43. Jensen, E.T. Cyber Warfare and Precautions Against the Effects of Attacks. Tex. Law Rev. 2009, 88, 1533–1569.

44. Brenner, S.W.; Clarke, L.L. Civilians in Cyberwarfare: Casualties. SMU Sci. Technol. Law Rev. 2010, 13, 249–282.

45. Schmitt, M.N. Wired warfare 3.0: Protecting the civilian population during cyber operations. Int. Rev. Red Cross 2019, 101, 333–355.

46. Droege, C. Get off my cloud: Cyber warfare, international humanitarian law, and the protection of civilians. Int. Rev. Red Cross 2013, 94, 533–578.

47. Dinstein, Y.; Dahl, A.W. Section II: Cyber Operations. In Oslo Manual on Select Topics of the Law of Armed Conflict; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020.

48. Fanelli, R.; Conti, G. A methodology for cyber operations targeting and control of collateral damage in the context of lawful armed conflict. In Proceedings of the 2012 4th International Conference on Cyber Conflict (CYCON 2012), Tallinn, Estonia, 5–8 June 2012; pp. 1–13.

49. Ducheine, P.; van Haaster, J. Fighting power, targeting and cyber operations. In Proceedings of the 2014 6th International Conference On Cyber Conflict (CyCon 2014), Tallinn, Estonia, 3–6 June 2014; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2014; pp. 303–327.

50. Orye, E.; Maennel, O.M. Recommendations for Enhancing the Results of Cyber Effects. In Proceedings of the 2019 11th International Conference on Cyber Conflict (CyCon), Tallinn, Estonia, 28–31 May 2019; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 1–19.

51. Denning, D.E. Stuxnet: What Has Changed? Future Internet 2012, 4, 672–687.

52. Hirsch, C. Collateral damage outcomes are prominent in cyber warfare, despite targeting. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security, ICCWS 2018, Washington, DC, USA, 8–9 March 2018; Chen, J.Q., Ed.; Curran Associates, Inc.: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; pp. 281–286.

53. Cavaiola, L.J.; Gompert, D.C.; Libicki, M. Cyber House Rules: On War, Retaliation and Escalation. Survival 2015, 57, 81–104.

54. Acton, J.M. Cyber weapons and precision guided munitions. In Understanding Cyber Conflict: Fourteen Analogies; Perkovich, G., Levite, A.E., Eds.; Georgetown University Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2017; pp. 45–60.

55. Smart, S.J. Joint Targeting in Cyberspace. Air Space Power J. 2011, 25, 65–74.

56. Couretas, J.M. Cyber Offense and Targeting. In An Introduction to Cyber Analysis and Targeting; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 151–172.

57. Monge, M.A.S.; Vidal, J.M. Conceptualization and cases of study on cyber operations against the sustainability of the tactical edge. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2021, 125, 869–890.

58. Libicki, M. Cyberspace in Peace and War, 2nd ed.; Naval Institute Press: Annapolis, MD, USA, 2021.

59. Denning, D.E.; Strawser, B.J. Moral Cyber Weapons. In The Ethics of Information Warfare; Taddeo, M., Floridi, L., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 85–103.

60. Lucas, G.R. Permissible Preventive Cyberwar: Restricting Cyber Conflict to Justified Military Targets. In The Ethics of Information Warfare; Taddeo, M., Floridi, L., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; p. 73.

61. Rowe, N.C. The Ethics of Cyberweapons in Warfare. Int. J. Cyberethics 2009, 1, 20–31.

62. Rowe, N.C. Ethics of cyberwar attacks. In Cyber War and Cyber Terrorism; Colarik, A., Janczewski, L., Eds.; The Idea Group: Hershey, PA, USA, 2007.

63. Rowe, N.C. Distinctive Ethical Challenges of Cyberweapons. In Research Handbook on International Law and Cyberspace; Tsagourias, N., Ed.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2015; pp. 307–325.

64. Gorman, S.; Barnes, J.E. Cyber Combat: Act of War—Pentagon Sets Stage for U.S. to Respond to Computer Sabotage with Military Force, The Wall Street Journal. 2011. Available online: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304563104576355623135782718 (accessed on 31 January 2024).

65. Murray, S.F. The Moral and Ethical Implications of Precision-Guided Munitions; Maxwell AFB School of Advanced Air and Space Studies: Montgomery, AL, USA, 2007.

66. Rowe, N.C. Challenges of Civilian Distinction in Cyberwarfare. In Ethics and Policies for Cyber Operations: A NATO Cooperative Cyber Defense Centre of Excellence Initiative; Taddeo, M., Glorioso, L., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016.

67. Cobb, S.; Lee, A. Malware is called malicious for a reason: The risks of weaponizing code. In Proceedings of the 2014 6th International Conference On Cyber Conflict (CyCon 2014), Tallinn, Estonia, 3–6 June 2014; pp. 71–84.

68. Nakashima, E.; Timberg, C. NSA officials worried about the day its potent hacking tool would get loose. Then it did. Washington Post, 16 May 2017.

69. Brück, T.; de Groot, O.J.; Bozzoli, C. How Many Bucks in a Bang: On the Estimation of the Economic Costs of Conflict. In The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Peace and Conflict; Garfinkel, M.R., Skaperdas, S., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012.

70. Stiglitz, J.E.; Bilmes, L.J. Estimating the Costs of War: Methodological Issues, with Applications to Iraq and Afghanistan. In The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Peace and Conflict; Garfinkel, M.R., Skaperdas, S., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012.

71. Levine, C. Conceptualizing Financial Loses as a Result of Advanced Persistent Threats. Bachelor’s Thesis, Pace University, New York, NY, USA, 2013.

72. Sigholm, J.; Larsson, E. Cyber Vulnerability Implantation Revisited. In Proceedings of the MILCOM 2021—2021 IEEE Military Communications Conference (MILCOM), San Diego, CA, USA, 29 November–2 December 2021; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2021; pp. 464–469.

73. Sigholm, J.; Larsson, E. Determining the Utility of Cyber Vulnerability Implantation: The Heartbleed Bug as a Cyber Operation. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Military Communications Conference, Baltimore, MD, USA, 6–8 October 2014; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2014; pp. 110–116.

74. Larsson, E.; Sigholm, J. Towards econometric estimation of the cost of cyber conflict. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2024, 246, 2635–2644.

75. Kohler, K. Cyberneutrality: Discouraging Collateral Damage. CSS Policy Perspect. 2022, 10, 1–4.

76. Lilly, B.; Geers, K.; Rattray, G.; Koch, R. Business@War: The IT Companies Helping to Defend Ukraine. In Proceedings of the 2023 15th International Conference on Cyber Conflict: Meeting Reality (CyCon), Tallinn, Estonia, 30 May–2 June 2023; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2023; pp. 71–83.

77. Bogdanowicz, Z.R.; Patel, K. Quick Collateral Damage Estimation Based on Weapons Assigned to Targets. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern Syst. 2015, 45, 762–769.

78. Joint Targeting School. Collateral Damage Estimation Qualification Course Syllabus. 2021. Available online: https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/training/jts/col_damage_course_syllabus2021.pdf (accessed on 31 January 2024).

79. Maathuis, C.; Chockalingam, S. Tackling Uncertainty Through Probabilistic Modelling of Proportionality in Military Operations. Eur. Conf. Cyber Warf. Secur. 2023, 22, 276–284.

80. Maathuis, C. Effects Assessment for Targeting Decisions Support in Military Cyber Operations; Delft University of Technology: Delft, The Netherlands, 2020.

81. European Union Military Committee. Avoiding and Minimizing Collateral Damage in EU-Led Military Operations Concept, Brussels. 2016. Available online: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-5785-2016-INIT/en/pdf (accessed on 30 January 2024).

82. Raymond, D.; Conti, G.; Cross, T.; Fanelli, R. A control measure framework to limit collateral damage and propagation of cyber weapons. In Proceedings of the 2013 5th International Conference on Cyber Conflict (CYCON 2013), Tallinn, Estonia, 4–7 June 2013; pp. 1–16.

83. Bertoli, G.; Marvel, L. Cyberspace Operations Collateral Damage—Reality or Misconception? Cyber Def. Rev. 2017, 2, 53–62.

84. Smeets, M. The Strategic Promise of Offensive Cyber Operations. Strateg. Stud. Q. 2018, 12, 90–113.

85. Lawson, E.; Mačák, K. Avoiding Civilian Harm from Military Cyber Operations During Armed Conflicts; International Committee of the Red Cross: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.

86. Rowe, N.C. Towards reversible cyberattacks. In Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Information Warfare and Security, Thessaloniki, Greece, 1–2 July 2010; Demergis, J., Ed.; Curran Associates, Inc.: Red Hook, NY, USA, 2010.

87. Hu, Y. Efficient, high-quality force-directed graph drawing. Math. J. 2005, 10, 37–71.

88. U.S. Cyber Command. Improving Targeting Support to Cyber Operations. 2016. Available online: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/6379795/National-Security-Archive-USCYBERCOM-Joint.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2024).

89. United States Department of Defense. Summary 2023 Cyber Strategy of the Department of Defense; United States Department of Defense: Arlington County, VA, USA, 2023.

90. Soesanto, S. The IT Army of Ukraine: Structure, Tasking, and Ecosystem; Center for Security Studies: Zürich, Switzerland, 2022.

91. Tidy, J. Meet the Hacker Armies on Ukraine’s Cyber Front Line, BBC 2023. Available online: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65250356 (accessed on 30 January 2024).

92. Lin, P.; Allhoff, F.; Abney, K. Is Warfare the Right Frame for the Cyber Debate? In The Ethics of Information Warfare; Floridi, L., Taddeo, M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 39–59.

93. Backman, S. Making Sense of Large-scale Cyber Incidents: International Cybersecurity Beyond Threat-Based Security Perspectives. Doctoral Dissertation, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden, 2023.

94. Ghafur, S.; Kristensen, S.; Honeyford, K.; Martin, G.; Darzi, A.; Aylin, P. A retrospective impact analysis of the WannaCry cyberattack on the NHS. NPJ Digit. Med. 2019, 2, 98.

95. Preis, B.; Susskind, L. Municipal Cybersecurity: More Work Needs to be Done. Urban Aff. Rev. 2022, 58, 614–629.

96. Kniesner, T.J.; Leeth, J.D.; Sullivan, R.S. A new approach to evaluate safety and force protection investments: The value of a statistical life. In Military Cost-Benefit Analysis: Theory and Practice; Melese, F., Richter, A., Solomon, B., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2015; pp. 237–260.

97. Rohlfs, C.; Sullivan, R. The Cost-Effectiveness of Armored Tactical Wheeled Vehicles for Overseas US Army Operations. Def. Peace Econ. 2013, 24, 293–316.

98. Franco, M.F.; Künzler, F.; von der Assen, J.; Feng, C.; Stiller, B. RCVaR: An economic approach to estimate cyberattacks costs using data from industry reports. Comput. Secur. 2024, 139, 103737.

99. Wilson, B.; Goughnour, T.; McKernan, M.; Karode, A.; Tierney, D.; Arena, M.V.; Vermeer, M.J.D.; Perez, H.; Levedahl, A. A Cost Estimating Framework for U.S. Marine Corps Joint Cyber Weapons; RAND Corporation: Santa Monica, CA, USA, 2023.

100. Andersson, K.; Bang, M.; Marcus, C.; Persson, B.; Sturesson, P.; Jensen, E.; Hult, G. Military utility: A proposed concept to support decision-making. Technol. Soc. 2015, 43, 23–32.

101. van Haaster, J. On Cyber: The Utility of Military Cyber Operations During Armed Conflict; University of Amsterdam: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019.

102. Schulze, M. Cyber in War: Assessing the Strategic, Tactical, and Operational Utility of Military Cyber Operations. In Proceedings of the 2020 12th International Conference on Cyber Conflict (CyCon), Tallinn, Estonia, 26–29 May 2020; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 183–197.

103. Danielson, S.; Conway, P.; Vonasch, A. What I don’t know can hurt you: Collateral combat damage seems more acceptable when bystander victims are unidentified. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0298842.

104. Microsoft. Microsoft Digital Defense Report 2024. 2024. Available online: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/security-insider/intelligence-reports/microsoft-digital-defense-report-2024 (accessed on 29 October 2024).

105. Karagiannopoulos, V.; Reid, I. US Sanctions on Iranian Hackers Highlight Growing Concern About the Islamic Republic’s Cyberwarriors, The Conversation. 2024. Available online: https://theconversation.com/us-sanctions-on-iranian-hackers-highlight-growing-concern-about-the-islamic-republics-cyberwarriors-228718 (accessed on 6 November 2024).

106. United Nations General Assembly, United Nations Resolution 75/240. 2020. Available online: https://meetings.unoda.org/open-ended-working-group-on-information-and-communication-technologies-2021 (accessed on 5 November 2024).

107. Nobles, C. The Weaponization of Artificial Intelligence in Cybersecurity: A Systematic Review. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2024, 239, 547–555.

108. Maathuis, C. Human Centered Explainable AI Framework for Military Cyber Operations. In Proceedings of the MILCOM 2023—2023 IEEE Military Communications Conference: Communications Supporting Military Operations in a Contested Environment, Boston, MA, USA, 30 October–3 November 2023; IEEE: Boston, MA, USA, 2023; pp. 260–267.

109. Torre, D.; Abualhaija, S.; Sabetzadeh, M.; Briand, L.; Baetens, K.; Goes, P.; Forastier, S. An AI-assisted Approach for Checking the Completeness of Privacy Policies Against GDPR. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 28th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), Zurich, Switzerland, 31 August–4 September 2020; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 136–146.

110. Angelov, P.P.; Soares, E.A.; Jiang, R.; Arnold, N.I.; Atkinson, P.M. Explainable artificial intelligence: An analytical review. WIREs Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 2021, 11, e1424.

111. Ghassemi, M.; Oakden-Rayner, L.; Beam, A.L. The false hope of current approaches to explainable artificial intelligence in health care. Lancet Digit. Health 2021, 3, 745–750.

112. Valeriano, B. Harvard Dataverse: Dyadic Cyber Incident Dataset v 2.0, 2022. Available online: https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/CQOMYV (accessed on 20 January 2024).

113. Cyber Peace Institute. Cyber Attacks in Times of Conflict. Available online: https://cyberconflicts.cyberpeaceinstitute.org/ (accessed on 22 September 2024).

114. Maness, R.C.; Valeriano, B.; Hedgecock, K.; Jensen, B.M.; Macias, J.M. Codebook for the Dyadic Cyber Incident and Campaign Dataset (DCID) Version 2.0. 2022. Available online: https://a678132e-4067-4ed4-800a-239c80659fd1.filesusr.com/ugd/4b99a4_ca35bdb6bd55443e890d2dab86910b4c.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2024).

115. Rid, T. Cyber War Will Not Take Place. J. Strateg. Stud. 2012, 35, 5–32.

How to Cite

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL MINEFIELD: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF COLLATERAL DAMAGE IN CYBER WARFARE AND ITS MITIGATION. (2024). European Journal of Emerging Cybersecurity and Information Protection, 1(01), 77-94. https://parthenonfrontiers.com/index.php/ejecip/article/view/134

Download Citation

ejecip Open Access Journal

European Journal of Emerging Cybersecurity and Information Protection

All issues

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL MINEFIELD: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF COLLATERAL DAMAGE IN CYBER WARFARE AND ITS MITIGATION

Abstract

Keywords

References

How to Cite

Related articles

Journal Information

Journal Guidelines

Follow Us

Join Us

Contact Us

Share Link

Related articles

AN ANALYTICAL SURVEY OF IMMERSIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR ENHANCING CYBER SITUATIONAL AWARENESS

AUGMENTING WAZUH SIEM WITH MACHINE LEARNING FOR ADVANCED CYBER THREAT ANALYTICS

Information Cartography and Secure Data Intelligence: Integrating GIS Metaphors, Business Analytics, and Cyber-Governance for Complex Digital Ecosystems

ASSESSING END-USER RESILIENCE TO PHISHING: A STUDY ON EDUCATIONAL INTERVENTIONS AND SIMULATED ATTACKS IN A CROATIAN UNIVERSITY

Toward Unified Interpretability and Robustness in Machine Learning–Based Anomaly Detection Across Industrial, Network, Financial, and Cyber-Physical Domains

A STATIC ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK UTILIZING LARGE LANGUAGE MODELS FOR IDENTIFYING MALICIOUS OFFICE OPEN XML FILES

Integrative Artificial Intelligence Architectures for Supply Chain Optimization and Market Intelligence: A Deep Synthesis of Forecasting, Sentiment Analytics, and Business Concept Innovation

Integrative Data Processing and Optimized Machine Learning Architectures for Advanced Electricity and Retail Demand Forecasting in High-Dimensional Environments

Artificial Intelligence–Driven Demand Forecasting And Supply Chain Performance: A Deep Integrative Analysis Of Neural, Hybrid, And Context-Aware Models In Contemporary Retail And Industrial Networks