Advertisement

Aiding Understanding of a Contested Information Environment’s Effect on Operations

  • Michael W. Haas
  • Robert F. Mills
  • Michael R. Grimaila
Chapter

Abstract

The operations of government, industry, the military, academia, and even personal activity can be negatively affected by information attacks on and through cyberspace. Modeling and simulation can be used to increase the understanding of potential effects these attacks may generate and guide the development of contingency planning. The increased understanding and more comprehensive and focused contingency planning will enhance the ability of organizations to assure their operation or mission, when operating in a contested information environment. This enhanced mission assurance will increase the overall national security and the deterrence against the use of information attacks in the future. This chapter pulls these concepts together and develops requirements for modeling and simulation capabilities to enhance mission assurance.

Keywords

Information Environment Joint Publication Simulation Capability Mission Operation Military Mission 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Air Force Doctrine Document 3–12 (2010) Cyberspace operations, 15 July 2010Google Scholar
  2. Alberts D, Garstka J, Hayes R, Signori D (2001) Understanding information age warfare. Command and Control Research Program, CCRP 2001Google Scholar
  3. Alford LE, Dudas BA (2005) Developing a validation methodology for TacAir SOAR agents in EAAGLES. M.S. thesis, September. Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright Patterson AFBGoogle Scholar
  4. Arthur WB (1994) Inductive reasoning and bounded rationality (The El Farol Problem). Am Econ Rev (Pap and Proc) 84:406–411Google Scholar
  5. Azuma R, Daily M, Furmanski C (2006) A review of time critical decision making models and human cognitive processes, 2006 IEEE aerospace conference, July 2006, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  6. Beeker K, Mills RF, Grimaila MR (2010) Applying deterrence in cyberspace. IO J 1(4):21–27Google Scholar
  7. Boyd J (1987) Slide series: a discourse on winning and losing, Maxwell air force base. Tech Rep M-U 43947, AugustGoogle Scholar
  8. Burke MJ, Henly JM (2002) The APL coordinated engagement simulation (ACES). John Hopkins APL Technical Digest 23(1)Google Scholar
  9. Cares J (2002) The use of agent-based models in military concept development, Winter simulation conferenceGoogle Scholar
  10. Castelli CJ (2008) Defense department adopts new definition of cyberspace. Inside the air force (23 May 2008). http://integrator.hanscom.af.mil/2008/May/05292008/05292008-24.htm
  11. Chew E, Swanson M, Stine K, Bartol N, Brown A, Robinson W (2008) NIST Special Publication 800-55-Revision 1: Performance measurement guide for information security, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, JulyGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis PK (1995) Distributed interactive simulation in the evolution of DoD warfare modeling and simulation. Proc IEEE 83(8):1138–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dewar JA, Bankes SC, Hodges JS, Lucas T, Saunders-Newton DK, Vye P (1996) Credible uses of the distributed interactive simulation (DIS). Rand Corp, Santa Monica, CA ADA306986Google Scholar
  14. Endsley MR (1998) Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors 37(1):32–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Endsley MR, Jones WM (1997) Situation awareness, information dominance, and information warfare. Technical Report AL/CF-TR-1997-0156, Armstrong Laboratory, WPAFB,OH 45433, FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  16. Fortson LW and Grimaila MR (2007) Development of a defensive cyber damage assessment framework. In: Proceedings of the 2007 international conference on information warfare and security (ICIW 2007), Naval Postgraduate School, MontereyGoogle Scholar
  17. Fry SA (2009) Joint Publication 1-02: Department of defense dictionary of military and associated terms, Joint Chiefs of Staff, US Department of Defense. http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf
  18. Grimaila MR (2008) Improving the cyber incident mission impact assessment process. In: Proceedings of the cyber security and information intelligence research workshop (CSIIRW 2008), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak RidgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Grimaila MR, Fortson LW, Sutton JL and Mills RF (2009a) Developing methods for timely and relevant mission impact estimation. In: Proceedings of the 2009 SPIE defense, security and sensing conference (SPIE DSS 2009), Orlando, FLGoogle Scholar
  20. Grimaila MR, Schechtman G, Mills RF (2009b) Improving cyber incident notification in military operations. In: Proceedings of the 2009 Insitute of industrial engineers annual conference (IERC 2009), Miami, FLGoogle Scholar
  21. Grimaila MR, Fortson LW, Sutton JL (2009c) Design considerations for a cyber incident mission impact assessment (CIMIA) process. In: Proceedings of the 2009 international conference on security and management (SAM09), Las Vegas, NevadaGoogle Scholar
  22. Hellesen D, Grimaila MR, Fortson LW, Mills RF (2008) Information asset value quantification. In: Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on information warfare and security (ICIW 2008), Peter Kiewit Institute, University of Nebraska Omaha, 24–25 April 2008Google Scholar
  23. Honabarger JB (2006) Modeling network centric warfare (NCW) with the systems effectiveness ananlysis simulation (SEAS), M.S. thesis, Air Force Institute of Technology, WPAFB, OHGoogle Scholar
  24. Joint Publication 3–13 (2006) Information operations, 13 February 2006Google Scholar
  25. Joint Publication 3–30 (2010) Command and control for joint air operations, 12 January 2010Google Scholar
  26. Libicki M (1996) What is information warfare? Center for Advanced Concepts and Technology, National Defense University  Google Scholar
  27. Libicki M (2007) Conquest in cyberspace: National security and information warfare. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Libicki M (2009) Deterrence in cyberspace, High Frontier, May 2009. http://www.afspc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090519-102.pdf
  29. Mauney C (2009) Speech, space weapons in the twentyfirst century. http://www.stratcom.mil/speeches/19/
  30. Mullen MG (2009) Joint Publication 1: doctrine for the armed forces of the USA, Joint Chiefs of Staff, United States Department of Defense. http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf
  31. Paul C (2008) Information operations: doctrine and practice: a reference handbook. Praeger Security International, WestportGoogle Scholar
  32. Paulhamus BL, Castner AK, Jailall RRJ, Sibley NW, Snow KZ (2009) Analyzing the effect of information attack on air and missile defense performance. Military Communications Conference, MILCOM2009Google Scholar
  33. Roddy KA, Dickson MR (2000) Modeling human and organizational behaviorusing a relational-centric multi-agent system design paradigm, Naval Postgraduate School, M.S. thesis, Monterey, CA, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  34. Sorrels D, Grimaila MR, Fortson LW, Mills RF (2008) An architecture for cyber incident mission impact assessment (CIMIA). In: Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on information warfare and security (ICIW 2008), Peter Kiewit Institute, University of Nebraska, OmahaGoogle Scholar
  35. Tinnel LS, Saydjari OS, Haines JW (2003) An integrated cyber panel system. In: Proceedings of the 2003 DARPA information survivability conference and exposition, vol 2, pp 32–34Google Scholar
  36. Tzu S (1994) The art of war (trans: Lionel Giles 1910). (Electronic text in the public domain May 1994). http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html
  37. Ullman DG (2007) OO-OO-OO! The sound of a broken OODA loop, Crosstalk: J def Softw EngineerGoogle Scholar
  38. United States Strategic Command (2006) Deterrence operations, Joint operating concept, version 2.0, Director, Plans and Policy, USSTRATCOM, Offutt AFB NE 68113. http://www.dtic.mil/futurejointwarfare
  39. US Government Accountability Office (2006) Internet infrastructure-challenges in developing a public/private recovery plan, GAO-06-1100T, Accessed 13 Sept 2006Google Scholar
  40. Verizon Business RISK Team (2009) Data breach investigations report. Verizon Business. http://www.verizonbusiness.com/resources/security/reports/2009_databreach_rp.pdf
  41. Vijayan J (2005) Data security risks missing from disaster recovery plans. Comput World 39:41. Accessed 10 Oct 2005Google Scholar
  42. Waltz E (1998) Information warfare principles and operations. Artech House, NorwoodGoogle Scholar
  43. Wood R (1995) Information engineering: the foundations of information warfare. Air War College, Maxwell AFB, GAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael W. Haas
    • 1
  • Robert F. Mills
    • 2
  • Michael R. Grimaila
    • 3
  1. 1.Human Effectiveness Directorate, 711th Human Performance WingAir Force Research LaboratoryWright-Patterson AFBUSA
  2. 2.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringAir Force Institute of TechnologyWright-Patterson AFBUSA
  3. 3.Department of Systems and Engineering ManagementAir Force Institute of TechnologyWright-Patterson AFBUSA

Personalised recommendations