RESEARCH PAPER
WARGAMING THE CYBER RESILIENCE OF STRUCTURALLY AND TECHNOLOGICALLY DIFFERENT NETWORKS
 
More details
Hide details
1
Finnish National Defence University
2
Finnish Defence Research Agency
Online publish date: 2019-01-28
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Based on a review of diff erent analytical frameworks, it is suggested to run a table top cyber wargame when trying to analyse the eff ects of closed national networks being imposed in the near future. Th e scope of the wargame is to extract results to show how the resilience of an open national network diff ers from a closed national network. It is self-evident that the formation process of resilience is diff erent between the diverse systems. Th e proposed wargame is a two-sided cyber table top wargame. Th e wargame is based on at least two blue teams, at least one red team and a control team (namely a white team). One blue team is located in the closed national networks and its system relies on closed national network infrastructure. Th e other blue team operates its system within open network society. By designing, constructing and executing the proposed cyber wargame we argue it is possible to fi nd these diff erences and similarities as well. Current research improves cyber situation awareness and proposes a direction to be followed when trying to understand the changing circumstances of the cyber space. It also suggests how the research resources could be directed when trying to improve the situation awareness of the closing process.
 
REFERENCES (13)
1.
Anteroinen, J., 2012. Integration of existing military capability models into thecomprehensive capability meta-model. IEEE International Systems Conference(SysCon) 2012.
 
2.
Björck, F., Henkel, M., Stirna, J., and Zdravkovic, J., 2015. Cyber Resilience – Fundamentsfor a Defi nition. In Á.Rocha, A.M. Correia, S. Costanzo, and L.P. Reis (eds.), NewContributions in Information Systems and Technologies, pp. 311-316.
 
3.
Choucri, N., 2012. Cyberpolitics in International Relations. MIT Press, Cambridge.
 
4.
Kantyshev, P., and Golits’na, A. 2016. Runet budet polnost’iu obosoblen k 2020 godu. Vedomosti, 13 May.
 
5.
Klimburg, A., 2012. National Cyber Security Framework Manual, NATO CCD COEPublication, Tallinn.
 
6.
Koivisto, J. and Tuukkanen, T., 2017. Comprehensive capability meta model tested bya cognitive radio. Military Communications Conference (MILCOM), IEEE.
 
7.
Kuehl, D., 2009. From Cyberspace to Cyberpower: Defi ning the Problem. In F. Kramer,S. Stuart, and L. Wentz (eds), Cyberpower and National Security, Washington, D.C.,National Defense University Press.
 
8.
Kukkola, J., 2018. Th e Russian Segment of Internet as a Resilent Battlefi eld. ISMS AnnualConference 2018 “Military Sciences and Future Security Challenges” (ISMS), Warsaw,Poland.
 
9.
Kukkola, J., Nikkarila, J-P and Ristolainen, M., 2017a, Shaping Cyberspace –A predictiveanalysis of adversarial cyber capabilities. IST-145 specialists’ Meeting PredictiveAnalytics and Analysis in the Cyber Domain, Sibiu, Romania.
 
10.
Kukkola, J, Ristolainen, M. and Nikkarila, J-P, 2017b. Game Changer: Structural Transformationof Cyberspace Riihimäki: Finnish Defence Research Agency. [online]. Available: http://puolustusvoimat.fi /web/tutkimus/tutkimuslaitoksen-julkaisut [Accessed 14 May 2018].
 
11.
Nikkarila, J-P, Åkesson, B., Kuikka, V., and Hämäläinen, J., 2018. Modelling Closed NationalNetworks – Eff ects in Cyber Operation Capabilities. 17th European Conference onCyber Warfare and Security (ECCWS), Oslo, Norway.
 
12.
Nye, J., 2010. Cyber Power. Belfer Center for Science and International aff airs. Cambridge MA.
 
13.
Simpson, W. L., 2017. A Compendium of Wargaming Terms. [online]. Available: https://www.movesinstitute.org... 08 Oct 2018].
 
eISSN:2544-994X
ISSN:2300-8741