6th European Conference - Academic Conferences

Karim Hamza and Van Dalen
productive and efficient role as facilitator and maintainer of some information systems and
infrastructure, and through policy mechanisms such as; tax breaks to encourage reducing vulnerability
and improving recovery and reconstitution capability. An important factor is the traditional change in
the government’s role as one move from national defense through public safety toward things that
represent the public good. Clearly, the government’s perceived role in this area will have to be
balanced against public perceptions of the loss of civil liberties and the commercial sector’s concern
about unwarranted limits on its practices and markets.
When responding to information warfare, military strategy can thus no longer focus just on support to
and operations. It must also examine information warfare implications on its state and allies’ strategic
infrastructures military, physical, economic, political, and social that depends upon information
systems and information support.
Figure 2: Strategic information warfare impact , (Roger, Molander, Riddile, Wilson, 1996)
Government can use and develop different tools and techniques to handle such situation
Research and Development: The government’s role in defending against such threats, apart from
protecting its own systems, is indirect: Sponsor research, development, and standard creation in
computer network defense. Maximize the incentives for private industry to keep its own house in
order. Increase the resources devoted to cyber forensics, including the distribution of honeypots
to trap rogue code for analysis. Encourage information-sharing among both private and public
network operators. Invest in threat intelligence. Subsidize the education of computer security
professionals. All are current agenda items. In a cyberwar, all would receive greater emphasis.
(LibiCki, 2009)
Policy : defining policies that deals with different Strategic Information Warfare threats and
engage different international parties , also working on modify constitutes an act of war, which
may be defined as one of three ways: universally, multilaterally, and unilaterally. A universal
definition is one that every state accepts. The closest analog to “every state” is when the United
Nations says that something is an act of war. The next-closest analog is if enough nations have
signed a treaty that says as much. No such United Nations dictum exists, and no treaty says as
much. One might argue that a cyber attack (which is an output of Strategic Information warfare) is
like something else that is clearly an act of war, but unless there is a global consensus that such
an analogy is valid, it cannot be defined as an act of war.
Laws : develop clear laws to criminalize action which threat eGovernance framework specially
with internal threat
Diplomatic : develop allies networks to discover different joint threats that can impact each other
Governance through intelligence and early detections
111