Search

What determines media coverage on cyber conflict (CC)? Media bias fostering misperception is a well-established problem in conflict reporting. Because of the secrecy and complexity surrounding cyber operations (COs), where most data moreover come from marketing publications by private sector firms, this problem is likely to be especially pronounced in reporting on cyber threats. Because media reporting shapes public perception, such bias can shape conflict dynamics and outcomes with potentially destabilizing consequences. Yet little research has examined media bias systematically. This study connects existing literature on media reporting bias with the CC literature to formulate four theoretical explanations for variation in reporting on COs based on four corresponding characteristics of a CO. We introduce a new dataset of COs reporting by the private sector, which we call the Cyber Conflict Media Coverage Dataset, and media reporting on each of these operations. Consequently, we conduct a statistical analysis to identify which of these characteristics correlate with reporting quantity. This analysis shows that the use of novel techniques, specifically zero-day exploits, is a highly significant predictor of coverage quantity. Operations targeting the military or financial sector generate less coverage. We also find that cyber effect operations tend to receive more coverage compared to espionage, but this result is not statistically significant. Nonetheless, the predictive models explain limited variation in news coverage. These findings indicate that COs are treated differently in the media than other forms of conflict, and help explain persistent threat perception among the public despite the absence of catastrophic cyberattacks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Whilst NATO speaks increasingly publicly about the military use of cyber operations, adaptation to the cyber domain has reportedly been challenging for most militaries. Little research has sought to understand the nature of these challenges. This study seeks to address this gap through a case study of the Netherlands. By utilizing a range of primary and secondary sources, this article reveals that the Dutch Defense Cyber Command has faced significant constraints in its adaptation to the cyber domain, primarily due to issues related to organizational structure, operational mandate, and the availability of skills and resources. A cyber command that lacks regular opportunities for day-to-day operations and where personnel may not have continuous learning opportunities to acquire and refine their skills will encounter difficulties in recruiting, training, and retaining a proficient workforce. These findings highlight the tendency of observers to mistakenly equate the mere establishment of a cyber command with the existence of a robust military cyber capability – namely, the ability to effectively carry out and sustain a range of cyber operations for tactical or strategic purposes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What are the motivations and opportunities for arms transfer in the cyber realm? Although scholarship has failed to systematically address this question, having an accurate answer is crucial for understanding the operationalization of cyber commands and intelligence alliances, the functioning of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in the twenty-first century, and the viability of cyber arms controls. First, this article introduces a new conceptual framework—the people-exploits-tools-infrastructure-organization (PETIO) framework—to understand the elements of an offensive cyber capability. Second, I explain how the incentives of cyber arms transfer differ across the different elements of the PETIO framework. Though exploits and tools can be effortlessly replicated, their transitory nature and potential for operational tracking means there is little incentive to actually transfer these assets. If any incentives exist for state-to-state transfer, it would be in facilitating other state actors to develop their own offensive capabilities—that is, by providing expertise, infrastructure, and organizational capacity to adapt and innovate—as this does not reduce the effectiveness of one's own arsenal. Third, I argue that the incentives for transferring cyber effect capabilities are weaker compared to cyber espionage capabilities, and attribution dynamics add an additional layer of complexity to these transfer dynamics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]