Cyber Security Reading List

Cyber Security Reading List

Brandon Valeriano

University of Glasgow

It is that time of the year again, that time when everyone considers updating their syllabus.  So you have an interest in cyber security, but have not taken the time to develop a reading list.  Well here it is, I have, unfortunately, dived into the topic.  The following includes a one day version and then a more detailed list. 

Of course I may have left some things out, this is a developing literature so I will update as time goes on.  I attach many of my own writings here, mainly because I am a glutton like that but also because my book is not out yet. 

(sorry I didn’t hyperlink everything, end of the day, will do that in the future.  Most things can be found by just googling)

Short Version (The Essentials):

Cyber Pearl Harbor

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/world/panetta-warns-of-dire-threat-of-cyberattack.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

War in the Fifth Domain

http://www.economist.com/node/16478792

(The book on cyber hype and fear)

Clarke, Richard A. and Robert K. Knake. 2010. Cyber War: The Next Threat to National

Security and What to Do About It.  New York: Harper Collins.

(A more measured evaluation)

Hersh, Seymour. 2010. “The Online Threat: Should We Be Worried About Cyber War?” New

Yorker. (November 2010).

My Perspective:

Media and Cyber

Valeriano, Brandon. “Cyberwar and Skyfall: Bond Enters the Digital Age” Duck of Minerva, 11.10.2012, http://www.whiteoliphaunt.com/duckofminerva/2012/11/skyfall-and-cyberwar-james-bond-enters-the-digital-era.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

Public Opinion and Cyber

Valeriano, Brandon and Ryan Maness. “Perceptions of the Cyber Threat” Duck of Minerva, 1/30/2013, http://www.whiteoliphaunt.com/duckofminerva/2013/01/perceptions-and-opinions-of-the-cyber-threat.html

Countering Hype

Valeriano, Brandon and Ryan Maness.  2012. “The Fog of Cyberwar: Why the Threat Does not Live up to the Hype” Foreign Affairs. (11.21.2012) Snapspot http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138443/brandon-valeriano-and-ryan-maness/the-fog-of-cyberwar?page=show

Foreign Policy and Cyber

Maness, Ryan and Brandon Valeriano. “Cyber Events Data and Foreign Policy Reactions.” Duck of Minerva, 7/24/2013. http://www.whiteoliphaunt.com/duckofminerva/2013/07/cyber-events-data-and-foreign-policy-reactions.html

Norms and Cyber

Valeriano, Brandon. “The Cyber House Rules: Justice and Ethics in the Fifth Domain” The Conversation, 7/26/2013  https://theconversation.com/the-cyber-house-rules-justice-and-ethics-in-the-fifth-domain-16376

Long Version:

Key Books:

Nye, Joseph. 2011. The Future of Power. New York: Public Affairs.

Schmitt, Michael. 2013. “The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber

Warfare.” NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Center for Excellence. Cambridge University Press

Choucri, Nazli.  2012. Cyberpolitics in International Relations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press

Reveron, Derek. 2012. Cyberspace and National Security: Threats, Opportunities, and Power in a Virtual World. Editor.  Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press

Rid, Thomas. 2013. Cyber War Will Not Take Place. London, UK: Hurst & Company

First Cyber Article

Arquilla, John and David Ronfeldt. 1993. “Cyberwar is Coming!” Comparative Strategy

12 (2): 141–165.

Cyber Hype

Farwell, James P. and Rafal Rohozinski.  2011.  “Stuxnet and the Future of Cyber War.” Survival. 53 (1): 23-40.

Rothkopf, David. 2013. “The Cool War.” Foreign Policy. 2/20/2013. Accessed Online.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/02/20/the_cool_war_china_cyberwar?page=full

Types of Cyber Strategies

Andres, Richard. 2012. “The Emerging Structure of Strategic Cyber Offense, Cyber Defense,

and Cyber Deterrence.” In Cyberspace and National Security: Threats, Opportunities, and Power in a Virtual World. Derek Reveron, Editor.  (Washington D.C., Georgetown University Press).

Cyber Weapons

Rid, Thomas and Peter McBurney. 2012. “Cyber Weapons.” The RUSI Journal 157 (1): 6-13.

Best Take on Stuxnet

Sanger, David E. 2012. Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of

            American Power. (New York: Random House).

Cyber War Will not Happen

Rid, Thomas. 2011. “Cyberwar Will Not Take Place.” Journal of Strategic Studies. First Article:

1-28.

Gartzke, Erik. 2013. “The Myth of Cyberwar: Bringing War on the Internet Back Down to

Earth.”  Forthcoming, International Security

Yes it will, but…

Stone, John. 2012. “Cyber War Will Take Place!” Journal of Strategic Studies

McGraw, Gary. 2013. “Cyber War is Inevitable (Unless We Build Security In).” Journal of

Security Studies 36 (1): 109-119.

Government Strategy

White House.  2011. International Strategy for Cyberspace: Prosperity, Security, and Openness

in a Networked World.  May 2011.

Shactman, Noah. 2012. “Darpa Looks to Make Cyberwar Routine with Secret ‘Plan X.’” Wired Accessed Online

            7/2/2013. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/plan-x/

Markoff, John and Thom Shanker. 2009. “Halted ’03 Iraq Plan Illustrates U.S. Fear of Cyberwar Risk.” New York Times Online 8/1/2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/us/politics/02cyber.html.

Brenner, Joel. 2013. “Grey Matter: How to Fight Chinese Cyber Attacks without starting a Cold

War.” Foreign Policy.  March 8, 2013.  http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/03/08/gray_matter#.UUOTPw6Wj4g.email

Guitton, Clement. 2013. “Cyber insecurity as a national threat: overreaction from Germany,

            France, and the UK?” European Security DOI:10.1080/09662839.2012.749864.

China

Inkster, Nigel. (2013)  “Chinese Intelligence in the Cyber Age.”  Survival: Global Politics and

            Strategy 55 (1): 45-66.

Case Study- pre data Chapter

Valeriano, Brandon and Ryan Maness. 2012.  “Persistent Enemies and Cybersecurity: The Future of Rivalry in an Age of Information Warfare” in Cyber Challenges and National Security, edited by Derek Reveron, Georgetown University Press.  Pgs. 139-158.

Data chapter will all Cyber Disputes and Incidents Listed

Valeriano, Brandon and Ryan Maness. “The Dynamics of Cyber Conflict between Rival Antagonists, 2001-2011” (Under Review)

Securitization

Hansen, Lene and Helen Nissenbaum. 2009. “Digital Disaster, Cyber Security, and the  Copenhagen School.” International Studies Quarterly. 53(1155-1175). 

Ethics

Dipert, Randall. 2010. “The Ethics of Cyberwarfare.” Journal of Military Ethics. 9(4): 384-410.

Eberle, Christopher. 2013. “Just War and Cyberwar.” Journal of Military Ethics.  Forthcoming. 

Lecture Extra Credit

Details for a talk I am giving at UIC on Oct 25 are here. This is an extra credit opportunity.

Extra Credit Assignment for Fall 2011, POLS 184

184 Extra Credit Assignment:
In the summer of 2011, a columnist at the Atlantic conducted a survey of the best and worst foreign policy Presidents during the 20th century (1900s, so no GW Bush). This list was met with some controversy on the internet. Your task is to evaluate this list and provide a better list of sorts. Nominate one person to be one of the best, worst, and also a wild card (like GW Bush was mentioned in the original article). Justify your selections with original research. If you nominate someone as the best FP President, they cannot already be on Atlantic’s list as the best (but they can be on the worst list and vice versa, hint). Stick to the 20th century. For each nomination, you must include at least two original research sources (books, journal articles, no blog posts, Wikipedia articles, or newspaper articles). Your paper should be at least 7 pages (including 6 original sources) and is worth 20 points applied to any test or assignment. Assignment is due during the Final.

Original article link

Best (cannot repeat in your paper):
1. FDR
2. Eisenhower
3. George HW Bush (the Elder)
4. Reagan
5. JFK

Worst:
1. LBJ
2. Jimmy Carter
3. Woodrow Wilson
4. Truman
5. Nixon

Wild Card: GW Bush

Top 10 Worst Osama Tweets

All these come from the night of Osama Bin Laden's death

1. JimGaffigan Jim Gaffigan
Osama bin Dead!

2. ApocalypseHow Rob Kutner
by hodgman
How sweet would it be if the actual shot was fired by a gay soldier?

3. AlbertBrooks Albert Brooks
Trump demanding to see Bin Laden death certificate. #binladen

4. thebrianposehn Brian Posehn
Anyone else beating off to the song "America, Fuck Yeah!"?
(no, Brian, no one is)

5. me_irl the government man
by hodgman
Beloved character actor Osama bin Laden, star of TV's "Fox News", dies age 54

6. RealLamarOdom LAMAR ODOM
Who's watchin' #khloeandLamar CT?
(sounds desperate, don't you have an NBA playoff game to worry about)

7. JimGaffigan Jim Gaffigan
Does anyone know if Bin Ladin's cave is rent controlled? First dubs! #fourkids
(Cause you know, people really live in caves over there)

8. RobRiggle Rob Riggle
I wonder how bummed Osama was when he got to hell and realized there were no virgins?

9. JuddApatow Judd Apatow
Bin laden is dead. Your welcome.
(Director of Knocked Up takes credit?)

10. Drudge_Report Drudge Report
BIN LADEN ANNOUNCEMENT CAME IN THE MIDDLE OF TRUMP'S 'CELEBRITY APPRENTICE'... http://drudge.tw/lo68bu
(Of course it was planned this way)

Extra Credit Fall 2010

Guidelines for Extra Credit for Fall 2010

You may choose to either write a report on a movie or a book (treat an event or lecture as a book) for extra credit. This report is due when you hand in your final paper but the points can be applied to any test or paper. The movie review will be worth up to 7 points; a book/event review will be worth up to 14 points. You can do a lecture/book or lecture/movie, but not movie/book combo.

Details:
Movie: The movie must deal with international security issues including anything we have covered in class. No movies on interpersonal relationships or tenuous connections to international events will be accepted (no Borat). The movie can come from any time period. It would be best to get the movie approved before you watch. You must write at least a 4 page paper that will include one half review of the movie and the issues it covers. The second half will consider how it is relevant to the class and what lessons we can take from it. This assignment will be graded like any other essay, 7 points are not guaranteed. I do NOT want a recap of the movie, I want a review in the style of something the New Yorker would do.

Book/Lecture Event: The book must deal with contemporary international security issues. It should be published after 9/11. The same issues mentioned in the movie option are fair game. It would be best to get the book approved by me before attempting to write a review. Your review must be at least 7 pages. It should be completed like your normal required book report (1/3 review, 1/3 connection to international issues, and 1/3 criticisms or support). This assignment will be graded like any other essay, 14 points are not guaranteed. I do NOT want a recap of the book/event. For events and lectures, student should attach some documentation of attendance.

New Nuclear Defense Posture Review

Here is the document that goes over the new Nuclear Defense strategy

New Start Treaty

On April 8th, the US and Russia will sign a update of the START treaty. Here are the details.

Key Facts about the New START Treaty

Treaty Structure: The New START Treaty is organized in three tiers of increasing level of detail. The first tier is the Treaty text itself. The second tier consists of a Protocol to the Treaty, which contains additional rights and obligations associated with Treaty provisions. The basic rights and obligations are contained in these two documents. The third tier consists of Technical Annexes to the Protocol. All three tiers will be legally binding. The Protocol and Annexes will be integral parts of the Treaty and thus submitted to the U.S. Senate for its advice and consent to ratification.

Strategic Offensive Reductions: Under the Treaty, the U.S. and Russia will be limited to significantly fewer strategic arms within seven years from the date the Treaty enters into force. Each Party has the flexibility to determine for itself the structure of its strategic forces within the aggregate limits of the Treaty. These limits are based on a rigorous analysis conducted by Department of Defense planners in support of the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review.

Aggregate limits:

* 1,550 warheads. Warheads on deployed ICBMs and deployed SLBMs count toward this limit and each deployed heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments counts as one warhead toward this limit.
o This limit is 74% lower than the limit of the 1991 START Treaty and 30% lower than the deployed strategic warhead limit of the 2002 Moscow Treaty.
* A combined limit of 800 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments.
* A separate limit of 700 deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments.
o This limit is less than half the corresponding strategic nuclear delivery vehicle limit of the START Treaty.

Verification and Transparency: The Treaty has a verification regime that combines the appropriate elements of the 1991 START Treaty with new elements tailored to the limitations of the Treaty. Measures under the Treaty include on-site inspections and exhibitions, data exchanges and notifications related to strategic offensive arms and facilities covered by the Treaty, and provisions to facilitate the use of national technical means for treaty monitoring. To increase confidence and transparency, the Treaty also provides for the exchange of telemetry.

Treaty Terms: The Treaty’s duration will be ten years, unless superseded by a subsequent agreement. The Parties may agree to extend the Treaty for a period of no more than five years. The Treaty includes a withdrawal clause that is standard in arms control agreements. The 2002 Moscow Treaty terminates upon entry into force of the New START Treaty. The U.S. Senate and the Russian legislature must approve the Treaty before it can enter into force.

No Constraints on Missile Defense and Conventional Strike: The Treaty does not contain any constraints on testing, development or deployment of current or planned U.S. missile defense programs or current or planned United States long-range conventional strike capabilities.

Extra Credit

Guidelines for Extra Credit for Spring 2010

You may choose to either write a report on a movie or a book (treat an event or lecture as a book) for extra credit. This report is due when you hand in your final paper but the points can be applied to any test or paper. The movie review will be worth up to 7 points; a book/event review will be worth up to 14 points. You can do a lecture/book or lecture/movie, but not movie/book combo.

Details:
Movie: The movie must deal with international relations in general (or international security issues/rivalry depending on your course) including anything we have covered in class. No movies on interpersonal relationships or tenuous connections to international events will be accepted (no Borat). The movie can come from any time period. It would be best to get the movie approved before you watch. You must write at least a 4 page paper that will include one half review of the movie and the issues it covers. The second half will consider how it is relevant to the class and what lessons we can take from it. This assignment will be graded like any other essay, 7 points are not guaranteed. I do NOT want a recap of the movie, I want a review in the style of something the New Yorker would do.

Book/Lecture Event: The book must deal with contemporary international issues (general, security focused or rivalry focused depending on the course). It should be published after 9/11. The same issues mentioned in the movie option are fair game. It would be best to get the book approved by me before attempting to write a review. Your review must be at least 7 pages. It should be completed like your normal required book report (1/3 review, 1/3 connection to international issues, and 1/3 criticisms or support). This assignment will be graded like any other essay, 14 points are not guaranteed. I do NOT want a recap of the book/event. For events and lectures, student should attach some documentation of attendance.

SROP 2009

SUMMER RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM
2010 SROP at UIC


The Graduate College at UIC is pleased to announce that applications are
now available for the 2010 Summer Research Opportunities Program (SROP).
Applications will be accepted until February 26, 2010. The 2010 program
dates are June 2- July 31, 2010.

SROP is the gateway to graduate education at universities throughout the
country. Students underrepresented in graduate study are invited to apply
for a summer program designed to enhance their academic and research
skills by working one-on-one with a faculty mentor from UIC . All SROP
students on the UIC campus meet weekly as a group for educational
enrichment activities and special seminars. Participants from all of the
campuses will come together in July for the annual SROP Conference at
Ohio State University. Students receive special training from senior
level doctoral students and also receive free GRE preparation. SROP
scholars gain experience as an undergraduate to put them at an advantage
as a graduate applicant. At the same time they will earn a $3,500
research award and have most expenses paid during this full time summer
research opportunity. It’s the competitive edge they will need to rank
above the best of the best.

Students wishing to participate in UIC SROP must meet the minimum
eligibility criteria:

* Have a cumulative GPA of 2.7 or higher (4.0 scale)

* Be a citizen or a permanent resident of the U.S.
* Be an undergraduate student enrolled in a degree-granting program at a
college or university in the United States, Puerto Rico, or other U.S.
territory
* Have completed at least two semesters of undergraduate education
* Have at least one semester of undergraduate education remaining after
completing the program
(Graduating seniors are eligible if they have been accepted to a UIC
graduate program for Fall 2010)
* Have a strong interest in pursuing a Ph.D.
Due to the 30-40 hour per week demand of research activities SROP
students are not allowed to take any summer courses or work external
jobs/internships.


If you have any inquiries about the program or the SROP application, feel
free to contact Allen J Bryson SROP Coordinator at the information
below. The application deadline is February 26, 2010.

Take care and please spread the word.


Allen J. Bryson, Coordinator
Summer Research Opportunities Program (SROP)
The Graduate College (MC 192)
607 University Hall
601 S. Morgan Street
Chicago IL. 60607-7106
(312) 413-2558 (fax (312) 413-8105

Rivalry and Territory in Asia

Here are a few recent articles that came up in the context of the recent ASEAN meetings. Each deals with rivalry and territory explicitly.

Himalayas (India and China)

Article on each territorial dispute

Main Time article on India and China rivalry

China vs. Nepal

Extra Credit for Fall 09

Guidelines for Extra Credit

You may choose to either write a report on a movie or a book (treat an event or lecture as a book) for extra credit. This report is due when you hand in your final paper. The movie review will be worth up to 7 points; a book/event review will be worth up to 15 points. You can do a lecture/book or lecture/movie, but not movie/book combo.

Details:
Movie: The movie must deal with international Latino issues (or international security issues) including anything we have covered in class. No movies on interpersonal relationships or tenuous connections to international events will be accepted (no Borat). The movie can come from any time period. It would be best to get the movie approved before you watch. You must write at least a 4 page paper that will include one half review of the movie and the issues it covers. The second half will consider how it is relevant to the class and what lessons we can take from it. This assignment will be graded like any other essay, 7 points are not guaranteed. I do NOT want a recap of the movie, I want a review in the style of something the New Yorker would do.

Book/Lecture Event: The book must deal with contemporary international Latino issues (or security). It should be published after 9/11. The same issues mentioned in the movie option are fair game. It would be best to get the book approved by me before attempting to write a review. Your review must be at least 7 pages. It should be completed like your normal required book report (1/3 review, 1/3 connection to international issues, and 1/3 criticisms or support). This assignment will be graded like any other essay, 15 points are not guaranteed. I do NOT want a recap of the book/event.

Star Wars Fails Again

Great article about the demise of the new Star Wars. I only wish they didn't have to use the word Realism.

Afghanistan

The case for staying in Afghanistan as presented by Biddle. In the end, there is much here that is convincing which is sad. Biddle is perhaps one of the best security specialists working today.

"Taking all this into account, advocates for withdrawal from Afghanistan certainly have a case. The stakes are not limitless, the costs of pursuing them are high, and there is no guarantee that even a high-cost counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan will succeed. But success is possible all the same, given our strengths and our opponents’ limitations. And failure could have potentially serious consequences for U.S. security."

Non-Free Press

New York Times article on the lack of free press in Latin American states.

Russia Fail

The BBC on Russian military failings.

Cultural Rivalry

Who would have thought a dress in a beauty pageant would spark an international dispute? I would have..

Blog is Back

The return of the blog...its back. I have been posting to facebook lately since it is so easy, but will have to transition back to this blog now that classes are starting. Look forward to more posts in the coming months, I know everyone is excited.

Obama's Speech in Egypt

Video
Text

How to Stop Pirates

Apparently, you can learn all you need to learn about Pirates from a video game. And boy did I love that game when I was a kid.

Soccer and Nationalism Conference

Soccer and Nationalism
This event can be used for lecture extra credit, but you must go to the movie and corresponding panel. You also must connect the movie to IR concepts.


An Interdisciplinary Conference

Monday, April 20, 2009, 9:30– 5:00
UIC Institute for the Humanities, Lower Level, Stevenson Hall

Schedule of Events:

9:30: Opening Remarks

9:45-10:45: Film Screening: Who is Deutschland?

Who is Deutschland? focuses on the outpouring of national feeling
expressed in Germany during the 2006 World Cup tournament, and the
reactions and discussions it prompted in German society among people of
various backgrounds. Interviews with German politicians, rock stars, media
executives, museum directors and students highlight the tensions
surrounding the expressions of contemporary German patriotism. While
tracking the progress of the German team in the World Cup, the film
focuses on Markus, a leftist Berlin University student who tells his side
of the “German identity story.”

11:00-12:30: Film Screening: Goal Dreams

Founded in 1928, the Palestinian Football Association (PFA) is considered
one of the oldest football associations in the Arab World. Following the
team as they prepare for the 2006 World Cup, Goal Dreams chronicles the
suspension of domestic league games after an Israeli air strike on
Palestine Stadium, while Austrian coach Alfred Riedle makes a heroic
effort to mold players from diverse countries such as the USA, Chile,
Palestine, and Lebanon into a national team like no other.

12:30-1:30: Break for Lunch

1:30-3:00: Panel Discussion with the creators of Who is Deutschland?
Boaz Beeri, Director
Jon Medow, writer/researcher
Abraham Singer, writer/researcher
Mark Webber, York University and the Canadian Center for
German and European Studies

3:00-3:15: Coffee Break

3:15-4:45: Panel Discussion on Soccer and Nationalism:
Jeffrey Saunders, writer and director of Goal Dreams
Laurent DuBois, Professor of French and History, Duke University

4:45: Concluding Remarks

Sponsored by the International Studies Program, the Departments of
Germanic Studies, History and Political Science, and the Institute for the
Humanities