What is Cyberterrorism? Findings from a Survey of Researchers

2019

The purpose of this essay is to present a theoretically informed and operationally useful definition of cyberterrorism to advance research in the fields of terrorism and cyberscience as well as to inform policy makers. The operationalization distinguishes terrorist events that are distinctly and fundamentally cyber in nature from those that are not. It frames cyberterrorism as a form of aggression and distinguishes it from other forms of cyber aggression: cyberwar, cyber espionage, cybercrime, and cyber mischief. The essay includes illustrative cases to identify key features of cyberterrorist events relative to other cyber and non-cyber aggression and concludes with a clear process to classify cyber aggression as cyberterrorism or not.

Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 2019

This article reports on a survey of researchers designed to capture current perspectives on core questions around cyberterrorism. The survey – conducted in 2017 as a follow-on to an initial, 2012, exercise - focused on questions of definition, threat and response. By documenting our findings in each of these areas, we identify three particularly important trends. First, an increasing convergence around the core characteristics of cyberterrorism, albeit with continuing conceptual disagreements at the concept’s penumbra. Second, an increasing researcher concern with the threat posed by cyberterrorism, underpinned by a majority view that this threat has increased in the past five years and a growing feeling that cyberterrorist attacks have now taken place. Third, support for a diversity of counter-measures to this threat, although perhaps counter-intuitively little suggestion that resort to exceptional or draconian measures is needed. In order to inform future research in this field, the article concludes by detailing what, in the opinion of our respondents, are some of the major limitations, gaps and weaknesses within the academic research to date.

Hacettepe Univeristy, 2016

Convergence of cyberspace and terrorism, that is cyberterrorism, might be an underrated issue for the moment due to the absence of real world examples. However, the ongoing transformation from old to new terrorism and changing perceptions of war and state security proves the opposite. Cyberterrorism is a resourceful, innovative, and an unconventional way to produce unpredictable and online threats against the traditional state marked by strict physical borders. Due to the significance of new terrorism for state security and IR, it is important to understand why current definitions are remaining to be ambiguous, complex, and insufficient in combating future cyberterrorist threats. Characterizing such a complicated phenomenon might not be an easy task, whilst without knowing what cyberterrorism is, and what it is not, we cannot develop better solutions or generate better responses for state security. Departing from these concerns, this thesis asks: what could be the proper definition for cyberterrorism? The aim is to provide a new, operational framework to address lacking insights in the current literature.

Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 2014

This article reports on a recent research project exploring academic perspectives on the threat posed by cyberterrorism. The project employed a survey method, which returned 118 responses from researchers working across 24 different countries. The article begins with a brief review of existing literature on this topic, distinguishing between those concerned by the imminent threat of cyberterrorism, and other, more sceptical, views. Following a discussion on method, the article's analysis section then details findings from three research questions: (i) Does cyberterrorism constitute a significant threat? If so, against whom or what?; (ii) Has a cyberterrorism attack ever taken place?’; and, (iii) What are the most effective countermeasures against cyberterrorism? Are there significant differences to more traditional forms of anti- or counter-terrorism? The article concludes by reflecting on areas of continuity and discontinuity between academic debate on cyberterrorism and on terrorism more broadly.

Several recurrent themes emerge in this summary of the conference's seven panels:  It is clear that cyberspace opens considerable potential opportunities for terrorist activities, including communication, fund-raising and attacks. It remains an open question whether terrorist uses of the Internet constitute an evolutionary or revolutionary dynamic. This question hinges, in part, on one’s view of how the Internet differs to earlier technologies.  There are multiple constraints on terrorist engagements with cyberspace. First, the feasibility of the terrorist activities listed above varies considerably with some requiring very little technical knowledge and others necessitating a high level of expertise. In addition to this are further constraints such as financing and the comparative desirability of more traditional attacks for reasons of visibility or knowhow.  A range of legal and political instruments are available within national and international bodies with which to confront the challenge of cyberterrorism. However, these instruments are limited by different factors including: different strategic cultures and capabilities across countries; the language and construction of existing legal instruments such as the ‘use of force’ requirement in international law; and, sensitivities towards sharing information and data.  Distinguishing between different types of cyber-threat is challenging, in part, because motives and behaviour in this realm are difficult to identify and monitor.  The value of existing models and methods of deterrence to confront challenges such as cyberterrorism is unproved, at best.  Efforts to address threats such as cyberterrorism raise considerable ethical as well as political, legal and technical challenges.  Cyberterrorism has a discursive existence as well as a ‘material’ one. How this phenomenon is framed or constructed in media and political language matters greatly.  The disciplinary backgrounds and commitments of academics are not incidental within debate on the definition of cyberterrorism. In part, this is because of different views of the purposes of definition itself: to ensure effective communication between researchers and/or policymakers; to facilitate cooperation across jurisdictional boundaries; to distinguish terrorism from crime and war; or, to impose limits on investigative and prosecutorial powers. These conclusions show clearly the considerable scope that exists for further multidisciplinary research into the issues surrounding responses to cyberterrorism, the threat that it poses and the concept itself.

Cyberterrorism has come to be understood as one of the leading threats to vital interests of Western states. Even though there is general agreement that a cyberterrorist attack has not yet been experienced, there is consensus on what cyberterrorism might imply. However, contrary to this understanding, when it comes to framing who the potential cyberterrorists are, this consensual definition seems to be marginalised in order to reinforce the narrative of the prevailing discourse of the War on Terror – that Salafist jihadists are preparing an electronic war against the West and the liberal world order; with other actors, potentially more threatening to national security in the cyber sphere, intentionally left out. A specific political discourse is thus created around cyberterrorism, one that is meant to pose as a natural extension of the current discourse on terrorism in general, by artificially attributing cyberterrorist capabilities to already defined, traditional terrorist organisations. If continued, this trend of attributing cyberterrorist capabilities to the wrong actors, portraying cyberterrorism as something that it is not, may ultimately undermine actual counterterrorist efforts in the cyber sphere and damage national security in the long run.

This report provides an overview of findings from a project designed to capture current understandings of cyberterrorism within the research community. The project ran between June and November 2012, and employed a questionnaire which was distributed to over 600 researchers, authors and other experts. Potential respondents were identified using a combination of methods, including targeted literature reviews, standing within relevant academic communities, snowballing from earlier participants or contacts, and the use of two mailing lists. 118 responses were received in total, from individuals working in 24 countries across six continents.

The Oxford Handbook of the History of Terrorism , 2020

This chapter focuses on understandings and debates around cyberterrorism as well as the effect particular representations of this phenomenon have upon assessing its threat. The chapter begins by introducing various understandings of cyberterrorism and differentiates between narrow and broad conceptions as well as effects and intent based definitions. Moving onto consider the threat of cyberterrorism the chapter identifies an ongoing debate between 'concerned' and 'sceptical' voices as well as those that contest whether cyberterrorism has ever taken place. The chapter then introduces a range of broadly constructivist studies which question the orthodox approach to cyberterrorism as an ontological reality and highlight the importance of media representations of this threat. To illustrate this, the chapter concludes by highlighting findings from a recent study of global news media coverage. It shows that this media is frequently apprehensive in tone, despite the existence of diverse understandings of cyberterrorism and cybersecurity.