Stephen J. Lukasik
Abstract
Establish a global cyber "neighborhood watch" enabling users to take defensive action to protect their operations.
- Commission of the European Communities. Brussels, Nov. 17, 2005.Google Scholar
- Ernst & Young. Y2K study, Aug. 1998.Google Scholar
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Order No. 705: Mandatory Reliability Standards for Critical Infrastructure Protection, Docket No. RM06-22-000, Jan. 18, 2008; http://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/comm-meet/2008/011708/E-2.pdf and http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/reliability/cip.asp#skipnavsubGoogle Scholar
- Gates, R.M. Secretary of Defense Memorandum: Establishment of a Subordinate Unified U.S. Cyber Command under Strategic Command for Military Cyberspace Operations, June 23, 2009.Google Scholar
- Goodman, S.E. and Lin, H.S., Eds. Toward a Safer and More Secure Cyberspace. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hathaway, M. Keynote at RSA Conference: The Obama Administration's Cyberspace Policy Review (San Francisco, CA, Apr. 22, 2009).Google Scholar
- Internet Crime Complaint Center, Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2007 Internet Crime Report. National White Collar Crime Center, Bureau of Justice, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., 2007; http://www.ic3.gov/media/annualreport/2007_ic3report.pdfGoogle Scholar
- Lukasik, S.J. Why the ARPANET was built. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing (Sept. 2011). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lukasik, S.J. Protecting the global information commons telecommunications policy, Next-Generation Internet Conference (London, Feb. 21--23, 2000); http://www.cistp.gatech.edu/publications/Google Scholar
- Lukasik, S.J., Goodman, S., and Longhurst, D. Protecting Critical Infrastructures Against Cyber-Attack, Adelphi Paper 359. International Institute for Strategic Studies, London, 2003.Google Scholar
- President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection. Critical Foundations: Protecting America's Infrastructures, report. The White House, Washington, D.C., Oct. 1997.Google Scholar
- Securing Cyberspace for the 44th Presidency. Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA, Dec. 2008; http://www.csis.org/tech/Google Scholar
- Sofaer, A.D. and Goodman, S.E., Eds. The Transnational Dimension of Cyber Crime and Terrorism. Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University, 2001; see Lukasik, S.J., Chapter 4: Current and future technical capabilities.Google ScholarDigital Library
- The White House; http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/cyberspace_strategy.pdfGoogle Scholar
Index Terms
- Protecting users of the cyber commons
Recommendations
Classifying resilience approaches for protecting smart grids against cyber threats
AbstractSmart grids (SG) draw the attention of cyber attackers due to their vulnerabilities, which are caused by the usage of heterogeneous communication technologies and their distributed nature. While preventing or detecting cyber attacks is a well-...
Reviews
John W. Fendrich
This article continues the discussion, at least among technicians and politicians in the modern world, of bottom-up procedures and policies versus top-down procedures and policies in problem-solving domains. The scenario is security, particularly computer network security: protecting users and their machines (cyber commons). The paper proposes a bottom-up plan for providing system security. Specifically, the commons protection union (CPU), a neighborhood watch, is asserted to record cyber attacks in real time and to provide information to users and their service providers, enabling them to manage connectivity (or disconnectivity) effectively. An analogy is made to the missile launch detection and tracking system--similar yet different, since defense components are distributed and under user control. Consolidation and analysis centers (CACs) are also proposed, with an infrastructure somewhat modeled on the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) structure, which gave rise to the cyber commons. These proposals are made after a discussion focusing on the shortcomings of top-down mechanisms: the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection (PCCIP); the Defense Department Cyber Command, directing the National Security Agency, directing the 24th Air Force and the 10th Fleet; the National Security Council's cyber security bill of rights and defense mechanisms; the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC); the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC); and the Final Rule. The author is correct in bringing about this open discussion in the technical community. Society needs and yearns for such open debate on strategies in other political realms, such as the economy, healthcare, elections, and more. Online Computing Reviews Service
Access critical reviews of Computing literature here
Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.
Comments