On the Probability of Predicting and Mapping Traditional Warfare Measurements to the Cyber Warfare Domain

  • Marthie Grobler
  • Ignus Swart
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 431)


Cyber warfare is a contentious topic, with no agreement on whether this is a real possibility or an unrealistic extension of the physical battlefield. This article will not debate the validity and legality of the concept of cyber warfare, but will assume its existence based on prior research. To that end the article will examine research available on traditional warfare causes, elements and measurement techniques. This is done to examine the possibility of mapping traditional warfare measurements to cyber warfare. This article aims to provide evidence towards the probability of predicting and mapping traditional warfare measurements to the cyber warfare domain. Currently the only way of cyber warfare measurement is located in traditional information security techniques, but these measurements often do not adequately describe the extent of the cyber domain. Therefore, this paper aims to identify a set of criteria to aid in the prediction of cyber warfare probability.


cyber warfare metrics prediction probability traditional warfare 


  1. 1.
    Allodi, L., Massacci, F.: How CVSS is DOSsingyour patching policy and wasting your money (2013), (accessed November 20, 2013)
  2. 2.
    Baten, J., Mumme, C.: Does inequality lead to civil wars? A global long-term study using anthropometrics indicators (1816-1999). European Journal of Political Economy 32, 56–79 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boehme, R., Freiling, F.: On metrics and measurements in Dependability metrics: Advanced lectures. In: Eusgled, I., Freiling, F., Reussner, R. (eds.), pp. 7–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2008), doi:
  4. 4.
    Carr, J.: Inside Cyber Warfare. O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christey, S., Martin, B.: Buying into the bias: Why vulnerability statistics suck (2013), (accessed November 18, 2013)
  6. 6.
    Delany, C.: Online Politics: The Tools and Tactics of Digital Political Advocacy (2011), (accessed October 8, 2013)
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Filiol, E.: Operational aspects of cyberwarfare or cyberterrorist attacks: What a truly devastating attack could do. In: Ryan, J. (ed.) Leading Issues in Information Warfare & Security Research, vol. 1, pp. 35–53. Academic Publishing, Reading (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hathaway, M.: Cyber readiness index 1.0 (2013), (accessed November 21, 2013)
  10. 10.
    Heickerö, R.: Some aspects on cyber war faring in information arena and cognitive domain (2007), (accessed November 25, 2013)
  11. 11.
    Internet World Stats. 2013. Internet usage statistics - The internet big picture (2013), (accessed October 29, 2013)
  12. 12.
    Kassim, S.: Twitter revolution: How the Arab Spring was helped by social media (2012), (accessed October 9, 2013)
  13. 13.
    Knapp, K., Boulton, W.: Cyber-Warfare Threatens Corporations: Expansion into Commercial Environments. Information Systems Management 23(2), 76–87 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liles, S., Rogers, M., Dietz, J., Larson, D.: Applying traditional military principles to cyber warfare (2012), (accessed November 25, 2013)
  15. 15.
    Mandiant. Exposing One of China’s Cyber Espionage Units (2013), (accessed November 19, 2013)
  16. 16.
    MITRE. By Cyber Security Area (2012), (accessed November 29, 2013)
  17. 17.
    Oxford Dictionaries. Cyberwar, (accessed November 22, 2013)
  18. 18.
    Pew Research. The role of social media in the Arab uprisings (2012), (accessed October 9, 2013)
  19. 19.
    Rid, T.: Cyber war will not take place. Journal of Strategic Studies 35(1), 5–32 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schreier, F.: ND. On cyberwarfare. DCAF Horizon 2015 Working Paper No. 7Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Symantec. Internet Security Threat Report (ISTR), vol. 18, (accessed November 30, 2013)
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
    Van Evera, S.: Causes of war: Power and the roots of conflict. Cornell University Press, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Van Niekerk, B., Maharaj, M.: The Information Warfare Life Cycle Model. SA Journal of Information Management 13(1), Art. 476 (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Verizon. The 2013 Data Breach Investigations Report (2013), (accessed November 18, 2013)

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marthie Grobler
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ignus Swart
    • 1
  1. 1.Council for Scientific and Industrial ResearchPretoriaSouth Africa
  2. 2.University of JohannesburgJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations