Cyberspace Law: Clausewitz fog on war and cyber maneuver in the modern information environment

This document discusses the impact of cyber warfare on modern war planning and explores the principles of maneuver in cyberspace. It delves into Clausewitz's concept of fog on war and the role of cyber maneuver in the modern information environment.

Cyberspace Law 1
Cyberspace Law
Name
Institution Affiliation
State/city
Date

Cyberspace Law 2
Task 1: Clausewitz fog on war in the modern enterprise information environment
Introduction
The advent of cyber war has sparked a heated argument among philosophers regarding whether
the timeless Clausewitzian principles remain true in the twenty first century. Indeed, uncertainty,
violence as well as rationality accurately indicate the nature of cyber warfare. Nonetheless, the
numerous defining aspects as well as approaches through which this warfare style is undertaken
has definitively transformed the aspect of the war. Indeed, the application of cyber war is still in
its infancy (Kott, Swami, and West, 2016). Therefore, each day government and well as non-
governmental actors are using various cyber forces for different reasons. As a result, these cyber
forces are in most cases encouraging criminalities as they are in most cases exploitative which
have become active in threatening cyber security infrastructure. Despite the fact that all the
activities of actors operating under this domain are pertinent, this part discuss the effects
developed by governments.
According to Carl von Clausewitz definition of war as “an act of force to force the enemy to do
another person’s will, whose intent is for political mileage” (Levy, 2017, p. 451). Indeed, this
assertion is relevant in the contemporary world like it was conceived more than three decades
ago. Regardless of whether one is describing war between nations, acts of terrorism or civil war
revolutions the common base is the political inspiration and its objective nature. Therefore,
Clausewitz argue that the nature of this enduring nature of war is uncertain, rational and violent.
For many years’ wars have exemplified these objective personalities where nations fight
violently both on the land and sea to secure political goals like change of regime. Even though
the battlefield landscape has transformed over time the objective nature of the war has remained
constant that uncertain, violent and rational (Kumar, 2017). In this sense, physical force has been

Cyberspace Law 3
the ultimate arbitrator as well as a means to influence the will of another. That means that so as
to secure one’s superiority the enemy has to be rendered powerless. Indeed, this is the real target
of warfare. Despite the fact that Clausewitz was conversant with the physical force utility, the
scholar acknowledged that it is not always a necessity for the enemy to be destroyed physically
(Fowler, 2018, p. 219). Clausewitz postulated that often conflicts cannot be resolved short of the
enemy powerlessness. According to Clausewitz the target of disarming the enemy is in most
cases not countered in reality and does not need to be realized as a condition of peace.
The creation of doubt and insecurity using the perception of overpowering strengths intensifies
the possibility of an opponent suing of peace before destruction. Ultimately, this idea is practical
to the strategic certainty of cyber warfare because it does not render the opponent powerless.
However, it creates insecurity and doubt which plays a significant role in weakening their will.
Therefore, Clausewitz recommends that the use of violent physical force is an approach of
imposing one’s will on an opponent. Nonetheless, political policy determines the manner in
which it is applied and the extent to which it is employed. According to Wallace, (2018) the
rational policy plays a pivotal part to the objective nature of war which also shapes the subjective
nature of the war. Towards the end of the twentieth and early twenty first century, technology
has experienced a great revolution which has influenced the character of war experienced
through the inception of space, air and cyber domains. Although operations within the
cyberspace domain remain relatively not yet mature, its integrated application has dramatically
influenced the way in which war are fought (Giacomello, 2018, p. 1132). Cyber technologies
have improved control and command, target solutions, battlefield communication and logical
ability.

Cyberspace Law 4
Also, the integrated application of cyber technology offers synergistic influence for systems
running on other domains. In the present cyber age, technologies allow attacks at supersonic
speeds and negates any barricades imposed by distance. In this sense, forces can be equipped
with very little resources like a personal computer (Hughes, and Colarik, 2016, p. 21). The
technologies of cyber warfare as well as those for cyber security are economically accessible to
all which means that a group or a state can equip itself with the least amount of resources
through technical means and human skills to harm the mighty.
Some of the decision-making for cyber friction issues include decision-making mechanism for
cyber-physical systems (CPS) embedded computers. The primary objective of cyber-physical
systems architecture is to acquire the maximum value from a huge system by understanding its
subsystems interact and interface. The idea was also supported by Moore’s law which stated that
the costs associated with a single embedded computer equipment comprised of communication,
processing and sensing capacities declined to zero (Valeriano, Jensen, and Maness, 2018).
Therefore, it is financially feasible to compactly deploy networks with numerous sensor readings
from the physical world to compute quantities and make decisions from them. Indeed, such a
compact network provide a better resolution of the physical world which is appropriate for
detecting the occurrence of events which is of dominant significance for various unseen
applications. The presence of a broad-based architectural elements which support
communication, processing and sensing abilities make the execution of CPS a practical solution.
In conclusion the emergence of the cyber domain has had a profound impact on the forthcoming
war planning. The current capacity of cyber is pervaded and almost each instrument used to
wage and control war. In my view, information systems, communication as well as conventional
weapons rely on reliable, resilient and assured network accessibility. Such inherent

Cyberspace Law 5
vulnerabilities in addition to those in the civilian industry have hastened beginning of cyber
warfare. The evolution of cyber warfare has rapidly grown such that worldwide laws and norms
can no longer keep pace with the effects it can venture. Consequently, conventions and
ambiguous treaties whose target is to constrain the conventional application of armed forces does
not appropriately translate to the cyber domain.
Task 2: Cyber maneuver in the modern information environment
Research depicts that military strategists have been writing on the principles and aspects of
warfare for many years. While there has been a variation over time with connection to specific
strategists, the principle of maneuver has remained to be a significant concept and a determining
component in warfare since time immemorial. The evolution in technology has enabled for the
expansion of warfare into novel domains which has led to change in maneuver (Andress, and
Winterfeld, 2013). The exploration of the seas led to the development of novel unique domain
which resulted in the worldwide commons which came with new challenges to overcome. In
addition, air and space brought also a new dimension of principles of maneuver which caused
another shift in the strategy applied in military. Therefore, the introduction of computing systems
as well as the Internet over the last two decades has formed a linked and virtual environment
which has led to the designation of the fifth Warfield domain referred to as Cyberspace.
Accordingly, this new domain consists of its unique features and challenges which relatively
overlaps operations of the previous warfighting domains.
According to the United States of America Military it defines the concept of maneuver as the
placement of forces to perform operations by securing positional advantages prior and at the time
to combat the operations (Mittal, 2015).

Cyberspace Law 6
Cybersecurity is regarded as a warfighting domain since it is characterized by continued conflict
between different rival state and non-state actors in addition to private entities. Fights rage across
this domain regularly even though they have not escalated to a point of being declared as war,
the results of a number of these battles are likely to have a relevant effect on long-term future of
the nations that take part in this unending conflicts (Colarik, and Janczewski, 2015, p. 37). In the
process of these battles military and industrial secretes are captured, vital computing resources
taken, diplomatic and strategic plans compromised and chief state, military and private
infrastructure systems infiltrated for purposes of winning competitive mileage for countries
starting such attacks. The processes and tactics used to attack and defend information resources
in cyberspace institute maneuver because they are performed to allow one actor a competitive
advantage over the other. Indeed, it is important to understand the principle behind maneuver in
cyberspace since most states across the globe have begun developing cyber warfare programs by
proactively carrying out activities in cyberspace.
Maneuver as a principle of war
The principle of maneuver has progressed as a renter of war over some thousands of years. For
time immemorial battle records the idea of maneuver has been included in the movement of
troops to positions of advantage in attempts to fix and destroy the forces of enemies. The initial
forms of involvement entailed maneuvers like penetration, the double envelopment and single
envelopment which were mainly tactical in nature. With the progress in technology commanders
have been able to leverage novel transportation forms to intensify the speed and rhythm of
maneuver in battle (Farmer, 2010). In addition, advance in the technology of weapons which led
to the inception of ideas of fires has altered the principle of maneuver. In this sense, cyber

Cyberspace Law 7
maneuver is the use of force to degrade, capture, deny, disrupt computing and information
resources with the intention to realise a competitive advantage in respect to rivals.
Traditionally, maneuver warfighting domains chiefly entail the movement of military forces
through the use of fires. Nonetheless, in cyberspace there is no movement of forces in the kinetic
sense because it comprises a virtual setting. Therefore, maneuver in cyberspace entails the
application of forces to particular pints of attacks. Accordingly, this force is a unique code
written to meet the attackers or defender’s aim which is executed at the choice of their time and
virtual location (Johnsen, 2015). Cyber maneuver is utilized to influence machine and human
behavior. Therefore, cyber maneuver leverages the positioning in the domain of cyberspace to
destroy, disrupt, or interfere information and computing resources (Applegate, 2012, p. 4).
Cyberspace is used to apply denial forces to access to operations chief information stores.
Cyberspace is therefore a distinct setting which consists of informational, physical as well as
cognitive features which are integrated to create the virtual domain through which cyber
operations take place. On application of the principle of maneuver on cyber operations it has
unique features as compared to the maneuver related to other warfighting domains of land, air,
space and sea. As a result, cyber maneuver has several characteristics such as speed, operational
reach, access and control, dynamic evolution, rapid concentration among others. The most
evident features of maneuver in cyberspace is the speed through which it happens. Therefore,
operations in cyberspace are virtually instantaneous taking place at the speed which the machine
operates. Consequently, the speed at which action happens in cyberspace make it exceedingly
challenging for one actor to react and make adjustment to a successful attack.
Cyber operations in the modern environment

Cyberspace Law 8
The incidents of cybersecurity are amongst the major concerns in government agencies,
businesses and private people currently. Data protection has become a major concern in the
contemporary era which has made the maintenance of information and data resources a physical
asset (Kallberg, 2013). That means that data analytics plays a pivotal part in cybersecurity. As a
result, machine intelligence and analytics have become essential areas of concern in producing
machines which can autonomously perform operations which will require human intelligence.
Similarly, these machines can also drive corporation from reactive to proactive if associated with
organisational transformation. In doing so this ability has made it possible for orgnisations to
shift from simply measuring data to creating machine learning algorithms and moving ahead to
for reasonable decisions referred to as intelligent machine actions. Some of the modern
operations include:
Extracting meaningful signals out of huge volumes of data: The complexity and the volume of
digital network information has in the recent past skyrocketed because of the explosion of
internet-linked devices, advance in the development of multinational economy and the increase
in operational technologies (OT). As a result of the exponentially multiplication of machine and
human-generated cyber security data the capacity to extract meaningful signals of possibly
nefarious operations which ultimately prevent activities that have become increasingly complex.
Instrumenting improved analytics for enhanced defenses: The effectiveness of modern
cybersecurity calls for organisations keen monitoring of different streams of data to determine
the strongest operation signals (Schmitt, 2011, p. 569). The process involves the monitoring of
data network traffic to determine well-known patterns of common antagonist practices like
beaconing. Although these approaches are perilous to cybersecurity activities, it is imperative to
leverage these signals so as to project the future practices.

Cyberspace Law 9
Task 3: Deep packets analysis
Statistical analysis of network boundaries, active nodes, external sources, type of traffic
and protocols
Wireshark is the globes foremost network protocol analyser which is standard for most
industries. Wireshark is a free packet sniffer computer app which is used for network
troubleshooting, communication protocols development, and analysis (Davidoff, and Ham,
2012). Therefore, Wireshark place your network card into promiscuous mode that basically tells
it to accept each packet it receives. In the process, it allows the users to view all the traffic
passing across the network.
To Capture network communication packets using Wireshark
Wireshark make use of pcap to capture packets. Pcap is basically a collection of information
concern different protocols and their packets structure where dissimilar information is passed
across these protocols. As a result, Wireshark can only capture packets on a network that is
supported by pcap.
Protocol hierarchy statistics
The protocol hierarchy of the captured packets is show in the screenshot below. The screenshot
consists of a tree of all the protocols in the capture. Every row contains the statistical values for a
single protocol. The column for Percent Packets and Percent Bytes have double responsibility
where they act as bar graphs. In case a display filter is set it will be displayed at the bottom.

Cyberspace Law 10
Protocol hierarchy columns
Protocol: It is the protocol’s name
Percent Packets: The percentage of protocol packets is relative to all packets in the capture.
Packets: It is the number of packets contained in a protocol.
Percent Bytes: The percentage of protocol bytes is relative to the total bytes in the capture.
Bytes: It is the total number of bytes within the protocol.
Bits: It is the bandwidth for the protocol in relation to the capture time.
End packets: It is the absolute number of packets contained in the protocol whereby it is the
maximum protocol in the last dissected.

Cyberspace Law 11
End bits: It is the protocol’s bandwidth in relation to the capture time which was the maximum
protocol in the stack (Wireshark.org, 2019). Basically, packets ordinarily comprise several
protocols thus more than one protocol can be counted for every packet.
Screenshot showing Wireshark endpoint Wi-Fi
Traffic analysis with Wireshark
All network administrators have at one point experienced a loss in the performance of their
network. Indeed, such cases are not always easy because of lack of time and resource availability
or not being conversant with the necessary tools to use in such cases (Asrodia, and Patel, 2012,
p. 855). At times the connectivity is lost or it could be caused by terminal disconnection for no
obvious reason. In most cases the problem could not be predetermined and could be down due to
poor network configuration like spanning-tree, poorly configured broadcast or redundant links.
Nonetheless, at some point the cause could be as a result of attacks from third parties in attempt

Cyberspace Law 12
to place the web server out-of-service using Denial of Service (DoS) attack, sending traffic with
infected ARP with the intent to discover hosts to infect.
In all these cases, knowing the origin of such incidents is the initial step to taking right measures
and realizing the corrective protections (Sanders, 2017). This is the reason why traffic analysis
can be extremely significant to detect, map and analyze traffic, and identify threats to the
network to minimize their subsequent impact. In order to realise this there are innate devices in
the market like Intrusion Detection System/Internet Protocol System (IDS/IPS), Monitoring
Analysis Response System (MARS) for Cisco. Unfortunately, these solutions are not always
easily accessible to all corporations due to their costs which does not complete the basic
proportionality principles thus buying them may not be justifiable. In this sense, to cover the
requirements of entities with contemporary technological infrastructure Wireshark is presented
by INTECO-CERT. Wireshark is a free and open network traffic analyzer which has enabled
technicians and administrators to be conversant with the importance of auditing and analyzing
network traffic. Wireshark provides examples of common attacks to local networks which are
number one enemies to the current corporate settings.
Activity Narrative and attack identification
Using Wireshark to detect ARP Spoofing
ARP spoofing is a type of attack in which a malevolent performance sends misinterpreted
Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) messages across a local area network. The result in the link
to an attacker’s MAC address with an IP address of real-time user on the network (Sanders,
2017). After the attacker’s MAC address is linked with a reliable IP address, the attacker will
commence to receive any kind of information which is expected for that given IP address. ARP

Cyberspace Law 13
spoofing has the ability to empower pernicious collections to hook, modify or stop information
in motion (Hong et al, 2015, p. 8). However, ARP spoofing attacks can only work over local area
networks using the address resolution protocol.
The effect of ARP spoofing attacks has severe outcomes for any user. Basically, the critical
applications of ARP spoofing attacks are used to take significant information. In most cases ARP
spoofing attacks are used to inspire other attacks such as:
Denial-of-service (DoS): Dos attacks usually use ARP spoofing to connect several IP addresses
to a single target’s MAC address. As a result, the movement intended for numerous unique IP
addresses can divert MAC address goal by overloading the goal with events.
Session hijacking: ARP spoofing is utilized in hijacking session through the help of stealing
sessions by granting attacker’s entry to private information and frameworks.
Attack explanation
One of the most prevalent characteristics of managing networks is not deployment, but it is
troubleshooting problems particularly problems which cannot be obvious such as traffic
bottlenecks matters. In order to help in diagnosing network traffic challenges, the host of fancy
packet sniffers as well as protocol analysers are available (Sheldon et al., 2012, p. 54). To
counter the network traffic Wireshark is the graphical network analyser which has a graphical
interface which makes analysis of the network traffic that makes analysis easy to decipher. In
this sense, Wireshark is a significant tool for technician and developers and end users who are
curious on matters concerning network traffic and protocols. Wireshark is a cross-platform
which operates on all operating systems such as Mac OS, Linux and Windows. The process of

Cyberspace Law 14
installing Wireshark is simple and the only requirement need to install the software is network
lipcap library required to capture network packets.
After installing Wireshark, the following step is selecting the interface to be monitored.
Wireshark detects all local interfaces. When connected to Internet Wireshark through Wi-Fi it
discovered the following interfaces VPN capture, NOC extranet access adapter, and adapter for
generic dialup. On capturing the Wi-Fi adapter, Wireshark picked up on ARP requests.
Therefore, all events on the adapter is detected including DNS, HTTP and TCP traffic. Traffic
information between endpoints are shown in detailed and comprehensive view. The protocol
specific statistics is seen from the menu. Some of the specific protocol information that is visible
from the menu include Service Response, Real Time Transfer (RTP), and VoIP calls. The
significant aspect here is the capability to track the TCP streams. It is a simple practice when
using Wireshark which entails selecting a TCP packet in the packet list of Connections and then
select the Follow the option for TCP Stream from the Wireshark tools menu. Also, this
application has the capacity to track UDP and SSL streams.

Cyberspace Law 15
Bibliography
Andress, J. and Winterfeld, S., 2013. Cyber warfare: techniques, tactics and tools for security
practitioners. Elsevier.
Applegate, S.D., 2012, June. The principle of maneuver in cyber operations. In Cyber Conflict
(CYCON), 2012 4th International Conference on (pp. 1-13). IEEE.
Asrodia, P. and Patel, H., 2012. Network traffic analysis using packet sniffer. International
journal of engineering research and applications, 2(3), pp.854-856.
Colarik, A. and Janczewski, L., 2015. Establishing cyber warfare doctrine. In Current and
Emerging Trends in Cyber Operations (pp. 37-50). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Davidoff, S. and Ham, J., 2012. Network forensics: tracking hackers through cyberspace (Vol.
2014). Upper Saddle River: Prentice hall.
Farmer, D.B., 2010. Do the principles of war apply to cyber war? Army Command and General
Staff Coll Fort Leavenworth Ks School of Advanced Military Studies.
Fowler, M., 2018, March. Blood and Packets: Attacking Network Administrators to Weaken
Network Security. In ICCWS 2018 13th International Conference on Cyber Warfare and
Security (p. 219). Academic Conferences and publishing limited.
Giacomello, G., 2018. Cyber Strategy: The Evolving Character of Power and Coercion. By
Brandon Valeriano, Benjamin Jensen, and Ryan C. Maness. New York: Oxford University Press,
2018. 320p. $34.95 cloth. Perspectives on Politics, 16(4), pp.1132-1134.
Hong, S., Xu, L., Wang, H. and Gu, G., 2015, February. Poisoning Network Visibility in
Software-Defined Networks: New Attacks and Countermeasures. In NDSS (Vol. 15, pp. 8-11).

Cyberspace Law 16
Hughes, D. and Colarik, A.M., 2016. Predicting the Proliferation of Cyber Weapons into Small
States. Joint Force Quarterly, 83, pp.19-25.
Johnsen, W.T., 2015. The principles of War in the 21st Century: Strategic considerations.
DIANE Publishing.
Kallberg, J., 2013. Cyber Operations–Bridging from Concept to Cyber Superiority. Joint Forces
Quarterly, (68).
Kott, A., Swami, A. and West, B.J., 2016. Army Science Planning and Strategy Meeting: The
Fog of Cyber War (No. ARL-TR-7902). US Army Research Laboratory Adelphi United States.
Kumar, M., 2017. Cyber Warfare: New Dimension in Security and Strategy.
Levy, J.S., 2017. Clausewitz and People’s War. Journal of Strategic Studies, 40(3), pp.450-456.
Mittal, S., 2015. Perspectives in Cyber Security, the future of cyber malware.
Sanders, C., 2017. Practical packet analysis: Using Wireshark to solve real-world network
problems. No Starch Press.
Sanders, C., 2017. Practical packet analysis: Using Wireshark to solve real-world network
problems. No Starch Press.
Schmitt, M.N., 2011. Cyber Operations and the Jud Ad Bellum Revisited. Vill. L. Rev., 56,
p.569.
Sheldon, F.T., Weber, J.M., Yoo, S.M. and Pan, W.D., 2012. The insecurity of wireless
networks. IEEE Security & Privacy, 10(4), pp.54-61.

Cyberspace Law 17
Valeriano, B., Jensen, B.M. and Maness, R.C., 2018. Cyber Strategy: The Evolving Character of
Power and Coercion. Oxford University Press.
Wallace, R., 2018. Carl Von Clausewitz, the Fog-of-War, and the AI Revolution: The Real
World Is Not A Game Of Go. Springer.
Wireshark.org. (2019). 8.4. The “Protocol Hierarchy” Window. [online] Available at:
https://www.wireshark.org/docs/wsug_html_chunked/ChStatHierarchy.html [Accessed 6 Jan.
2019].

Cyberspace Law 18