Understanding Cyber Terrorism: The Grounded Theory Method Applied

Rabiah Ahmad, Zahri Yunos, Shahrin Sahib Center for Advanced Computing Technology

Faculty of Information and Communication Technology Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM)

Melaka, Malaysia rabiah@utem.edu.my, zahri@cybersecurity.my, shahrinsahib@utem.edu.my

Abstract — Grounded theory method is gaining importance as a method for theory building about a particular phenomenon. One of the most important benefits is the ability to derive theory from and within the context of data collected. In this research, the authors analyzed the data by using a grounded theory method, in which the cyber terrorism framework is drawn. This paper proposes a conceptual framework describing the components of cyber terrorism from six perspectives: Target, motivation, tools of attack, domain, method of action, and impact. The framework provides a baseline when establishing and defining the concept of cyber terrorism. The finding of this work contributes as strategic input to the policy and decision makers in formulating and developing better policy and strategy to counter cyber terrorism.

Keywords-component; Cyber Terrorism; Grounded Theory; Literature

I. INTRODUCTION War, crime and terrorism are traditional concepts that

occur in a physical domain. The only new is the “cyber” domain. In this digital age, the concept of cyber terrorism or the use of cyberspace to carry out terrorist activities has emerged. As mentioned by Denning [1], cyber terrorism is the convergence of terrorism and cyberspace. The convergence of physical terrorism and advancement of ICT have spawned a new term called cyber terrorism.

The concept of cyber terrorism has several attributes (or components) such as motivation, impact and target. Based on literatures, there are several empirical frameworks on cyber terrorism proposed by researchers [2]. Our observation indicates that there are some common patterns or relationships that can be considered as attributes of cyber terrorism. Detail focus analysis can be conducted to investigate and analyze the context of cyber terrorism.

This article addresses the usage of grounded theory in developing a cyber terrorism conceptual framework. Based on literatures, the authors analyzed the data by using a grounded theory approach, in which the cyber terrorism framework is drawn. This paper proposes that a conceptual framework may be developed by using grounded theory method by reviewing its literature.

II. GROUNDED THEORY The phrase grounded theory refers to theory or general

concepts that are developed from a corpus of data and the theory emerges through a close and careful analysis of the data [3]. The basic idea of the grounded theory approach is to read (and re-read) a textual database (such as a corpus of field note) and discover or label variables (called categories, concepts and properties) and their interrelationship [4]. The result is the revelation of meaningful differences and similarities among and between categories.

The purpose of grounded theory is to develop theoretically comprehensive explanations about a particular phenomenon [5]. Developing a theory from grounded theory method should formulate it into a logical, systematic and explanatory scheme [6]. The theory is derived inductively through the systematic collection and analysis of data pertaining to a phenomenon. Paton [7] describes that, "inductive analysis means that the patterns, themes, and categories of analysis come from the data; they emerge out of the data rather than being imposed on them prior to data collection and analysis".

Grounded theory research begins by focusing on area of study and gathers data from a variety of sources, including literatures [8]. As the researcher analyzed the data, major themes are expected to emerge in such a way that they yield a theory [9]. Esteves et al. [10] state that the purpose of the grounded theory is to develop theoretically-comprehensive explanations about a particular phenomenon and conclude that one of the most important benefits of the grounded theory method is the ability to derive theory from within the context of data collected.

Research in grounded theory is often non-linear and non-sequential [11]. Key features of grounded theory are its iterative study design (where analysis inform the next cycle of data collection), theoretical (or purposive) sampling and systematic analysis of the data [12]. Analysis of the subsequent phase of data collection will lead to further adaptations of the data collection process until emergence of the theory. The central principle of data analysis is constant comparison, in which, the data is compared with other examples for similarities and differences. Through the

process of constant comparison, emerging theories are continually being refined from ongoing data collection, which produces the richness that is typical in grounded theory analysis.

III. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTURE IN GROUNDED THEORY

Knowledge management is a matter of managing analytical process to transform data into information, and information into knowledge, and knowledge into wisdom [13]. Recent research suggests that architectural knowledge, such as design decisions, is important and should be recorded alongside the architecture description [14]. In this research, the conceptual framework describing cyber terrorism is developed by using the grounded theory method. In grounded theory, the main source of data collection are interviews conducted with participants and observed by the researcher, whereby the researcher looks for common patterns among the sets of data [12]. Grounded theory is a rigorous process that involves generating a conceptual model (or theory) that is grounded in the data [4].

Egan [15] recommended five steps in the process of grounded theory research; initiating research, data selection, initiation and ongoing data collection, data analysis and concluding the research (Figure 1). Jones and Alony [16] suggest five steps in grounded theory approach: acknowledgement of researchers’ bias, data selection, data collection, data coding & analysis and compilation of results. Likewise, the grounded theory method employed by Esteves et al. [10] composed of the following phases: research design phase, data collection phase, data analysis phase and comparison phase. Overall, the steps of grounded theory approach discussed above are more or less similar with each other. For this research, we adopted Egan’s recommendation.

The first level, initiation of the research involves the selection of an area of inquiry. The research begins with an awareness of the context of the research by reviewing literatures relevant to the area of inquiry. In the second level, data selection, involves the identification of potential data sources (individuals and organizations they represent) associated with the research questions. The respondents are chosen from various expert positions to reflect variety of expertise.

The third level is initiation of data collection from targeted respondents. Data collection is an ongoing process, whereby the researcher can return to the interviewees for clarification and elaboration besides comparing related documents or records with data collected during initiation of the research.

In the fourth level, data analysis, involves a constant comparison method for generating and analyzing data. Data analysis is defined as a process of systematically searching and arranging the interview transcripts, field notes and other materials with the objectives to increase the understanding and to enable researcher to present what have been discovered. Lastly, concluding the research, involves documenting the grounded theory based on researcher observation of the data saturation and sufficient theory which has emerged from the data. Data saturation is the evidence

when data collection no longer contributes to elaboration of the phenomenon being investigated.

Figure 1: Grounded theory process (adapted from Egan [15])

IV. LITERATURE AS PRIMARY DATA Literature has an established role in research, and should

not be discarded without due consideration [17]. Haig [8] argues that the grounded theory research begins by focusing on an area of study and gathers data from a variety of sources, including literatures. Based on study conducted by Frankel [11], the author highlighted that some researchers believe a thorough literature review should be conducted at the beginning of the research process. They argue that reading the existing literatures can save time and help strengthen the study design.

The researchers bring a considerable background in professional and disciplinary knowledge to an inquiry. Levy [6] explains, these positions recognize that a prior understanding of the literature can be therefore used effectively in developing theory in a number of ways. Based on the review of pertinent literature, prior knowledge and experience of the researcher is useful to formulate a preliminary conceptual model.

Heath and Cowley [18] reveal that a pre-understanding by early reference to the literature can contribute to the researcher’s understanding of social processes observed. They argue that prior reading may be required if the researcher wishes to clarify concepts and build an emergent theory. Heath and Cowley [18] cite the work by Jezewski [19] who carried out a literature-based concept before attempting to further develop the concept via grounded theory. Heath and Cowley [18] further cite the comment by Glaser and Strauss [20] that “the researcher will not enter the field from ideas, but differ considerably in the role they see for the literature. Fernandez et al. [21] indicated that, they used literatures as data sources for the foundation of their research which usually associated with qualitative studies. Thus, specific understanding from past experience and literature may be used to stimulate theoretical sensitivity and generate the hypotheses.

This notion is supported by Onion [17] who concludes that the application of the grounded theory method to review literature and derive a meta-theory is novel, whereby literature may be used as the primary data for the grounded theory method. Onion [17] conducted a study on knowledge

INITIATION OF THE RESEARCH1

DATA SELECTION2

DATA COLLECTION3

DATA ANALYSIS4

CONCLUDING THE RESEARCH5

management by using grounded theory method. He concluded that theory may be derived from the literature, and can emerge from it through the grounded theory method. This is ascertained by Esteves et al. [10] whereby they conclude that an analysis of issues related with the use of the grounded theory method is very useful for people starting a research project.

In this research, the analysis was conducted by reviewing existing literatures on cyber terrorism. Total of 22 literatures were reviewed and analyzed. Our goal was to examine whether particular researchers have developed useful insight on this subject and to learn whether consensus agreement had already been reached. Based on our observations, we have found that there is limited literature focusing on the cyber terrorism framework. However, most of the literature reviewed is valuable in terms of framing the context rather than directly providing a solution to the issues of this study. Samples of the analysis are tabulated in Table I.

TABLE I Analysis on Components of Cyber Terrorism Based on

Literatures Target Motivation Impact Tools

of Attack

Domain Method of

Action L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9

L1: [22]; L2: [23]; L3: [24]; L4: [25]; L5: [26]; L6: [27]; L7: [28]; L8: [29]; L9: [30]

V. PROPOSAL ON THE CYBER TERRORISM CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The context of cyber terrorism denotes different understandings and interpretations. There are many definitions on cyber terrorism [31] [32] [33] [34] [35], however some of them only address a subset of cyber terrorism and not the whole context. Due to the complexity of various interacting attributes or components in cyber terrorism, to formulate a framework as to describe its influential considerations would be beneficial.

Our analysis on the literatures revealed that there are six emergent perspectives of cyber terrorism, which became the major findings of the study. In our view, the nature of cyber terrorism framework should have these six perspectives: Target, motivation, tools of attack, domain, method of action, and impact. The conceptual framework describing the components of cyber terrorism is proposed in Figure 2.

The framework is dynamic in many aspects since the influential factors on the decision are based on all components within the framework. In other words, the framework suggests that all components contribute to the

decision-making process in order to determine whether someone gets involved in cyber terrorism or not. The authors suggest that the proposed framework presented here captures the important factors when considering that the perpetrator may combine these factors for conducting cyber terrorism. The components of cyber terrorism in this framework are bind together to form the concept of cyber terrorism. Therefore, we need to combine the components with conjunction "AND", which means that each of those components is necessary to constitute cyber terrorism. Otherwise, if one or more components are not provided, it would not constitute cyber terrorism.

Figure 2: Proposed cyber terrorism conceptual framework

A. Target Cyber terrorism is designed to foment terror or

demoralization among a target population, whereby Critical National Information Infrastructure computer system and civilian population contribute to the uniqueness of cyber terrorism as it combines a specific target with a wider audience. Cyber terrorism is the use of computer networks in order to harm human life or to sabotage critical national infrastructure in a way that may cause harm to human life. [36]. With the growing interconnectedness of critical infrastructures on ICT, the selection of a target that allows the maximum level of disruption would significantly influence the terrorists.

Brunst [37] discusses that there are three scenarios that could be taken into consideration; attacks on hydroelectric dams, tampering with railways and air traffic control system, and taking over control of power plants. His literature review provided excellent examples of terrorist attacks in these control systems, which generate fear within a population. Successful cyber attacks on these control systems certainly have long-term effect, create fear and pose immediate danger to human lives.

B. Motivation Perpetrators generally have multiple motives for

attacking targets. Cyber terrorism are associated with political, ideological and social motivation [38]. Through

C y b e r Te r r o r i s m

Target

Impa ct

Method of Action

Doma in

Tools of Atta ck

Motiva tion

Critical National Information Infrastructure computer systemCritical Infrastructure Civilian population

PoliticalIdeologicalSocial

Network warfarePsychological operation

Cyberspace

Unlawful means

Mass disruption or seriously interfere critical services operationCause fear, death or bodily injurySevere economic loss

Factor ‘AND’

these forces, terrorists are psychologically motivated to drive terrorism. Terrorist intentions are to undermine confidence in the political structure and create difficulty within the body politic. From the motivation perspective, cyber terrorism exists if the person or group of people operates with a specific political or ideological agenda to support their activities.

Cyber terrorism can be well understood by identifying the profile of actions or motivations that drive the action of the perpetrators. A politically motivated cyber attack, which results in a tremendous amount of fear and panic in the public, may well be characterized as cyber terrorism even though it does not lead to physical injury or death. Type of terrorism, including religion, have strong theological belief [39]. In the field of cyber terrorism, many look for it causes from surrounding context and underlying conflict such as social, politic and ideology aspects.

C. Tools of Attack One of the important aspects in method of attack is the

role of computer technology in carrying out the act of cyber terrorism. Cyber terrorist can exploit vulnerabilities through unauthorized access and control over a targeted system through a vast array of intrusive tools and techniques [25]. Veerasamy defines network warfare as a modern form of conflict in which computers and networks are used as the weapons with information serving as the leverage control [40]. Modern forms of network warfare include all the computer and network security means through which computers are attacked and exploited (worms, denial-of-service, bots) as well as all the protective mechanism being implemented (intrusion detection tools, anti-virus software and firewalls).

There has been ample research on individual characteristics, including psychological influences that contribute to a person's motivation for engaging in terrorist activity. Taliharm [41] suggests that the term cyber terrorism should also involve several other activities carried out by the terrorist via the Internet, including propaganda via terrorist websites. Web 2.0 media is an effective communication tool for information sharing and promoting of terrorist's activities [42]. Many researchers have proved that terrorists groups exploited the web for their organizations goals, to the extent that they managed to entice curiosity from the readers up to the point that they even managed to influence them. Many of the actors in foiled plots have been discovered to have been radicalized online, on terrorists’ and extremists’ websites and chat rooms, amongst others, to provide information on weapons and explosives and facilitate large-scale recruitment efforts and propaganda [43].

D. Domain Cyber terrorism is the convergence of cyberspace and

terrorism. Cyberspace, whether accessed by computer systems or other devices, is the domain (medium) through which a cyber attack would be delivered. The National Security Presidential Directive 54/Homeland Security Presidential Directive 23 of the US Government defines

cyberspace as the interdependent network of information technology infrastructures, which includes the Internet, telecommunications networks, computer systems, and embedded processors and controllers [44].

The UK Government defines cyberspace as an interactive domain that is made up of digital networks that is used to store, modify and communicate information. It includes the Internet, but also the other information systems that support our businesses, infrastructure and services [45]. Pollitt [22] defines cyberspace as the computers, networks, programs and data which make up the information infrastructure. In this definition, the Internet, computers and network are the subset of cyberspace. In the cyber context, cyberspace becomes the medium in which a terrorist-type attack is conducted [46].

E. Method of Action Flemming and Stohl [47] argue that, terrorism is a

process that involves acts or threats, emotional reactions and the social effects of the acts or threats and the resultant action. This implies that, cyber terrorism should focus on the act rather than the perpetrator. The advancement of ICT and rapid changing in technological environment influences terrorist resources and opportunities.

Cyber terrorists conduct unlawful use of force or unlawful attack to conduct the premeditated attack to intimidate or coerce a government or people. The impact or consequence is high as the attacks are done to intimidate the premeditated targets that lead to violence against persons or properties.

F. Impact Cyber terrorism exists when there is attack to computer

system which leads to violence against person or property, disruption or serious interference of critical services operation, causing fear, death or bodily injury and severe economic loss [47]. The disruption is enough to create impact to national security and public safety. Further, to qualify as cyber terrorism, attacks that lead to explosions, plane crashes, water contamination, or severe economic loss would be other examples. Serious attacks against critical infrastructures could be acts of cyber terrorism, depending on their impact [23].

With the growing interconnectedness and interdependencies of critical infrastructure sectors, the targeting selection of cyber terrorism is likely to be significantly influenced by those targets that allow for a maximum level of disruption [47]. Terrorist’s cyber attack probably aim critical infrastructure as their target. Successful cyber attack in one sector will have cascading effect to other sectors. Due to this nature, a large-scale terrorist-type cyber attack could bring unpredictable and perhaps catastrophic impact to other sectors, and possibly long lasting impact to the country’s economy.

VI. FUTURE WORKS ON DATA COLLECTION AND DATA ANALYSIS

For future works, it is recommended that a mixed method research is used in this study to validate the proposed

framework. A mixed method research involves both collecting and analyzing quantitative and qualitative data in sequential order. The first stage in the analysis cycle is to frame a theory or hypothesis from the literatures which can be used as initial guidance for data collection and data analysis. Once the theory or hypothesis has been generated, the researchers develop questionnaires to get in-depth understanding on the phenomena under investigation. Data collection is a semi-structured method by using in-depth interviews. Interviews are part of most interpretive studies and as a key way of accessing the interpretations of informants in the field [48]. Since the first stage is explanatory in nature, data analyses are done by using grounded theory approach. Qualitative research includes a variety of methodological approaches and one example is grounded theory [3]. As have been mentioned earlier, the phrase grounded theory refers to theory that is developed from a corpus of data through literatures, interviews and observations.

Figure 3. Framework for data collection and data analysis In the next stage, quantitative approach is applied to

corroborate the researcher's initial discovery. A survey with close-ended questions format are used for data collection to determine the views and opinions of the population that represents various groups in the society. In this phase, the researcher's goal is to test the theory or hypothesis, which finding is generalized from a larger representative sampling. Statistical analysis is performed to test the validity of the theory or hypothesis. The numerical findings help to interpret the results, where clearer interpretations of the statistical results are obtained. Figure 3 shows the summary on how the data are going to be collected and analyzed.

VII. CONCLUSION We believe that, the use of grounded theory method is

very useful for those who are starting a research project. One of the most important benefits of this method is the ability to derive empirical framework from and within the context of data collected. In this work, the data collected from the extensive literatures were analyzed to determine how the components are bind together to form the concept of cyber terrorism. As a result, the authors concluded that the concept of cyber terrorism can be described from six perspectives:

Target, motivation, tools of attack, domain, method of action, and impact.

The dynamic way in describing and defining core aspects of cyber terrorism is useful in understanding the context of cyber terrorism in a more holistic perspective. This paper provides a baseline when establishing and defining the concept of cyber terrorism. The conceptual framework suggests that all components contribute to the decision-making process in order to determine whether someone gets involved in cyber terrorism or not.

The finding of this work contributes as strategic input to the policy and decision makers in formulating and developing better policy and strategy to counter cyber terrorism. There is an ongoing need to conduct more strategic research to develop appropriate national regulatory and response measures to address threats caused by cyber terrorism. It is believed that, there could be a better way of addressing this threat by having legal interpretation that applies to the domestic and international laws. Establishing the legal nature of cyber terrorism is crucial in combating it through legal instrument, which is central to the international community’s fight against cyber terrorism. A better policy and strategy to counter cyber terrorism is the first line of deterrence in mitigating threats from cyber terrorism.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank Zaleha Abd Rahim of

CyberSecurity Malaysia who provided valuable input to this paper. The authors also would like to thank the Center for Advanced Computing Technology, Faculty of Information Technology and Communication, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM) that provided research grant for this project.

REFERENCES [1] D. E. Denning, “Activism, Hactivism and Cyberterorism: The

Internet as a Tool for Influencing Foreign Policy,” in Conference on The Internet and International System: Information Technology and American Policy Decision Making, 1999.

[2] R. Ahmad and Z. Yunos, “A Dynamic Cyber Terrorism Framework,” International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 149-158, 2012.

[3] D. R. Cooper and P. S. Schindler, Business Research Method. NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc, 2008.

[4] A. A. Singh, A. Urbano, M. Haston, and E. Mcmahan, “School Counselors’ Strategies for Social Justice Change�: A Grounded Theory of What Works in the Real World,” American School Counselor Association, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 135-145, 2010.

[5] J. W. Creswell, Qualitative Inquiry And Research Design: Choose Among Five Traditions. London: Sage Publications, 1998.

[6] D. Levy, “Qualitative Methodology and Grounded Theory in Property Research,” Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 369-388, 2006.

[7] M. Q. Paton, Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Second Edi. SAGE Publications, 1991.

[8] B. D. Haig, “Grounded Theory as Scientific Method,” in Philosophy of Education 1995�: Current Issues, no. 1, University of Illinois Press, 1996, pp. 281-290.

[9] G. A. Bowen, “Grounded Theory and Sensitizing Concepts,” International Journal of Qualitative Methods, pp. 12-22, 2006.

[10] J. Esteves, U. Politécnica, and J. Carvalho, “Use of Grounded Theory in Information Systems Area�: An Exploratory Analysis,” European

Data collection type: Data analysis type:

Questionnaires and semi-structured interview

Grounded theory

Questionnaires and structured

survey

Statistical analysis

Conduct data analysis on the context of cyber terrorism by

using grounded theory approach

STAGE 1

Conduct statistical analysis on the cyber terrorism

framework

STAGE 2

Data collection type: Data analysis type:

Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management, pp. 129-136, 2000.

[11] R. M. Frankel and K. J. Devers, “Study Design in Qualitative Research: Developing Questions and Assessing Resource Needs,” Education for Health (Abingdon, England), vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 251-61, Jan. 2000.

[12] R. Hoda, J. Noble, and S. Marshall, “Using Grounded Theory to Study the Human Aspects of Software Engineering,” in Proceeding HAoSE ’10 Human Aspects of Software Engineering, Nevada, USA, 17-21 Oct, 2010.

[13] R. J. Chenail, “Conducting Qualitative Data Analysis�: Qualitative Data Analysis as a Metaphoric Process,” The Qualitative Report, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 248-253, 2012.

[14] A. Tang, P. Avgeriou, A. Jansen, R. Capilla, and M. Ali Babar, “A Comparative Study of Architecture Knowledge Management Tools,” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 83, no. 3, pp. 352-370, Mar. 2010.

[15] T. M. Egan, “Grounded Theory Research and Theory Building,” in Advances in Developing Human Resources, vol. 4, no. 3, Sage Publications, 2002, pp. 277-295.

[16] M. Jones and I. Alony, “Guiding the Use of Grounded Theory in Doctoral Studies – An Example from the Australian Film Industry,” International Journal of Doctoral Studies, vol. 6, pp. 95-114, 2011.

[17] P. E. W. Onions, “Grounded Theory Applications in Reviewing Knowledge Management Literature,” Leeds Metropolitan University Innovation North Research Conference, pp. 1-20, 2006.

[18] H. Heath and S. Cowley, “Developing a Grounded Theory Approach: A Comparison of Glaser and Strauss,” International Journal of Nursing Studies, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 141-150, Feb. 2004.

[19] M. A. Jezewski, “Evolution of a Grounded Theory. Conflict Resolution through Cultural Brokering,” Advances in Nursing Science, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 14-30, 1995.

[20] B. Glasser and A. Strauss, “The Discovery of Grounded Theory,” in Strategies for Qualitative Research, New York: Aldine, 1967.

[21] W. Fernández, M. A. Martin, S. Gregor, S. E. Stern, and M. Vitale, “A Multi-Paradigm Approach to Grounded Theory,” in Information Systems Foundations: Theory, Representation and Reality, H. Dennis and S. Gregor, Eds. Australian National University, Canberra: ANU ePress, 2007, pp. 231-246.

[22] M. M. Pollitt, “Cyberterrorism — Fact or Fancy?,” Computer Fraud & Security, no. 2, pp. 8-10, 1998.

[23] D. E. Denning, “Cyberterrorism,” Testimony given to the House Armed Services Committee Special Oversight Panel on Terrorism, May 23, 2000.

[24] K. Kerr, “Putting Cyberterrorism into Context,” The Journal of The System Administrators Guild of Australia, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 5-10, 2003.

[25] C. Beggs, “Cyber-Terrorism in Australia,” IGI Global, pp. 108-113, 2008.

[26] G. Ariely, “Knowledge Management, Terrorism and Cyber Terrorism,” in Cyber Warfare and Cyber Terrorism, L. J. Janczewski and A. M. Corarik, Eds. Hersey, New York: Information Science Reference, 2008.

[27] B. Mantel, “Terrorism and the Internet. Should Web Sites That Promote Terrorism Be Shut Down?,” CQ Researcher, pp. 129-152, 2009.

[28] K. Mshvidobadze, “State-sponsored Cyber Terrorism�: Georgia’s Experience,” Presentation to the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies, pp. 1-7, 2011.

[29] M. Conway, “Against Cyberterrorism,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 54, no. 2, p. 26, Feb. 2011.

[30] S. T. Dang, “The Prevention of Cyberterrorism and Cyberwar,” in Old Dominion University Model United Nations Conference (ODUMUNC), 2011, pp. 1-6.

[31] M. Dogrul, A. Aslan, and E. Celik, “Developing an International Cooperation on Cyber Defense and Deterrence against Cyber

Terrorism,” in 2011 3rd International Conference on Cyber Conflict, Tallinn, Estonia, 7-10 June, 2011, pp. 1-15.

[32] Z. Yunos, S. H. Suid, R. Ahmad, and Z. Ismail, “Safeguarding Malaysia’s Critical National Information Infrastructure (CNII) Against Cyber Terrorism: Towards Development of a Policy Framework,” in IEEE Sixth International Conference on Information Assurance & Security, Atlanta, GA, 23-25 Aug, 2010, pp. 21-27.

[33] P. A. H. Williams, “Information Warfare: Time for a Redefinition,” in Proceedings of the 11th Australian Information Warfare & Security Conference, Perth Western, Australia, 30 Nov - 2 Dec, 2010, pp. 37-44.

[34] C. Czosseck, R. Ottis, and A. M. Taliharm, “Estonia after the 2007 Cyber Attacks: Legal, Strategic and Organisational Changes in Cyber Security,” International Journal of Cyber Warfare and Terrorism, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 24-34, 2011.

[35] J. Matusitz, “Social Network Theory: A Comparative Analysis of the Jewish Revolt in Antiquity and the Cyber Terrorism Incident over Kosovo,” Information Security Journal: A Global Perspective, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 34-44, Feb. 2011.

[36] A. Cohen, “Cyberterrorism�: Are We Legally Ready?,” The Journal of International Business & Law, pp. 1-40, 2010.

[37] P. W. Brunst, “Terrorism and the Internet: New Threats Posed by Counterterrorism and Terrorist Use of the Internet,” pp. 51-79, 2010.

[38] M. D. Cavelty, “Critical Information Infrastructure: Vulnerabilities, Threats and Responses,” ICTs and International Security, pp. 15-22, 2007.

[39] N. Veerasamy, “Motivation for Cyberterrorism,” 9th Annual Information Security South Africa (ISSA) - Towards New Security Paradigms, p. 6, 2010.

[40] N. Veerasamy and J. H. P. Eloff, “Application Of Non-Quantitative Modelling In The Analysis Of A Network Warfare Environment,” in World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology Conference, Paris, France, 2008.

[41] A. M. Taliharm, “Emerging Security Challenges and Cyber Terrorism,” Digital Development Debates #5 Securing Peace #Future Wars, 2011. [Online]. Available: http://www.digital-development-debates.org/05-securing-peace/future-wars.html. [Accessed: 19-Mar-2012].

[42] J. Rollins and C. Wilson, “Terrorist Capabilities for Cyberattack: Overview and Policy Issues,” CRS Report for Congress, 2007.

[43] The Lipman Report Editors, “Cyberterrorism: The Invisible Threat Stealth Cyber Predators in a Climate of Escalating Risk,” Guardsmark, LLC, Memphis, Tennessee, USA. 2010.

[44] United States of America, “Cyberspace Policy Review�: Assuring a Trusted and Resilient Information and Communication Infrastructure,” 2009. [Online]. Available: http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Cyberspace_Policy_Review_final.pdf. [Accessed: 19-Mar-2012].

[45] UK Cabinet Office, “The UK Cyber Security Strategy - Protecting and Promoting the UK in a Digital World,” 2011. [Online]. Available: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/The UK Cyber Security Strategy- web ver.pdf. [Accessed: 19-Mar-2012].

[46] Y. Li, “National Information Infrastructure Security and Cyber Terrorism in the Process of Industrializations,” in Proceeding of the IEEE Computer Society, 2009, pp. 532-535.

[47] P. Flemming and M. Stohl, “Myths and Realities of Cyberterrorism,” Proceeding on Countering Terrorism through Enhanced International Cooperation, pp. 70-105, 2000.

[48] G. Walsham, “Doing Interpretive Research,” European Journal of Information Systems, no. 15, pp. 320-330, 2006.