14 DAY TRIAL // In a study conducted on behalf of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), two high profile UK computer scientists concluded that current cyberwar fears are unfounded and the term itself is misused.
The report [pdf] was written by Peter Sommer, visiting professor at the London School of Economics and Dr. Ian Brown, from Oxford University's Internet Institute.
For one, the two experts decry the use of the term "cyberwar" to describe cyberattacks that should not be covered by a correct definition.
"We don't help ourselves using 'cyberwar' to describe espionage or hacktivist blockading or defacing of websites, as recently seen in reaction to WikiLeaks.
"Nor is it helpful to group trivially avoidable incidents like routine viruses and frauds with determined attempts to disrupt critical national infrastructure," the researchers say.
They claim the term "cyberwar" is intentionally loosely used by suppliers that stand to gain from related hype and panic.
"A pure cyberwar, that is one fought solely with cyber-weapons, is unlikely," they stress. However, they do admit that armed conflicts will likely be accompanied by cyberattacks.
"On the other hand in nearly all future wars as well as the skirmishes that precede them policymakers must expect the use of cyberweaponry as a disrupter or force multiplier, deployed in conjunction with more conventional kinetic weaponry," the scientists write.
The real danger is that by focusing on preparing for a possible cyberwar, government and businesses are loosing sight of the more common, but more important threats, like DDoS or spear phishing attacks.
Compiling data about these varied threats into a single statistic is also a bad approach that could generate misleading conclusions. The accuracy of estimated losses is also suffering because of such reports.
"If appropriate contingency plans are in place, information systems can support the management of other systemic risks," the two scientists conclude.