Subject: IW Mailing List history/951129
From: "Beth Binde" 
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 23:08:01 -0500
Subject: Definition of War

"Information War" means the day-to-day struggle to stay one step ahead of
the hackers and wannabes who attach the systems for which I am responsible. 

Beth E. Binde, Systems Programmer, Instructional Computing Initiative
Rutgers University Computing Services, Piscataway, NJ 08855-0879 USA  
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 07:31:51 -0500
From: (AWC, Operations Group)


My concept of IW...I don't think I've ever attempted to put the WHOLE
enchilada into words.  Lets see...  one of the three pillars of future
warfare (the others being dominating maneuver and precision
strike)...not discrete enough...all aspects of gaining dominance on
current or anticipated opponents by obtaining an advantage in the quest
for information, both his and your own...or how about the ability to
make decisions and create actions at all levels of warfare (strategic,
operational, tactical) before the enemy by the use of offensive and
defensive measures in communication and information.

These as you can tell are pie in the sky thoughts.  In reality it apears
that the Joint Staff is making IW a catch all for everything that has to
do with C4I, EW, PSYOPS, Space warfare, deception, security, and
anything else (like cyberwar) that they don't know where to catagorize. 
It has clearly become a beheamoth, a multi-headed monster that we are
attempting to slay all at one time, instead of the way we used to do it,
by individual category.  All levels of warfare have different aspects of
IW...strategic contains more of the politico-economic big picture
spectrum, while tactical is concerned with day to day life of the
fighting forces.  Clearly in order to fight an information war all the
participants need to be on the same sheet of music, which currently is
not the case.

I know there are those who are attempting to write the music,(like NDU
and the Air Force Air War College) but there is a whole lot more work to
do.  And this is just for the military side of the equation.  We haven't
even started to work the political spectum yet, although there is
rumbling in that direction. 

Bill Waddell
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 12:21:19 +0000 (GMT)
From: Ken Dark 

My interests in IW--and this list-- are ...  academic, and concentrate
on the `what', `how' and `why' questions of the non-technical side of
field: especially the role of IW in transforming the character of war
after the Cold War and its implications for strategic theory. 
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 95 16:22:24 EST
From: "Phil Tucker" 

My concept of IW:

Measures taken by our forces by turning to friendly advantage or
negating adversary efforts to deny information to, influence, degrade,
or destroy friendly systems. 

Thank You.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 08:57:01 -0500
From: (Craig Rabb)
Subject: [C4I-Pro] Definition of IW

Cross posted FYI from:
  ______________________________ Forward Header
  Subject: [C4I-Pro] Definition of IW
  Author:  winn@Infowar.Com at internet-pmsw
  Date:    11/28/95 2:33 PM

I cannot help but enter this fray of the definition of IW - if in fact
there is one.  With all due respect to the military, the typical IW
definition is somewhat limiting:
	- They tend to be agenda/budget driven, with each service and
department seeking a definition that will serve their survival and
longevity.  Understandable, but that doesn't solve the issue. 
	- The current definition streams are highly militaristic in
nature, and many of us have come to realize that IW does not necessarily
imply nor require any military involvement.  That is not to say it
shouldn't, but that's today, not 6 or 12 months from now. 
I offered a definition of IW in my book "Information Warfare" that I
believe (and there a wide breadth of supporters) is non-partisan nor
agency/service agneda driven, and still permits a wide latitude of
interpretation and participation.  To be so bold as to offer it here:
"Information warfare is the use of information and information systems
as both offensive and defensive tools (weapons) against adversaries."
The point here is that information alone (psyops) is a subset of IW,
just as is hacking and the whole host of offensive and defensive
techniques I have outlined in my works.  Further, this definition allows
non-military actors on the IW stage - as any good IW definition must. 
The industrial and economic spies who, whether as independants or as
representatives of nation-states, attack our economic national assets
can well be considered information warriors; perhaps more so than the
field soldier who is equipped with 60 pounds of sophisticated equipment. 
His interest is still aiming and shooting bombs and bullets. 
Further, the exploitation of computer systems and their contents does
not require a military presence- but can be just as devastating if
properly (sic) handled.  Consider the release of large amounts of
private data on German officials and their activities when the country
was split into two.  No matter the perpetrator, the effects are
Simply, any IW definition that requires military involvement, in my
humble opinion, is self-limiting.  You just don't need bombs and bullets
for the kinds of IW I have postulated and described to be effective.  In
fact, bombs and bullets can be considered anathema to effective IW. 
The SecDef has issued a definition of IW which is closer to mine than
many others suggest:
Information Warfare is .  .  ." .  .  .  actions taken to preserve the
integroty of ones own information systems from exploitation, corruption
or destruction, while at the same time exploiting, corrupting, or
destroying an adversary's information systems and in the process
achieving an information advantage in the application of force."
My only substantive differentiation would be that the application of
force is not necessary for pure information warfare, but given the
Pentagon wants to stay in business, I will let that slip.  :-) (A joke,
guys, a joke!)
Many of the military and the Beltway Bandits are using IW as budgetary
magnet- and that's fine.  However, we should maintain vigilence that
their aims are no more than a new generation of fancy technology whose
essential goal is to make killing and destroying things easier and safer
for The Good Guys. 
The application of advanced integrated technology is good; it is
necessary for the US to maintain a commanding lead and field efficiency;
it is politically palatable since it alleges (and seems to have been
proved) to reduce Good Guy fatalies. 
But it's not Information Warfare. 
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 17:14:37 +0100
From: Torsten Sturm 

As intellegence agencies all over the world are moving their fields of
work, information warfare is just here. 

German foreign intelligence agency is reported to have established a
complete new department just for exploiting electronic information in
foreign countries, if necessary, by breaking into sites. 

InfoSec webpage :
From: John Young 
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 10:30:48 -0500

"CIA, Pentagon Back NIMA 'Concept' Combining Spy Satellite Photo Units."

The Pentagon and the CIA announced an agreement yesterday endorsing the
"concept" of consolidating eight defense and intelligence agencies --
those responsible for managing spy satellite photos and related tasks --
into a new National Imagery and Mapping Agency. 

Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 13:14:25 -0500 (EST)
From: John Howard 

My research is on "Information Infrastructure Defense and National
Security." I am concentrating on one aspect of Information Warfare: To
what extent is information infrastructure defense a national security
issue, and what government policies are appropriate to ensure this
infrastructure is properly defended?

My research is in three phases: 1) a review of current information
warfare concepts, 2) the development of a taxonomy of information
infrastructure attacks, and 3) an analysis of Internet security
incidents.  The Internet incident data is from the records of the
Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT), which has been responsible for
incident response on the Internet for the last 7 years. 

 John Howard          Dept of Engr & Public Policy  (412) 268-3006  Carnegie Mellon Univ, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Date: 29 Nov 1995 11:14:42 U
From: "Trolan, Steve" 

In regards to your query of my concept of infowar, breifly, is the
exploitation of any/all vulnerabilities of the internet in waging 'war'
on society, governments, industries, or corporations. 
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 09:37:00 SST
My understanding of Information Warfare : 
Use of information as a weapon to wage war, which can be physical,
economic, political, social, racial, religious etc. 
With the emergence of Internet and the information superhighway, IW can
become a *serious* global issue. 

    - Johnny