Cybersecurity and the Threat of State-Sponsored Cyberattacks
Assignment Brief
PS 6110: Update on assignments
Please note that you have a choice regarding how to proceed.
White paper or policy memorandum: Research and compose a policy-oriented document that clearly assesses a real-world problem or issue in the area of international security. The goal of this assignment is to practice producing a highly readable and easily digestible analysis of a problem and recommendations for how best to address it. Your white paper or policy memo should be rooted in insights drawn from relevant scholarship, with a special emphasis on empirical evidence that helps readers understand, assess, and respond to the problem at hand.
The completed document should be roughly 2,500–3,000 words of narrative text and may include tables, graphs, charts, maps, or other forms of data visualization as supplements to the text, provided that all sources are carefully cited and documented. Factual information may be drawn from high-quality newspapers and periodicals, think-tank publications, and the like, but these sorts of materials are not by themselves sufficient – your work must also engage with and use relevant scholarly sources. A complete draft of the document will be due by Friday 9 November, and a revised, final version is due Tuesday, 4 December. We will emphasize the importance and functionality of the revision process, both to improve the substance and style of the draft. This does NOTmean you should deliberately do poor or sloppy work on the draft!
NEW: Please be advised that students may, if they wish, COMBINE the policy project and the literature review assignment(see below for original description of literature review). Here are the parameters/ground rules:
- Note first that the original policy memo/white paper project did not require an explicit literature review. It asked only that the document “should be rooted in insights drawn from relevant scholarship,” and “your work must also engage with and use relevant scholarly sources.” My initial expectation was that such insights (perhaps just two or three such insights!) would be seamlessly incorporated into the text of the document. This expectation stands for those students who decide to complete the policy and literature review assignments separately.
Briefing: In addition to the written policy document, you will be asked to provide the class with a briefing concerning your subject. Initial remarks are limited to 12-15 minutes and will be followed by a question-and-answer period. PowerPoint slides are strongly encouraged, but note that the instructor will provide strict guidelines regarding their use. If necessary, a handout may be prepared and circulated among classmates, but a handout is not a replacement for a thoughtfully prepared, rehearsed, and well-executed oral briefing. More information about how to structure such a briefing will be provided via email.
Blog post or op-ed: In addition to the more extensive policy document, you will be asked to prepare a short-format assignment that speaks to a broad audience about the issue or problem you have researched. By convention, op-eds and blog posts should rarely exceed 800 words; yours should be roughly 600-700 words. Since, as Bret Stephens writes in the New York Times, “authority matters” when trying to publish an op-ed, student writers who have no credentialed expertise or name recognition “are likelier to get published by following an 80-20 rule: 80 percent new information; 20 percent opinion.” So: focus on the facts and on citing recognized authorities when building your case.
Literature review: Conduct a critical review of the literature on a well-defined theoretical question relating to a subject concerning war or international security (broadly construed). The review should be focused, well-organized, and prepared in an academic style, with thoroughgoing documentation of sources, quoted passages, and specific ideas and evidence drawn from the source materials.
Sample Answer
Cybersecurity and the Threat of State-Sponsored Cyberattacks
Executive Summary
The global security landscape has evolved far beyond traditional warfare. The rapid rise of state-sponsored cyberattacks has blurred the boundaries between espionage, conflict, and diplomacy. In the past decade, cyber operations have become critical tools of statecraft, allowing nations to disrupt economies, manipulate information, and undermine public trust without engaging in direct military confrontation.
This policy paper explores the scale and nature of state-sponsored cyber threats, analyses their impact on national and international security, and provides evidence-based policy recommendations to strengthen resilience and deterrence mechanisms. Drawing on scholarly and policy research, it argues that cyber deterrence must be reimagined through international cooperation, improved attribution capabilities, and public-private partnerships.
Introduction
The twenty-first century has redefined the nature of conflict. While conventional wars remain a possibility, digital warfare has emerged as a silent but pervasive threat. Cyberattacks no longer target only military networks but also critical civilian infrastructures such as energy grids, healthcare systems, and financial networks.
The 2017 WannaCry and NotPetya attacks, widely attributed to North Korean and Russian actors respectively, demonstrated how state-sponsored cyber operations can cause billions in damage globally within hours (Nakashima, 2018). Similarly, the 2020 SolarWinds breach highlighted how sophisticated cyber espionage can infiltrate even the most secure government systems.
The core question this paper seeks to answer is: How can governments mitigate the growing threat of state-sponsored cyberattacks while preserving democratic openness and technological innovation?
Human and Organisational Factors Behind Cyber Vulnerability
While technology is central to cybersecurity, human and organisational factors often determine the success or failure of cyber defence. Studies show that over 80 percent of cyber incidents result from human error or social engineering (Verizon, 2023). Organisational cultures that undervalue cybersecurity awareness contribute significantly to vulnerability.
Public-sector agencies, in particular, often struggle with legacy systems and fragmented security frameworks. Decentralised networks across departments create inconsistencies in patching, access control, and incident response. Furthermore, the shortage of skilled cybersecurity professionals exacerbates these weaknesses.
State-sponsored actors exploit these human and structural flaws through advanced persistent threats (APTs) that remain undetected for months. The SolarWinds case revealed how a single compromised software update can infiltrate multiple government and corporate systems. Hence, cybersecurity must be viewed not just as a technological challenge but as an issue of governance, accountability, and training.
The Nature of State-Sponsored Cyber Threats
Objectives and Tactics
State-sponsored cyber operations serve multiple purposes: espionage, sabotage, disinformation, and coercion. Unlike criminal hackers, nation-state actors often pursue strategic goals aligned with geopolitical objectives.
Espionage-oriented campaigns, such as China’s APT10 operation, aim to steal intellectual property and trade secrets. Sabotage-driven attacks, such as the Stuxnet worm that disrupted Iran’s nuclear programme, illustrate how cyber tools can physically damage infrastructure. Disinformation campaigns, most notably during the 2016 US presidential election, showcase how cyber operations can erode democratic institutions and social trust.
Attribution Dilemma
One of the major challenges in cyber conflict is attribution, identifying who is responsible. States can easily disguise their digital footprints, using proxies and false flags to create plausible deniability. This complicates the enforcement of international norms and makes retaliation risky.
Scholars such as Nye (2017) argue that cyber deterrence is weakened by the “attribution problem,” as states are less likely to respond decisively without certainty about the attacker’s identity. This uncertainty encourages opportunistic aggression and erodes the credibility of traditional deterrence models.
Continued...
