CRJ300X/CRJ307 Homeland Security & Counter Terrorism

3 Credit Hours

Instructor: Associate Professor, Randall K Nichols
Office: Hubbard B-4
Email: rnichols@utica.edu
Phone: 315-223-2501
Office Hours: 0930 – 1700 M-F and by appointment

Prerequisites: None.Student must know Microsoft PowerPoint 2003 or 2007 software. This course is Utica College WebCT facilitated and integrated with Face-To-Face (F2F) study. Students will be expected to use the online component often during this class for announcements, postings, bullets, PowerPoints (PPT) and exams.

Course Description

Examines America’s national critical infrastructures and their relationships to one-another, and issues pertaining to safeguarding and managing these infrastructures under serious threat.  Analyzes key asset identification, threat and vulnerability, and studies counterterrorism technologies for their ability to support planning, mitigation, response, recovery, prediction and defense.

Objectives / Learning Outcomes

There are three core elements of knowledge required for understanding the challenge of protecting the U.S. Homeland: 1) the evolution of the homeland security threats and responses before and after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks; 2) the nature of the threat; and the response to the threat, i.e. the contemporary organization, principles, and practices that govern U.S. Homeland security activities at the federal, state, and local level as in the private sector. Of special management concern is the deployment of national assets into critical infrastructure sectors (CIS) and their protection against terrorist threats.

There are two main objectives for addressing the core knowledge requirements (supra). They are:

1. To develop relevant theoretical knowledge, employ strategic and tactical skills, and demonstrate cooperative leadership in solving problems of homeland security,
2. To explore interrelationships among national critical infrastructure sectors and their asymmetric affects in cyberspace.

Students completing this course will possess an introductory level skill set to:

1. Synthesize a broad-based knowledge of homeland security issues with government policies, procedures and strategies.
2. Think asymmetrically, i.e. students develop effective and innovative strategies for rapid, creative responses to homeland crises. They accomplish this by using research skills, knowledge of homeland security issues, policies, procedures and team creativity to respond wisely to unexpected simulated emergencies.
3. Demonstrate leadership in work collaboratively in the preparation for, protection against, and response to national, state and local crises based on a comprehensive knowledge of systems, relationships and research in homeland security and related areas.
4. Prepare “on-target”, executive PowerPoint situation reports that: 1) focus on key CIS issues and joint dependencies / vulnerabilities and 2) recommend required short- and long-term actions.

Textbooks (Required)

Sauter, M. A., & Carafano, J. J. (2005) Homeland Security: A Complete Guide to Understanding, Preventing, and Surviving Terrorism. New York: McGraw Hill.

Boltz, F., Dudonis, K. J., & Schultz, D. (2005) The Counterterrorism Handbook: Tactics, Procedures, & Techniques. Boca, Raton, FL: CRC, Taylor & Francis. ISBN: 0-8493-3023-8.

Evers, D., Miller, M. & Glover, T. (2005) Pocket Partner, 4th Ed. Littleton, CO: Sequoia.

Case Studies (Material will be taken from these readings and be available via Frank E Gannett Library on reserve)

Howard, R., Forest, J. & Moore, J. (2006) Homeland Security and Terrorism: Readings and Interpretations. New York: McGraw Hill.

Kamien, D. G. (2006) The McGraw Hill Homeland Security Handbook: The Definitive Guide for Law Enforcement, EMT, and all other Security Professionals. New York: McGraw Hill.

Laqueur, W. (Ed.). (2004). Voices of terror: Manifestos, writings and manuals of Al Qaeda, Hamas, and other terrorists from around the world and throughout the ages. New York: Reed Press.

Web Site

A wealth of supplementary information for our course is available at www.infosec-technologies.com. Material downloaded must be appropriately attributed to contributors in all team / individual papers.

Course Deliverables

Exams. There will be a written midterm coving the textbook materials and lectures. The final exam will be replaced by a significant team PPT presentation.   

Case Studies Team PowerPoint Presentations. Three (3) PowerPoint presentations will be due during the semester covering homeland security issues relevant to four historical events. (50 slides minimum, no maximum.) Students will be expected to present their Case study PPTS and post them individually in new threads, and discussions about them on the WebCT CRJ 300 / CRJ 307 course shell.

CIS Collaborative Team PowerPoint Presentations. Three (3) PowerPoint presentations will be due covering issues relevant to four interrelated CIS. Students must flesh out the co-dependencies, interrelationships, sector threats, vulnerabilities, cross-impact and potential countermeasures. Understanding the joint relationships between the CIS elements is a core-learning objective. Teams will pick three of four possible CIS studies to present. (75 slides minimum, no maximum.) Students will be expected to present their CIS PPTS and post them individually in new threads, and discussions about them on the WebCT CRJ 300 / CRJ 307 course shell.

Final: A semester-long collaborative research PowerPoint Presentation covering a hypothetical A/D (Attack/Defense with After-Action Reporting) scenario will be required to demonstrate collaborative skills and asymmetric responses to national crises and terrorist threat. This is the big bang for the buck project. (100 slides minimum, no maximum.) Students will be expected to present their team final and post it and discussions about it on the WebCT CRJ 300 / CRJ 307 course shell.

Participation. Students are expected to prepare for each class meeting and vigorously participate in the weekly homework discussion conferences. Questions based on the weekly lecturette and assigned text readings require students to contribute regularly. A rubric for participation in either Face-to-Face or Online format is available as a benchmark. Participation can also be gained by submitting webliography or resource URLs of general interest via WebCT course shell.

Bullets. Each week, students will prepare short, relevant, current bullets (brief written summaries or use the article itself from online reference but cut it down to core) pertaining to this course: e.g., national crises, terror incidents, terror groups, accidents, natural disasters, maritime incidents or piracy, political or infrastructure news, LEO actions, civil / criminal actions, health issues, open intelligence, BW/CW rulings, CIS sector news, Patriot Act, NSA, CIA, WH, laws or rulings of interest; URLS, security events, interesting IT/ INFOSEC finds, agency news or actions, or webliography items. Students will be expected to present bullets at every class meeting and post their bullets on the WebCT CRJ 300 / CRJ 307 course shell.

Chapter Quizzes. Executed sparingly and randomly, students may expect a few in-class written chapter quizzes to make sure the assigned reading is being done.

The Anti-Virus Bullet Rule and Considerations

Bullets need to be focused, fact-based, and supported by a reasonable source. They need to show me that you think about the material presented. Bosses will use this technique often. Best guess thinking, aka Delta approach. They should include: 1) Issue in the form of a question; 2) A SHORT, in your words, if possible, discussion of the issue; 3) Applicable laws or rules or best practices; 4) Conclusion based on the evidence presented and 5) Spellchecked.

They should not include: 1) Feeling statements. Investigators should not put their feelings into evidentiary issues; 2) long winded “shotguns” about everything you could find at the source but no real substance; 3) clear Bravo Sierra. I read them all. 4) Must not break the AV / AS rule below. Consider this POISON to your grade; 5) Not use the word UTILIZE. The correct word in every language is USE; 6) Use the Bullet forum only for Bullets not personal issues that should be discussed with your TL or in the Student Kiosk; 7) Duplicated, if possible. Check the board first before posting; 8) Single-sourced. Learn to expand your comfort zone and read other media to get information. It doesn’t matter if you agree with it politically. It might be accurate.

Virus bullets (and AV product news) do not count. Duplicate bullets do not count. There are quality bullets and there are not so quality ones. There are A bullets which go directly to the gradebook in your favor. There are 2 conditions I look for in addition to the quality of Bullets: 1) currency [bullets should be not more than 7-days old or if older, need to be updated with a current reference on the same subject] and 2) bullets about viruses or malicious software in any form, including spyware, bots, webbugs, Trojans, rootkits, worms, computer programs to stop them, script kiddies, AV company information, new marketing program signatures or even legal stuff about them are boring information and should be avoided, like poison. There are literally hundreds of homeland security /risk assessment events happening around the world; INFOSEC newsletters, newspapers, formal /informal initiatives, CT resources that provide raw high-grade material for bullets.

The general format for a Bullet is: Author & Source, first; Title, second; Summary, third; and your Opinion or Conclusions, last. Online students are not only expected to post their own bullets each week, they are expected to comment on two of their classmate’s bullets. (A FAQ in the Student Kiosk has a detailed description about the Bullets requirement and the AV limitation.)

Bullets are an (INDIVIDUAL) grade differentiator!

PowerPoint Presentations (F2F & Online) ALL PowerPoint Presentations, papers and case studies must be available to the instructor in electronic form on a memory stick, CDROM or floppy disk or posted to the appropriate conference (Online). It is helpful for teams to pass out / or post a 2-page After-Action Report (AAR) using your PPTs to the class for the two collaborative asymmetric research presentations. (F2F & Online)

Grading

A student’s final grade will be determined as follows:

A. Final: Team collaborative PowerPoint Presentation-- 25%
B. Three (3) Team Case Studies PowerPoint Presentations--15%
C. Three (3) Team CIS Sector PowerPoint Presentations-- 20%
D. Midterm (written covering Lecture and textbook materials)--20%
E. Bullets, Participation, webliography, chapter quizzes and active responses to discussion questions in class or online -- 20%
F. Total = 100%

Where: A (90-100%); B (80-90%); C (70-79%); F (<70%)

Note 1: Each team member earns the same grade on collaborative work subject to the OPTIONAL P2P (Peer-to-Peer) review process. The P2P process is formal. I discourage its use because I would rather see teams work out their differences internally. In my teaching career, the submission of P2Ps is low. Peer pressure can be very effective to improve communications. (Online students: See Student Kiosk for a FAQ regarding P2Ps)

Note 2: Participation credit for chats, discussions, email, etc off the Utica WebCT resource is not given, unless a raw copy of the chat / discussions / email are posted to the public view.

Note 3: Teams are encouraged to use the collaborative functions provided by Yahoo messenger: Webcam, Voice, IM, SMS, and Joint Conferencing. My Yahoo ID = profrknichols. My computer inbound is 315-207-4825.

Teams

Team Emphasis (F2F &Online) Note, in all of my classes; there is a significant emphasis on teamwork. Choose your teammates and team leader carefully. Counter-Terrorism / Homeland Security / Information security / Forensics Investigation challenges are handled well through teamwork and joint knowledge.

TEAMS are SELF- DIRECTED and SELF-POLICEING.

The Team Leader coordinates the projects, is responsible for the presentations and / or papers due, resolves differences, encourages participation, facilitates and checks for spelling, and writing flow of the resulting work, insures that best work is produced. Team Leaders are the liaison with me and I fully support his/her actions.
 
The Team Leader is in charge and is responsible for the delivery of the assignments. It is incumbent and responsibility of the teams to support the person they chose. Frankly, the team grade depends on it. Be professional. Let your team leader know if you are going to miss a class or be late on a team assignment. This way someone on your team can cover for you.
 
Teams are generally broken down into an attack and defense sub-teams of 2 or 3. One side chooses the attack side (the good guys, who are tasked to investigate the bad guys and participate in the attacking a National Critical Infrastructure / CIS according to a plan. The defense side of the scenario (bad guys must not only figure out how do the terrorism /crime but also how to stop the good guys from finding EVIDENCE to put them in jail or finding them at all.
 
The bad guys (the Defense side of the A/D) are not stupid. They must also have a plan to hide evidence of their intensions. Use cryptography or steganography if you like. Set malware traps, set hardware traps, prevent the viewing of data, hide files, put in spiders and self-destroys. The cleverer the bad guys plan, the tougher the attack team will have to work.
 
The third part of the analysis is the After Action Report (AAR) (generally 3-4 slides), which is where the team as whole collaborates on the project. They compare notes. They share findings, tools, details. They present their JOINT conclusions on what part of the attack(s) worked and what didn't. Lastly, mitigation (if possible) of those differences is presented. When you look at both sides of the terrorism or criminal enterprise, you will do a better job of getting the evidence you need that will hold up in courts. Go unprepared and watch what the defense lawyers do to you in cross-examination. 

The object of the A/D scenario is to change the ISSUES and to recognize how to mitigate the threats poised to our Homeland.
 
All team-members earn the SAME grade subject to the P2P evaluations procedure discussed below.

It is helpful to think of the A/D plans in terms of Risk. Risk = Threats X Impact X Vulnerabilities / Countermeasures. [This is the Ryan-Nichols equation] It may be used either quantitatively or qualitatively. Threats, vulnerabilities, impact and countermeasures may be seen as singular (for Case studies where students are focused on just one area of attack or multi-dimensional (CIS studies) where co-factors are in play in several areas of attack.

Class Case studies, CIS presentations, Midterm & Finals will be presented using the “Magic” FIRC method of briefing:

> Facts
> Issues
> Relationships, Laws or Rules
> Conclusions (and Recommendations)

Where: Facts are those gleaned from the case itself. Stick to the important stuff.
 
Where: ISSUES revolve around Information Security / Computer Forensics core problems / Risk, Threats, Vulnerability, Impact and Countermeasures applied. Issues should be presented in the form of questions (similar to scientific hypotheses) and are normally limited to three. Each Issue chosen requires a discussion. Each issue is generally addressed in the A/D scenario. Issues are the heart of the procedure.
 
Where: Rules or Relationships may be best information security practices, computer forensics crime scene investigative standards or legal codes. This is the glue that holds addressed information security and computer investigative forensics issues together logically.
 
Where: Conclusions and Recommendations are the team's applications of the practices, rules or relationships to the information security / computer forensics issues claimed based on the facts of the case. BUT the conclusions we seek are the joint team conclusions from the A/D scenario that the team has “played” to change the case study results.
 
The A/D scenario Analysis is an asymmetric process of investigation of two sides of a terrorist problem. The presentation of the A/D is melded into a fixed format called FIRC, above. The Steps are:

1. Read the case or CIS;
2. Glean the facts;
3. Determine what laws, rules or relationships apply;
4. Determine the ISSUES as the team sees them, not necessarily as they are presented in the case or CIS. Be careful about dimensionality. Cases are usually concerned with one area of security (ex: port security). CIS studies are concern with multiple dimensionalities (example: shutting down the power grid effects at least six national critical infrastructure sectors.)
5. Challenge the ISSUES individually with an A/D per issue. Look at both sides holistically (good guys/ bad guys) and ask how the appropriate use of technology could have made a difference to either side. Do this by separating the team into members covering only the attack and only the defense.
6. Be concerned with Risk and its mitigation.
7. The team lead coordinates the activity and at the end brings the two sub teams back for a comparison on notes. These notes become the Conclusions in FIRC. It may also take the form of the AAR.

Course Content

Our CRJ 307 textbook and course is organized into three learning modules. Module 1 covers how we got here from there, outlining America’s traditional approach to domestic security, the evolution of an unprecedented terrorist threat that led to the September 11, 2001 attacks, and the nation’s response to the events of 9/11.

Module 2 offers an overview of contemporary terrorists – who they are, what they want, and how they operate. Module 2 is concerned with “knowing the enemy.” This knowledge is essential to understanding the challenge of homeland security. It is the driving force for the massive response and reorganization of functions by the U.S government in half a century.

Module 3 describes all the critical elements of the present homeland security regime. Knowing the enemy is not good enough; good security requires “knowing yourself” as well. In respect to homeland security, good security requires understanding the roles and responsibilities of government officials, public servants, businesses, and average citizens.

It is in Module 3 that we are concerned with the CIS concept but also the critical relationships and dependencies of each CIS on each other. Module 3 covers a range of issues from national security and public preparedness to business continuity and disaster recovery. Many of the efforts to fight, protect against, and respond to terrorism are “all hazards.” The process is useful for addressing many of the natural and man-made (technological) disasters, national security threats, and law enforcement challenges that affect public safety.

Each lecture supporting the three Modules will include: Chapter Summary and Overview; Chapter Learning Objectives; Chapter Outline; Chapter PowerPoint’s; Chapter Quiz; “From the Source Feature;” Issues; Readings; References and Web resources; and suggestions for inclusion into the students final project.

Course Schedule

Course Policies and Procedures

Grading:

According to Utica College Undergraduate School grading policy, the following symbols are used: A = excellent; B = good; C = passing; and F = failure.

The grade of B represents the benchmark for the Utica College. It indicates that the student has demonstrated competency in the subject matter of the course, e.g., has fulfilled all course requirements on time, has a clear grasp of the full range of course materials and concepts, and is able to present and apply these materials and concepts in clear, well reasoned, well-organized, and grammatically correct responses, whether written or oral.

Only students who fully meet this standard and, in addition, demonstrate exceptional comprehension and application of the course subject matter earn a grade of A.

Students who do not meet the benchmark standard of competency fall within the C range or lower. They, in effect, have not met undergraduate level standards. Where this failure is substantial, they can earn an F.

Writing Standards Effective managers, leaders, and teachers are also effective communicators. Written communication is an important element of the total communication process. The Utica College Undergraduate School recognizes and expects exemplary writing to be the norm for course work. To this end, all papers and PowerPoint Presentations, individual and group, must demonstrate undergraduate level writing and comply with the format requirements of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, (5th Edition). Careful attention should be given to spelling, punctuation, source citations, references, and the presentation of tables and figures.

Timeliness It is expected that all course work will be presented on time and error free. Work submitted online should follow standard procedures for formatting and citations.

Academic Integrity and Plagiarism Academic integrity is central to the learning and teaching process. Students are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that will contribute to the maintenance of academic integrity by making all reasonable efforts to prevent the occurrence of academic dishonesty. Academic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to, obtaining or giving aid on an examination, having unauthorized prior knowledge of an examination, doing work for another student, and plagiarism of all types.

Plagiarism is the intentional or unintentional presentation of another person’s idea or product as ones own. Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to, the following: copying verbatim all or part of another’s written work; using phrases, charts, figures, illustrations, or mathematical or scientific solutions without citing the source; paraphrasing ideas, conclusions, or research without citing the source; and using all or part of a literary plot, poem, film, musical score, or other artistic product without attributing the work to its creator. Students can avoid unintentional plagiarism by following carefully accepted scholarly practices. Notes taken for papers and research projects should accurately record sources to material to be cited, quoted, paraphrased, or summarized, and papers should acknowledge these sources. The penalties for plagiarism include a zero or a grade of F on the work in question, a grade of F in the course, suspension with a file letter, suspension with a transcript notation, or expulsion. Students may learn more about Utica College’s formal policies at: http://www.utica.edu/student/media/handbook.pdf.

Disabilities Any student who needs an accommodation due to a disability should make an appointment to discuss the accommodation. A memo from Disability Support Services authorizing the accommodation is required.

Course Evaluations Feedback on each undergraduate course and instructor is important to the university, your professor, and to all students. Utica College has the responsibility to assess the effectiveness of classroom instruction, and each student has the responsibility to provide accurate and timely feedback through completion of the course evaluation form. This is a shared obligation for us all. It is therefore important that you complete the evaluation form for each course. This should be viewed as an additional course and program requirement.

Bibliography

Acquista, A. (2003). The Survival Guide: What to do in a Biological, Chemical or Nuclear Emergency. New York: Random House.

Adams, J. (1998) the Next World War, New York: Simon & Schuster.

Anonymous. (April 2001) Electronic Crime Needs Assessment for State and Local Law Enforcement National Institute of Justice: Washington, DC.

Barnett, T.P.M. (2004). The Pentagon’s new map: War and peace in the twenty-first century. New York: Penguin Group.

Bergen, P.L. (2001) Holy War Inc: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden. Denver: Free Press.

Berkoswitz, B. (2003) the New Face of War, New York: Free Press.

Bidgoli H., Editor-in-Chief. (2006)  Volume 1: Handbook of Information Security: Key Concepts, Infrastructure, Standards, and Protocols. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.

Bidgoli H., Editor-in-Chief. (2006)  Volume 2: Handbook of Information Security: Information Warfare; Social, Legal and International Issues; and Security Foundations. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.

Bidgoli H., Editor-in-Chief. (2006)  Volume 3: Handbook of Information Security: Threats, Vulnerabilities, Prevention, Detection, and Management. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.

Boltz, F., Dudonis, K. J., & Schultz, D. (2005) The Counterterrorism Handbook: Tactics, Procedures, & Techniques. Boca, Raton, FL: CRC, Taylor & Francis. ISBN: 0-8493-3023-8.

Campen, A.D., et. al. (1996) Cyberwar: Security, Strategy and Conflict in the Information Age, AFCEA.

Cherkasky, M. with Alex Prud’ Homme. (2003). Forewarned: Why the government is failing to protect us – and what we must do to protect ourselves. New York: Ballantine.

Cordesman, A.H. (2002) Cyber-Threats, Information Warfare, and Critical Infrastructure Protection: Defending the U.S. Homeland. Westport Connecticut: CSIS publications.

Curts, R.J. & Campbell, D.E. (2003). Building a Global Information Assurance Program. New York: Auerbach.

Dacey, R. F. (April 8, 2003) Information Security: Progress Made, But Challenges Remain to Protect Federal Systems and the Nation's Critical Infrastructures, GAO Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives, Statement of Robert F Dacey, Director, Information Security Issues.

Diamond, J. (2005). Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed. New York: Viking.           

Dorothy, D. (1999) Defending the Nation: Information Warfare and Security. (Boston: ACM Press.

Evers, D., Miller, M. & Glover, T. (2005) Pocket Partner, 4th Ed. Littleton, CO: Sequoia. 

Gordon, L. A. & Loeb, M. P. (2006) Managing Cyber-Security Resources: A Cost- Benefit Analysis. New York: McGraw Hill.

Harris, S. (2005).  The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the future of reason. New York: Norton.

Hall, W. M. (2003). Stray Voltage: War in the information age. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.

Henderson, H. (2003) Global Terrorism: The Complete Reference Guide, Checkmark Books, 2003.

Howard, R., Forest, J. & Moore, J. (2006) Homeland Security and Terrorism: Readings and Interpretations. New York: McGraw Hill.

Johnson, L. K. (2000) Bombs, Bugs, Drugs and Thugs: Intelligence and America’s quest for security. New York: New York University Press.

Kamien, D. G. (2006) The McGraw Hill Homeland Security Handbook: The Definitive Guide for Law Enforcement, EMT, and all other Security Professionals. New York: McGraw Hill.

Kroeger, T. (2003) Information Warfare: More than meets the eye, GSEC version 1.4b, San Francisco: SANS Institute.

Laqueur, W. (Ed.). (2004). Voices of terror: Manifestos, writings and manuals of Al Qaeda, Hamas, and other terrorists from around the world and throughout the ages. New York: Reed Press.

Larson, E.V. & J. E. Peters, (June 2001) Preparing the U.S. Army for Homeland Security: Concepts, Issues, and Options: Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Leone, R.C. & Anrig, G. Jr. (2003) the War on Our Freedoms: Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism. New York: Century Foundation.

Lesser, I.O, Hoffman, B., Arquilla, J., Ronfeldt, D. & Jenkins, M. (1999) Countering the New Terrorism, Boston: Rand Press.

Libicki, M. (1997) what is Information Warfare? National Defense University, NDU Press Book.

Lewis, J.A. (December 2002) Assessing the Risks of Cyber Terrorism, Cyber War and Other Cyber Threats. Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC.

Miniter, R. (2004). Shadow War: The Untold Story of How Bush is Winning the War On Terror. Washington, DC: Regnery.

Molander, R.C., Wilson, P.A. & Anderson, R.H. (1998) United States Vulnerabilities: Threats Against Society, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND, MR-1016, OSD.

National Research Council, (2002). Making the Nation Safer: The Role of Science and Technology in Countering Terrorism<, Washington: National Academy Press, Washington.

Nichols R. K., Ryan, D. J., & Ryan, J.C.H. (2002)  Defending your Digital Assets, Against Hackers, Crackers, Spies and Thieves, McGraw-Hill.

Nichols, R. K. & Lekkas, P. C. (2002). Wireless Security: Models, Threats, Solutions. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

O'Hanlon, M. E., et. al., (2002) Protecting the American Homeland: One Year On, Brookings, Harrisonburg, VA: Brookings.

Parker, T., et. al. (2004). Cyber Adversary Characterization. Rockland, MD: Syngress.

Pynchon, J.H. & Burke, T. (2001) Terrorism: Today's Biggest Threat to Freedom, New York: Pinnacle.

Rattray, G. J. (2001). Strategic Warfare in Cyberspace. London: MIT Press.

Richelson, J.T. (1995). The U.S. Intelligence Community, 3rd Ed. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Sauter, M. A., & Carafano, J. J. (2005) Homeland Security: A Complete Guide to Understanding, Preventing, and Surviving Terrorism. New York: McGraw Hill.

Scheuer, M. (Nom-de-Plume: Anonymous) (2004). Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. Washington, DC: Brassey’s.

Schneier, B. (2003). Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly about Security in an Uncertain World. New York: Copernicus.

Schwartau, W. (1996) Information Warfare: CyberTerrorism: Protecting Your Personal Security in the Electronic Age. New York:Thunder's Mouth Press.

Vatis, M.A. (September 16, 2001) Combating Terrorism: A Compendium of Recent CounterTerrorism Recommendations from Authoritative Commissions and Subject Matter Experts, Director, Institute for Security Technology Studies, Dartmouth College.
 
Vatis, M.A. (September 22, 2001) Cyber Attacks During the War on Terrorism: A Predictive Analysis. Director, Institute for Security Technology Studies, Dartmouth College.

Verton, D. (2004) Black Ice: The Invisible Threat of Cyber-Terrorism, (ICE) San Francisco: Osborne.

Williams, P. L. (2004) Osama’s Revenge: The Next 9/11: What the media and the Government Haven't Told You. New York: Prometheus.
                                     
Yourdon, E. (2002). Byte wars: The impact of September 11 on information technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.