DOCSLIB.ORG

Cyberwar 27 Sep 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cyberwar 27 Sep 2020 Geostrategy and Geopolitics Department 1 49069 Osnabrueck Cyber war Methods and Practice 27 Sep 2020 Summary Cyberwar (Cyber war, Cyber Warfare) is the military confrontation with the means of information technology. This paper presents the current state and deals with the theoretical and practical problems. In practice, cyberwar is an integral part of military action, but cannot be completely separated from espionage, since the intrusion into and reconnaissance of target systems is essential for further action. After an overview of attack methods, attackers (Advanced Persistent Threats), spy tools, cyber weapons and cyber defense, a particular focus is on the attribution of cyber-attacks and the Smart Industry (Industry 4.0). Afterwards, the cyberwar strategies of the US, China, Russia and further leading actors will be discussed. Further chapters present Artificial Intelligence, Smart Industry, smart devices and biological applications. Cyber war 27 Sep 2020_English 1 apl. Prof. Dr. Dr. K. Saalbach Table of Contents 1. Fundamentals ....................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 7 1.2 Background ............................................................................................................... 7 1.3 Cyberwar Definition ................................................................................................. 9 1.4 Cyberwar and Espionage ........................................................................................ 11 1.5 Terminology ............................................................................................................ 11 1.6 Cyber warfare and International Law ..................................................................... 13 1.7 The Geostrategy of Cyberspace .............................................................................. 15 1.7.1 Physical control of data exchange .................................................................... 15 1.7.2 Control of critical elements .............................................................................. 17 1.7.2.1 Rare Metals ................................................................................................... 17 1.7.2.2 Relation USA - China ................................................................................... 18 1.7.2.3 The Huawei Conflict ..................................................................................... 18 1.7.2.4 Clean Network versus 3-5-2 ......................................................................... 19 1.7.3 The centralization trend ................................................................................... 20 2. Methods .............................................................................................................. 21 2.1 General issues ......................................................................................................... 21 2.1.1 Physical damage of computers and communication lines ............................... 21 2.1.2 Electromagnetic Pulse EMP ............................................................................ 21 2.1.3 The attack on and manipulation of computers and networks .......................... 21 2.2 Attack on Computers .............................................................................................. 21 2.2.1 Basic principles of cyber attacks...................................................................... 21 2.2.2 Communication lines of cyber attacks ............................................................. 22 2.2.3 Strategy ............................................................................................................ 23 2.2.3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 24 2.2.3.2 Gain access.................................................................................................... 26 2.2.3.3 Install malware and start manipulation ......................................................... 36 2.2.3.4 Cyber espionage tools ................................................................................... 36 2.2.3.5 Offensive Cyber Weapons ............................................................................ 37 2.2.4 Cyber war ......................................................................................................... 39 2.2.5 Insider Threats ................................................................................................. 41 2.2.6 Information warfare ......................................................................................... 42 3. The Practice of Cyber war ................................................................................. 45 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 45 3.2 Cyber war from 1998-today .................................................................................... 45 3.2.0 Cold war: Pipeline explosion in the Soviet Union ........................................... 45 3.2.1 Moonlight Maze 1998-2000 ............................................................................ 45 3.2.2 Yugoslavian war 1999 ..................................................................................... 45 3.2.3 The Hainan- or EP3-incident 2001 .................................................................. 46 3.2.4 Massive attacks on Western government and industry computers 2000-2011 46 3.2.5 The attack on Estonia in 2007 .......................................................................... 47 3.2.6 The attack on Syria 2007 ................................................................................. 47 3.2.7 The attack on Georgia 2008 ............................................................................. 48 3.2.8 Intrusion of US drones 2009/2011 ................................................................... 48 3.2.9 Attacks in the Ukraine ..................................................................................... 48 Cyber war 27 Sep 2020_English 2 apl. Prof. Dr. Dr. K. Saalbach 3.2.10 North Korea ................................................................................................... 49 3.2.11 Local cyber conflicts ...................................................................................... 50 3.2.12 Cyber warfare against Islamic State (‘IS’)..................................................... 50 3.2.13 Cyber conflicts in 2019/2020 ......................................................................... 53 3.2.14 Impact of Corona Crisis ................................................................................. 54 4. Attribution .......................................................................................................... 55 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 55 4.2 Cyber-attack attribution .......................................................................................... 55 4.3 Hackers ................................................................................................................... 58 4.4 Cyber War Attribution ............................................................................................ 61 5. Malware and Advanced Persistent Threats ........................................................ 62 5.1 Sophisticated malware ............................................................................................ 62 5.2 Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs) ...................................................................... 64 5.3 United States ........................................................................................................... 68 5.3.1 The Equation group.......................................................................................... 68 5.3.1.1 Detection history - The ‚digital first strike’ .................................................. 68 5.3.1.2 Equation group cyber tools ........................................................................... 72 5.3.1.3 The Shadow Brokers incident ....................................................................... 74 5.3.2 The Longhorn Group/Lamberts/Vault 7 incident ............................................ 77 5.3.3 Sauron/Strider and Slingshot ........................................................................... 79 5.4 Russia ...................................................................................................................... 79 5.4.1 APT28 and APT29 ........................................................................................... 79 5.4.1.1 APT28 (aka Sofacy, Pawn Strom, Csar Team, Sednit, Fancy Bear, Strontium) ................................................................................................................. 79 5.4.1.2 APT29 (aka Cozy Duke/Cozy Bear)............................................................. 80 5.4.1.3 The German Parliament Bundestag hack ...................................................... 81 5.4.1.4 The DNC hack/Attacks on voting systems ................................................... 83 5.4.1.5 The WADA hack .......................................................................................... 84 5.4.1.6 The Macron hacks ........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Recent Developments in Cybersecurity Melanie J
    American University Business Law Review Volume 2 | Issue 2 Article 1 2013 Fiddling on the Roof: Recent Developments in Cybersecurity Melanie J. Teplinsky Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aublr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Teplinsky, Melanie J. "Fiddling on the Roof: Recent Developments in Cybersecurity." American University Business Law Review 2, no. 2 (2013): 225-322. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University Business Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES FIDDLING ON THE ROOF: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CYBERSECURITY MELANIE J. TEPLINSKY* TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .......................................... ..... 227 I. The Promise and Peril of Cyberspace .............. ........ 227 II. Self-Regulation and the Challenge of Critical Infrastructure ......... 232 III. The Changing Face of Cybersecurity: Technology Trends ............ 233 A. Mobile Technology ......................... 233 B. Cloud Computing ........................... ...... 237 C. Social Networking ................................. 241 IV. The Changing Face of Cybersecurity: Cyberthreat Trends ............ 244 A. Cybercrime ................................. ..... 249 1. Costs of Cybercrime
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Threat Report Provides a Comprehensive Overview of the Cyber Threat Landscape Facing Both Companies and Individuals
    THREAT REPORT 2015 AT A GLANCE 2015 HIGHLIGHTS A few of the major events in 2015 concerning security issues. 08 07/15: Hacking Team 07/15: Bugs prompt 02/15: Europol joint breached, data Ford, Range Rover, 08/15: Google patches op takes down Ramnit released online Prius, Chrysler recalls Android Stagefright botnet flaw 09/15: XcodeGhost 07/15: Android 07/15: FBI Darkode tainted apps prompts Stagefright flaw 08/15: Amazon, ENFORCEMENT bazaar shutdown ATTACKS AppStore cleanup VULNERABILITY reported SECURITYPRODUCT Chrome drop Flash ads TOP MALWARE BREACHING THE MEET THE DUKES FAMILIES WALLED GARDEN The Dukes are a well- 12 18 resourced, highly 20 Njw0rm was the most In late 2015, the Apple App prominent new malware family in 2015. Store saw a string of incidents where dedicated and organized developers had used compromised tools cyberespionage group believed to be to unwittingly create apps with malicious working for the Russian Federation since behavior. The apps were able to bypass at least 2008 to collect intelligence in Njw0rm Apple’s review procedures to gain entry support of foreign and security policy decision-making. Angler into the store, and from there into an ordinary user’s iOS device. Gamarue THE CHAIN OF THE CHAIN OF Dorkbot COMPROMISE COMPROMISE: 23 The Stages 28 The Chain of Compromise Nuclear is a user-centric model that illustrates Kilim how cyber attacks combine different Ippedo techniques and resources to compromise Dridex devices and networks. It is defined by 4 main phases: Inception, Intrusion, WormLink Infection, and Invasion. INCEPTION Redirectors wreak havoc on US, Europe (p.28) INTRUSION AnglerEK dominates Flash (p.29) INFECTION The rise of rypto-ransomware (p.31) THREATS BY REGION Europe was particularly affected by the Angler exploit kit.
    [Show full text]
  • Moonlight Maze,’ Perhaps the Oldest Publicly Acknowledged State Actor, Has Evaded Open Forensic Analysis
    PENQUIN’S MOONLIT MAZE The Dawn of Nation-State Digital Espionage Juan Andres Guerrero-Saade, Costin Raiu (GReAT) Daniel Moore, Thomas Rid (King’s College London) The origins of digital espionage remain hidden in the dark. In most cases, codenames and fragments of stories are all that remains of the ‘prehistoric’ actors that pioneered the now- ubiquitous practice of computer network exploitation. The origins of early operations, tools, and tradecraft are largely unknown: official documents will remain classified for years and decades to come; memories of investigators are eroding as time passes; and often precious forensic evidence is discarded, destroyed, or simply lost as storage devices age. Even ‘Moonlight Maze,’ perhaps the oldest publicly acknowledged state actor, has evaded open forensic analysis. Intrusions began as early as 1996. The early targets: a vast number of US military and government networks, including Wright Patterson and Kelly Air Force Bases, the Army Research Lab, the Naval Sea Systems Command in Indian Head, Maryland, NASA, and the Department of Energy labs. By mid-1998 the FBI and Department of Defense investigators had forensic evidence pointing to Russian ISPs. After a Congressional hearing in late February 1999, news of the FBI’s vast investigation leaked to the public.1 However, little detail ever surfaced regarding the actual means and procedures of this threat actor. Eventually the code name was replaced (with the attackers’ improved intrusion set dubbed Storm Cloud’, and later ‘Makers Mark’) and the original ‘MM’ faded into obscurity without proper technical forensic artefacts to tie these cyberespionage pioneers to the modern menagerie of APT actors we are now all too familiar with.
    [Show full text]
  • From the Editor
    EDITORIAL STAFF From the Editor ELIZABETH SKINNER Editor Happy New Year, everyone. As I write this, we’re a few weeks into 2021 and there ELIZABETH ROBINSON Copy Editor are sparkles of hope here and there that this year may be an improvement over SALLY BAHO Copy Editor the seemingly endless disasters of the last one. Vaccines are finally being deployed against the coronavirus, although how fast and for whom remain big sticky questions. The United States seems to have survived a political crisis that brought EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD its system of democratic government to the edge of chaos. The endless conflicts VICTOR ASAL in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, and Afghanistan aren’t over by any means, but they have evolved—devolved?—once again into chronic civil agony instead of multi- University of Albany, SUNY national warfare. CHRISTOPHER C. HARMON 2021 is also the tenth anniversary of the Arab Spring, a moment when the world Marine Corps University held its breath while citizens of countries across North Africa and the Arab Middle East rose up against corrupt authoritarian governments in a bid to end TROELS HENNINGSEN chronic poverty, oppression, and inequality. However, despite the initial burst of Royal Danish Defence College change and hope that swept so many countries, we still see entrenched strong-arm rule, calcified political structures, and stagnant stratified economies. PETER MCCABE And where have all the terrorists gone? Not far, that’s for sure, even if the pan- Joint Special Operations University demic has kept many of them off the streets lately. Closed borders and city-wide curfews may have helped limit the operational scope of ISIS, Lashkar-e-Taiba, IAN RICE al-Qaeda, and the like for the time being, but we know the teeming refugee camps US Army (Ret.) of Syria are busy producing the next generation of violent ideological extremists.
    [Show full text]
  • Government Hacking What Is It and When Should It Be Used?
    Government Hacking What is it and when should it be used? Encryption is a critical component of our day-to-day lives. For much of the world, basic aspects of life rely on encryption to function. Power systems, transport, financial markets, and baby monitors1 are more trustworthy because of encryption. Encryption protects our most vulnerable data from criminals and terrorists, but it can also hide criminal content from governments. Government hacking is one of the approaches national security and law enforcement agencies use to obtain access to otherwise encrypted information (e.g. the FBI hired a hacking company to unlock the iPhone at the center of the San Bernardino case2). It complements their other efforts to obtain exceptional access3 by asking or requiring tech companies to have the technical ability to decrypt users’ content when it is needed for law enforcement purposes. The Internet Society believes strong encryption is vital to the health of the Internet and is deeply concerned about any policy or action that might put that in jeopardy — regardless of its motivation. Government hacking poses a risk of collateral damage to both the Internet and its users, and as such should only ever be considered as a tool of last resort. Government hacking defined We define ‘government hacking’ as government entities (e.g. national security or law enforcement agencies or private actors on their behalf) exploiting vulnerabilities in systems, software, or hardware to gain access to information that is otherwise encrypted, or inaccessible. Dangers of government hacking Exploiting vulnerabilities of any kind, whether for law enforcement purposes, security testing, or any other purpose, should not be taken lightly.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementation and Analysis of Key Reinstallation Attack
    International Journal of Innovations in Engineering and Technology (IJIET) http://dx.doi.org/10.21172/ijiet.133.21 Implementation and Analysis of Key Reinstallation Attack Saba Khanum1, Ishita kalra2 1Department of Information Technology, MSIT, Janakpuri, New Delhi, India 2Department of Computer Science and Engineering, MSIT, Janakpuri, New Delhi, India Abstract- The objective of the paper is to implement and analyzed the impact of Key Reinstallation Attack (popularly dubbed as KRACK) on debian based machines. The paper elucidates on the capture of packets through the attack without being a part of the network and affecting the target machines with the help of an attack machine placed inside the network. It basically exploits the nonce of the network which ultimately paves way to the execution of the attack. The issue tends to gather more eyeballs as it affects all devices using Wi-Fi through WPA2 protocol. Hence, the catastrophe complimented along the attack is severe. The analysis of the impact is carried on by analyzing the type of packets visible as well as captured during the course of the implementation. Here, we have created a python script which identifies whether the targeted machine is vulnerable to KRACK or not and corresponding to that the packet capture starts and ultimately, the impact is measured. Keywords – KRACK, weakness, WPA2, attack, security I. INTRODUCTION The presence of the bug has been detected in the cryptographic nonce of the WPA2 and can be used to clone a connected party to reinstall a used key. The presence of the nonce is specifically intended to prevent reuse, but in this particular case, it gives malicious users the opportunity to replay, decrypt, or forge packets, ultimately enabling them to access all previously considered encrypted information without actually being part of the network.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Prior Restraints on Publication in the Age of Wikileaks
    35 6 June 2018 Patent Volume 35 ▲ Number 6 ▲ JUNE 2018 Ronald L. Johnston, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Editor-in-Chief The Use of Prior Restraints on Publication in the Age of Wikileaks By CJ Griffin and Frank Corrado s James Madison put it, “A popular Government, The rationale for that principle is simple: If the gov- Awithout popular information, or the means of ernment can ban publication of speech, it can control acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, what the public knows about governmental operations perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: and thereby deprive citizens of their ability to make And a people who mean to be their own Governors, intelligent decisions about governmental action. Too must arm themselves with the power which knowl- often, government favors secrecy over disclosure. The edge gives.”1 Free speech is essential to effective self- presumption against prior restraints ensures that officials government. A democracy cannot function if its citi- cannot indulge that propensity. It prevents the govern- zens do not know what their government is doing. ment from enjoining purportedly “secret” or “sensitive” For that reason, the First Amendment significantly information that may really be embarrassing, unsavory, limits the government’s ability to control the flow or indicative of government illegality or abuse. of information to the public. In particular, the First Of course, legitimate reasons exist for government Amendment renders prior restraints on speech pre- secrecy. As the Supreme Court said in Near v. Minne- sumptively unconstitutional.2 Even if the government sota,3 the seminal case on prior restraints, “no one would could punish the speech after the fact, it cannot—absent question but that a government might prevent actual a heavy burden of justification—prohibit the publica- obstruction to its recruiting service or the publica- tion of that speech.
    [Show full text]
  • Mobile Financial Fraud April 2013
    White Paper: Mobile Financial Fraud April 2013 Mobile Threats and the Underground Marketplace Principal Investigator and Corresponding Author Jart Armin Contributing Researchers Andrey Komarov, Mila Parkour, Raoul Chiesa, Bryn Thompson, Will Rogofsky Panel & Review Dr. Ray Genoe (UCD), Robert McArdle (Trend Micro), Dave Piscitello (ICANN), Foy Shiver (APWG), Edgardo Montes de Oca (Montimage), Peter Cassidy (APWG) APWG Mobile Fraud web site http://ecrimeresearch.org/wirelessdevice/Fraud/ Table of Contents Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction and Starting Position ........................................................................................ 2 A Global Overview .................................................................................................................. 3 Vulnerabilities Overview ....................................................................................................... 3 The Underground Mobile Market ....................................................................................... 13 Mobile DNS & Traffic ........................................................................................................... 15 iBots & the Pocket Botnet ..................................................................................................... 18 Mobile Intrusion ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • View Final Report (PDF)
    TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY III INTRODUCTION 1 GENESIS OF THE PROJECT 1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1 INDUSTRY SITUATION 2 METHODOLOGY 3 GENERAL COMMENTS ON INTERVIEWS 5 APT1 (CHINA) 6 SUMMARY 7 THE GROUP 7 TIMELINE 7 TYPOLOGY OF ATTACKS 9 DISCLOSURE EVENTS 9 APT10 (CHINA) 13 INTRODUCTION 14 THE GROUP 14 TIMELINE 15 TYPOLOGY OF ATTACKS 16 DISCLOSURE EVENTS 18 COBALT (CRIMINAL GROUP) 22 INTRODUCTION 23 THE GROUP 23 TIMELINE 25 TYPOLOGY OF ATTACKS 27 DISCLOSURE EVENTS 30 APT33 (IRAN) 33 INTRODUCTION 34 THE GROUP 34 TIMELINE 35 TYPOLOGY OF ATTACKS 37 DISCLOSURE EVENTS 38 APT34 (IRAN) 41 INTRODUCTION 42 THE GROUP 42 SIPA Capstone 2020 i The Impact of Information Disclosures on APT Operations TIMELINE 43 TYPOLOGY OF ATTACKS 44 DISCLOSURE EVENTS 48 APT38 (NORTH KOREA) 52 INTRODUCTION 53 THE GROUP 53 TIMELINE 55 TYPOLOGY OF ATTACKS 59 DISCLOSURE EVENTS 61 APT28 (RUSSIA) 65 INTRODUCTION 66 THE GROUP 66 TIMELINE 66 TYPOLOGY OF ATTACKS 69 DISCLOSURE EVENTS 71 APT29 (RUSSIA) 74 INTRODUCTION 75 THE GROUP 75 TIMELINE 76 TYPOLOGY OF ATTACKS 79 DISCLOSURE EVENTS 81 COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS 84 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ACTOR RESPONSE 84 CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES 86 MEASURING THE SUCCESS OF DISCLOSURES 90 IMPLICATIONS OF OUR RESEARCH 92 FOR PERSISTENT ENGAGEMENT AND FORWARD DEFENSE 92 FOR PRIVATE CYBERSECURITY VENDORS 96 FOR THE FINANCIAL SECTOR 96 ROOM FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 97 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 98 ABOUT THE TEAM 99 SIPA Capstone 2020 ii The Impact of Information Disclosures on APT Operations EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This project was completed to fulfill the including the scope of the disclosure and capstone requirement for Columbia Uni- the disclosing actor.
    [Show full text]
  • APT and Cybercriminal Targeting of HCS June 9, 2020 Agenda
    APT and Cybercriminal Targeting of HCS June 9, 2020 Agenda • Executive Summary Slides Key: • APT Group Objectives Non-Technical: managerial, strategic • APT Groups Targeting Health Sector and high-level (general audience) • Activity Timeline Technical: Tactical / IOCs; requiring • TTPs in-depth knowledge (sysadmins, IRT) • Malware • Vulnerabilities • Recommendations and Mitigations TLP: WHITE, ID#202006091030 2 Executive Summary • APT groups steal data, disrupt operations, and destroy infrastructure. Unlike most cybercriminals, APT attackers pursue their objectives over longer periods of time. They adapt to cyber defenses and frequently retarget the same victim. • Common HPH targets include: • Healthcare Biotechnology Medical devices • Pharmaceuticals Healthcare information technology • Scientific research • HPH organizations who have been victim of APT attacks have suffered: • Reputational harm Disruption to operations • Financial losses PII/PHI and proprietary data theft • HC3 recommends several mitigations and controls to counter APT threats. TLP: WHITE, ID#202006091030 3 APT Group Objectives • Motivations of APT Groups which target the health sector include: • Competitive advantage • Theft of proprietary data/intellectual capital such as technology, manufacturing processes, partnership agreements, business plans, pricing documents, test results, scientific research, communications, and contact lists to unfairly advance economically. • Intelligence gathering • Groups target individuals and connected associates to further social engineering
    [Show full text]
  • Catalogue Formations (PDF)
    Page 2 L’intégrale VERISAFE Véritable cursus de formation en Cybersécurité : 120 heures de formation, 850 vidéos & 4200 slides La cybercriminalité fait peser une menace grandissante sur tous les organismes (privés ou pu- blics) et sur chaque citoyen. Pour lutter efficacement contre ce fléau, il est important de bien comprendre le phénomène et de l’anticiper. Illustrée par des exemples réels, cette formation détaille le monde cybercriminel (organisation, acteurs, motivations, techniques d’attaques, moyens financiers et humains,…). Elle présente également les acteurs et les dispositifs juri- diques pour lutter contre les cybercriminels au niveau national comme au niveau international. Face une véritable pénurie en matière de compétences en matière de sécurité Cloud, la certifi- cation CCSK de la Cloud Security Alliance est devenue la certification internationale la plus re- cherchée et se place désormais à la 1er place en matière de rémunération (Source : Certificate Magazine). Cette formation intensive a été spécialement conçue pour préparer et obtenir cette certification en 30 jours. Ransomware, espionnage économique ou scientifique, fuites de données à caractère person- nel,… le nombre de cyberattaques ne cesse d’augmenter en France et dans le monde. La ques- tion n’est donc pas de savoir si votre organisme sera attaqué mais plutôt comment répondre efficacement à ces attaques. Cette formation répond à toutes les préoccupations actuelles et dresse l’état de l’art en matière de cybersécurité à destination des entreprises et des adminis- trations. C’est la formation Cybersécurité le plus suivie en France avec 18 sessions en présentiel et plus de 316 participants en 2019. Cette formation intensive permet d’acquérir toutes les compétences nécessaires pour devenir un professionnel de la cybersécurité reconnu sur le marché.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Meddling in Western Elections, 2016-2017: a Preliminary
    RUSSIAN MEDDLING IN WESTERN ELECTIONS, 2016-2017: A PRELIMINARY PROBE By Guillermo Lopez Sanchez A thesis submitted to the Graduate Council of Texas State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts with a Major in International Studies May 2018 Committee Members: Dennis J. Dunn, Chair Ronald Angelo Johnson Sandhya Rao COPYRIGHT by Guillermo Lopez Sanchez 2018 FAIR USE AND AUTHOR’S PERMISSION STATEMENT Fair Use This work is protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States (Public Law 94-553, section 107). Consistent with fair use as defined in the Copyright Laws, brief quotations from this material are allowed with proper acknowledgement. Use of this material for financial gain without the author’s express written permission is not allowed. Duplication Permission As the copyright holder of this work I, Guillermo Lopez Sanchez, authorize duplication of this work, in whole or in part, for educational or scholarly purposes only. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I express my gratitude to Dr. Dennis J. Dunn, Professor of History and Director of the Center for International Studies at Texas State University. His dedication, knowledge, and support since I began the Master of Arts with a major in International Studies were invaluable. In addition, my appreciation is extended to Dr. Ronald Angelo Johnson, Associate Professor in the Department of History; and Dr. Sandhya Rao, Professor in the Department of Mass Communication, for their outstanding advice and assistance. Collectively, they strengthened my resources, asked probing questions that helped me sharpen my focus, and provided valuable insights that benefitted my research. I also wish to express my appreciation to Jeremy Pena, Coordinator of Academic Programs at the Center for International Studies, for his administrative support.
    [Show full text]