全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

Cognitive Perimeter Targeting: Behavioral Intelligence and SOCMINT in Multinational Cybersecurity Operations

DOI: 10.4236/jis.2026.173013, PP. 243-275

Keywords: Cyberpsychology, SOCMINT Epistemology, Cognitive Cybersecurity, Behavioral Intelligence, Multinational Cybersecurity, Social Engineering, Insider Threat, Cognitive Domain, AI-Enhanced Influence, Cross-Border Cyber Defense

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

Multinational organizations operating in shared cybersecurity environments face a compounding intelligence challenge: the behavioral dynamics that determine human susceptibility to social engineering, insider threat development, and coordinated disinformation campaigns are not captured by conventional technical security monitoring, yet available evidence consistently positions them as the dominant attack surface in contemporary advanced persistent threat (APT) and hybrid cyber-influence operations, with Verizon’s 2024 Data Breach Investigations Report attributing 68% of breaches to a non-technical human element, and establishing social engineering as structurally prior to technical exploitation in APT attack chains. This article develops and applies the Behavioral Intelligence in the Cognitive Domain (BICD) framework to multinational cybersecurity contexts, reconceptualizing Social Media Intelligence (SOCMINT) as an epistemologically distinct discipline from Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT) grounded in behavioral rather than documentary epistemology, and arguing that this distinction has direct and underexplored consequences for multinational security operations centers (MSOCs), joint cyber defense coordination cells, and cross-border incident response teams. The BICD framework integrates five cyberpsychology mechanisms, online disinhibition, platform-conditioned identity performance, algorithmic belief environment formation, social proof manipulation, and digital cognitive bias amplification, into a structured analytical procedure for producing explanatory and predictive threat intelligence from human behavioral data in digital environments. The framework then specifies how BICD-derived intelligence products inform narrative-based countermeasure design, organizational resilience architecture, and cross-jurisdictional threat communication, creating a structured intelligence-to-defense pipeline applicable to the multinational cybersecurity operating environment. The article engages emerging scholarship in cognitive cybersecurity (2021-2025), AI-driven social engineering threats (2022-2025), and multinational cyber coordination frameworks to situate the BICD framework within current organizational and operational debates. Implications for multinational security governance, cross-border intelligence sharing, and practitioner training are addressed throughout.

References

[1]  Krombholz, K., Hobel, H., Huber, M. and Weippl, E. (2015) Advanced Social Engineering Attacks. Journal of Information Security and Applications, 22, 113-122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jisa.2014.09.005
[2]  Workman, M. (2008) Wisecrackers: A Theory-Grounded Investigation of Phishing and Pretext Social Engineering Threats to Information Security. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 662-674.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20779
[3]  La Polla, M.N. (2014) Social Media Analytics and Open Source Intelligence: The Role of Social Media in Intelligence Activities.
https://tesidottorato.depositolegale.it/bitstream/20.500.14242/139718/1/LaPollaTesiDottorato.pdf
[4]  Dover, R. (2020) SOCMINT: A Shifting Balance of Opportunity. Intelligence and National Security, 35, 216-232.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02684527.2019.1694132
[5]  Troublefield, T.C. (2025) Strategic Military Information Support Operations for Countering Digital Terrorist Threat Networks. Journal of Applied Security Research, 20, 586-602.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19361610.2025.2498446
[6]  Torraco, R.J. (2005) Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4, 356-367.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283
[7]  Heartfield, R. and Loukas, G. (2015) A Taxonomy of Attacks and a Survey of Defence Mechanisms for Semantic Social Engineering Attacks. ACM Computing Surveys, 48, 1-39.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2835375
[8]  Vishwanath, A., Herath, T., Chen, R., Wang, J. and Rao, H.R. (2011) Why Do People Get Phished? Testing Individual Differences in Phishing Vulnerability within an Integrated, Information Processing Model. Decision Support Systems, 51, 576-586.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2011.03.002
[9]  Verizon (2024) 2024 Data Breach Investigations Report. Verizon Business.
https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/reports/dbir/
[10]  Deppe, C. and Schaal, G.S. (2024) Cognitive Warfare: A Conceptual Analysis of the NATO ACT Cognitive Warfare Exploratory Concept. Frontiers in Big Data, 7, Article 1452129.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2024.1452129
[11]  Fenstermacher, L.H., Uzcha, D., Larson, K.G., Vitiello, C.A. and Shellman, S.M. (2023) New Perspectives on Cognitive Warfare. Signal Processing, Sensor/Information Fusion, and Target Recognition XXXII.
https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2666777
[12]  Loch, K.D., Carr, H.H. and Warkentin, M.E. (1992) Threats to Information Systems: Today’s Reality, Yesterday’s Understanding. MIS Quarterly, 16, 173-186.
https://doi.org/10.2307/249574
[13]  Akhgar, B., Bayerl, P.S. and Sampson, F. (2016) Open Source Intelligence Investigation: From Strategy to Implementation. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47671-1
[14]  Goldstein, J.A., Sastry, G., Musser, M., DiResta, R., Gentzel, M. and Sedova, K. (2023) Generative Language Models and Automated Influence Operations: Emerging Threats and Potential Mitigations. arXiv: 2301.04246.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.04246
[15]  Hazell, J. (2023) Spear Phishing with Large Language Models. arXiv: 2305.06972.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.06972
[16]  Fredheim, R. and Pamment, J. (2025) Assessing the Risks and Opportunities Posed by AI-Enhanced Influence Operations on Social Media. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 21, 319-326.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-023-00322-5
[17]  Suler, J. (2004) The Online Disinhibition Effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7, 321-326.
https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295
[18]  Ancis, J.R. (2025) The Cyberpsychology Influence on Modern Computing. Communications of the ACM, 68, 72-79.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3720535
[19]  Markman, K.M. (2012) A Networked Self: Identity, Community and Culture on Social Network Sites. New Media & Society, 14, 1240-1242.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812453432
[20]  Chatzakou, D., Soler-Company, J., Tsikrika, T., Wanner, L., Vrochidis, S. and Kom-patsiaris, I. (2020) User Identity Linkage in Social Media Using Linguistic and Social Interaction Features. Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Web Science, Southampton, 6-10 July 2020, 295-304.
[21]  Friedl, P. (2025) The General Data Protection Regulation. In: Reasonable Expectations of Privacy: With Special Regard to European Privacy and Data Protection Law, Springer Nature Switzerland, 295-344.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-84881-0_11
[22]  Pariser, E. (2011) The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. Penguin Press.
[23]  Sunstein, C.R. (2017) #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400884711
[24]  Vosoughi, S., Roy, D. and Aral, S. (2018) The Spread of True and False News Online. Science, 359, 1146-1151.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559
[25]  O’Keefe, D.J. (2025) Persuasion. In: Hargie, O., Ed., The Handbook of Communication Skills, Routledge, 371-390.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003367796
[26]  Muchnik, L., Aral, S. and Taylor, S.J. (2013) Social Influence Bias: A Randomized Experiment. Science, 341, 647-651.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240466
[27]  Biagio, M.S., Acquaviva, R., Mazzonello, V., La Mattina, E. and Morreale, V. (2021) A New SOCMINT Framework for Threat Intelligence Identification. 2021 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI), Las Vegas, 15-17 December 2021, 692-697.
https://doi.org/10.1109/csci54926.2021.00180
[28]  Susarla, A., Oh, J. and Tan, Y. (2016) Influentials, Imitables, or Susceptibles? Virality and Word-of-Mouth Conversations in Online Social Networks. Journal of Management Information Systems, 33, 139-170.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2016.1172454
[29]  Nickerson, R.S. (1998) Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175-220.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
[30]  Kahneman, D. (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
https://grahamseibert.com/Reviews/Psychometric/thinking%20fast%20and%20slow.pdf
[31]  Heuer, R.J. (1999) Psychology of Intelligence Analysis. Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency.
[32]  Pote, M., Elmas, T., Flammini, A. and Menczer, F. (2025) Coordinated Reply Attacks in Influence Operations: Characterization and Detection. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 19, 1586-1598.
https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v19i1.35889
[33]  Green, M.C. and Brock, T.C. (2000) The Role of Transportation in the Persuasiveness of Public Narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 701-721.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701
[34]  McAdams, D.P. (2018) Narrative Identity: What Is It? What Does It Do? How Do You Measure It? Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 37, 359-372.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0276236618756704
[35]  ENISA (2023) Blueprint for Coordinated Response to Large-Scale Cybersecurity Incidents and Crises in the EU. European Union Agency for Cybersecurity.
https://www.enisa.europa.eu
[36]  Dash, S. and Mitra, T. (2024) Decoding the Playbook: Multi-Modal Characterization of Coordinated Influence Operations on Indian Social Media. ACM Journal on Computing and Sustainable Societies, 2, 1-19.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3675760
[37]  Goldman, J. (2023) Influence Operations and the Role of Intelligence. In: Arcos, R., Chiru, I. and Ivan, C., Eds., Routledge Handbook of Disinformation and National Security, Routledge, 84-94.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003190363
[38]  Chen, D., Yoon, H.J., Wan, Z., Alluru, N., Lee, S.W., He, R., Moore, T.J., et al. (2025) Advancing Human-Machine Teaming: Concepts, Challenges, and Applications. arXiv: 2503.16518.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.16518
[39]  Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., et al. (2018) AI4People—An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society: Opportunities, Risks, Principles, and Recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28, 689-707.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5
[40]  Ferrara, E. (2023) Social Bots, Deepfakes, and Disinformation in the Age of Large Language Models. arXiv: 2311.01790.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.01790

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133