• Journal of Internet Computing and Services
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.41-50
• /
• 2021

Cyber Kill Chain is derived from Kill chain of traditional military terms. Kill chain means "a continuous and cyclical process from detection to destruction of military targets requiring destruction, or dividing it into several distinct actions." The kill chain has evolved the existing operational procedures to effectively deal with time-limited emergency targets that require immediate response due to changes in location and increased risk, such as nuclear weapons and missiles. It began with the military concept of incapacitating the attacker's intended purpose by preventing it from functioning at any one stage of the process of reaching it. Thus the basic concept of the cyber kill chain is that the attack performed by a cyber attacker consists of each stage, and the cyber attacker can achieve the attack goal only when each stage is successfully performed, and from a defense point of view, each stage is detailed. It is believed that if a response procedure is prepared and responded, the chain of attacks is broken, and the attack of the attacker can be neutralized or delayed. Also, from the point of view of an attack, if a specific response procedure is prepared at each stage, the chain of attacks can be successful and the target of the attack can be neutralized. The cyber command and control system is a system that is applied to both defense and attack, and should present defensive countermeasures and offensive countermeasures to neutralize the enemy's kill chain during defense, and each step-by-step procedure to neutralize the enemy when attacking. Therefore, thist paper proposed a cyber kill chain model from the perspective of defense and attack of the cyber command and control system, and also researched and presented the threat classification/analysis/prediction framework of the cyber command and control system from the defense aspect

• Journal of dental hygiene science
• /
• v.18 no.6
• /
• pp.327-339
• /
• 2018

This study aimed to provide basic data for establishing the clinical basis for dental hygienist-led dental hygiene process of care by identifying multiple risk factors for self-support program participants in Gangneung city; we also compared oral health status and behavioral changes through customized oral health care. Four dental hygienists who were evaluated for degree of conformity provided dental hygiene process of care to eight self-support program participants who were selected as having an oral health risk among people in the self-support center. The clinical indicators measured during dental hygiene assessment and evaluation and behavioral changes due to dental hygiene intervention were compared and analyzed. With respect to clinical indicators, at the time of probe, the retention rate of patients with gingival bleeding decreased from 61.4% to 14.7% after intervention (p=0.004). Furthermore, the retention rate of patients with a periodontal pocket >4 mm decreased from 15.6% to 5.8% (p=0.001). The average modified O'Leary index of the patients improved from 23 to 40 (p=0.002). Previously, all eight subjects used the vertical or horizontal method of brushing; after dental hygiene care interventions regarding method and frequency of toothbrushing, use of oral care products, and individual interventions, they started using the rolling or Bass method of toothbrushing. Four of eight subjects reported using interdental toothbrushes after intervention. As a result of applying the change model to the transtheoretical behavior change of the subject, the result of strengthening the health behavior was confirmed. For promotion of oral health by the prevention-centered incremental oral health care system, dental hygienist-led dental hygiene management and maintenance is essential. It is thought that continuous research, such as for feasibility evaluation, cost benefit analysis, and preparation of legal systems, is needed to establish and activate dental hygiene management.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.225-285
• /
• 2017

In regard to the regulations related to the RPA(Remotely Piloted Aircraft), which is sometimes called in other countries as UA(Unmanned Aircraft), ICAO stipulates the regulations in the 'RPAS manual (2015)' in detail based on the 'Chicago Convention' in 1944, and enacts provisions for the Rules of UAS or RPAS. Other contries stipulates them such as the Federal Airline Rules (14 CFR), Public Law (112-95) in the United States, the Air Transport Act, Air Transport Order, Air Transport Authorization Order (through revision in "Regulations to operating Rules on unmanned aerial System") based on EASA Regulation (EC) No.216/2008 in the case of unmanned aircaft under 150kg in Germany, and Civil Aviation Act (CAA 1998), Civil Aviation Act 101 (CASR Part 101) in Australia. Commonly, these laws exclude the model aircraft for leisure purpose and require pilots on the ground, not onboard aricraft, capable of controlling RPA. The laws also require that all managements necessary to operate RPA and pilots safely and efficiently under the structure of the unmanned aircraft system within the scope of the regulations. Each country classifies the RPA as an aircraft less than 25kg. Australia and Germany further break down the RPA at a lower weight. ICAO stipulates all general aviation operations, including commercial operation, in accordance with Annex 6 of the Chicago Convention, and it also applies to RPAs operations. However, passenger transportation using RPAs is excluded. If the operational scope of the RPAs includes the airspace of another country, the special permission of the relevant country shall be required 7 days before the flight date with detail flight plan submitted. In accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation 107 in the United States, a small non-leisure RPA may be operated within line-of-sight of a responsible navigator or observer during the day in the speed range up to 161 km/hr (87 knots) and to the height up to 122 m (400 ft) from surface or water. RPA must yield flight path to other aircraft, and is prohibited to load dangerous materials or to operate more than two RPAs at the same time. In Germany, the regulations on UAS except for leisure and sports provide duty to avoidance of airborne collisions and other provisions related to ground safety and individual privacy. Although commercial UAS of 5 kg or less can be freely operated without approval by relaxing the existing regulatory requirements, all the UAS regardless of the weight must be operated below an altitude of 100 meters with continuous monitoring and pilot control. Australia was the first country to regulate unmanned aircraft in 2001, and its regulations have impacts on the unmanned aircraft laws of ICAO, FAA, and EASA. In order to improve the utiliity of unmanned aircraft which is considered to be low risk, the regulation conditions were relaxed through the revision in 2016 by adding the concept "Excluded RPA". In the case of excluded RPA, it can be operated without special permission even for commercial purpose. Furthermore, disscussions on a new standard manual is being conducted for further flexibility of the current regulations.