[walrus01]

Because I love how seriously the DoD takes newly invented terms, we have:

"The Integrated Survivability Onion"

https://cogecog.com/the-threat-onion/

1. Don't be seen.

2. Don't be acquired

3. Don't be hit

4. Don't be penetrated

5. Don't be killed

It's actually not a bad mental model training aid for teaching people who might find themselves in an active combat environment.

[trashb]

I feel like "Don't be captured" should be included, perhaps between 4 and 5. In cybersecurity this would be applicable to ransomware.

[red-iron-pine]

the implication of the "don't be acquired" and "don't be penetrated" is some sort of anti-air or anti-tank missile.

"killed" in this case would be equivalent to having something penetrate and hit sensitive systems. at that point it's basically just a function of what the penetrator is trying to do -- if they just want $$$ they ransomware. if they want exfil or DoS or making critical systems do naughty things that is also a kill.

[walrus01]

> the implication of the "don't be acquired" and "don't be penetrated" is some sort of anti-air or anti-tank missile

not necessarily - this model is also taught for army/marines type ground combat operations, in how to effectively camouflage, how to manoeuvre.

the "don't be penetrated" is more of an equipment choice and engineering decision specific to armor and active kinetic counter-munitions systems, like anti-drone shotguns, tanks with active protection systems, chobham armor, etc.

If a munition has been fired by you, first try to not get penetrated by it at all, and if that fails, try to prevent something catastrophic like a bolus of explosive formed penetrator molten copper from spraying into the inside of your armored personnel carrier.

[TZubiri]

The acquired concept is new to me, is this an established term?

[walrus01]

in the sense of one military force contacting another, yes, as in acquiring a target.

[Maxion]

Works just as well anywhere, really.