Atlantic Council
  • Cyber 9/12 Project

    The Cyber 9/12 Student Challenge is designed to offer students, across a wide range of academic disciplines, a better understanding of the policy challenges associated with cyber conflict. Read More
  • 1
  • Results
  • Summary
  • Resources

First Place 

Team Phoenix
Mike Hooper (National Intelligence University) 
Maggie Smith (Eastern Michigan University) 
Rock Stevens (Eastern Michigan University) 
Jason Rivera (Georgetown University)

Second Place 

Bill Young (MIT) 
Josephine Wolff (MIT) 
Evann Smith (Harvard University)

Third Place

Michael Cook (Carnegie Mellon University)
Kate Meeuf (Carnegie Mellon University)
Blake Rhoades (Carnegie Mellon University)
Matthew Hutchison (Carnegie Mellon University)

Fourth Place 

Cyber Strategists 
Gerd Gensbichler (Johns Hopkins University) 
Raphaël Guay (Johns Hopkins University) 
William Muirheid (Johns Hopkins University) 
Jeff Moses (Johns Hopkins University)

Team Awards

Best Oral Presentation - Team Phoenix
Best Written Presentation - ECIR
Best Teamwork - Brown Secure
Best Decision Document - NetYet
Most Creative Policy Response Alternative - Cyber Saints

See list of semi-finalist teams and participating Universities

Read More
Teams comprising nearly a hundred students, from twenty-four universities as far afield as Turkey and Estonia, gathered in Washington this month to compete at solving this challenge: Imagine that you are cyber-security specialists summoned to advise the US National Intelligence Council on policies that the American president should adopt in response to a massive cyber catastrophe. Your initial recommendations must fit in five printed pages, and you have 10 minutes to explain them to senior national security officials, and then face 10 minutes of direct questions from experts in the field.

The competition, called the Cyber 9/12 Student Challenge was designed to bridge a critical problem in governments’ responses to real emergencies – making sure that the makers of cyber policies and the technical specialists who implement them understand each other. In the real world of cyber security, these policy makers and technical operators too often fail to see each others’ halves of the problem they are trying to solve.

Read More