I think that it is intuitively quite clear, that it is possible for 'cyber operations' to be part of acts of war.  And the perpetrators are therefore combatants and legitimate targets. But since I read P.W. Singer's Wired for war I have the strong feeling that the second order effects of 'cyber' and drone operations are quite poorly thought out. So for example a drone pilot is by this standard a combatant. And this reduces the protections international law has for his house and the civilians within ( his family).
So I think, that the dominant military power ( or in case of the NATO, military alliance) should try to limit the use of potentially disruptive developments, already out of self interest.
 I will not argue in this about the morality of war or the logic of warfare. Here I will simply argue within this framework.
"And this reduces the protections international law has for his house and the civilians within ( his family)."
I don't know what protections you are talking about, but I doubt the pilots would be piloting anything from their homes. They only go there on leave, just like all other soldiers. As for hackers, if a state sponsored attack is launched from a civilian home, it is a violation of the rules of war. The hackers should be in a military installation when doing anything (they probably would anyway, just for security, easier cooperation etc.). There has always been soldiers who fight wars without going to the battlefield.
The scenario I am thinking about is, that bombing an apartment block full of civilians is quite clearly a war crime. On the other hand, bombing barracks is not. And since a drone pilot on leave is as far as I understand still a combatant, he can be attacked given that the harm to civilians is 'proportional.'