国家网络应急预案调查

Konstantinos Adamos, Ioannis Filippopoulos, G. Stergiopoulos, D. Gritzalis
{"title":"国家网络应急预案调查","authors":"Konstantinos Adamos, Ioannis Filippopoulos, G. Stergiopoulos, D. Gritzalis","doi":"10.34190/eccws.22.1.1039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Operators of Essential services (OESs) and Critical infrastructures (CIs), whether private companies or public organizations are going through a digital transformation to pace with the evolution of technology and to bring better services to customers and countries’ citizens. Operational Technology (OT) systems like Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) and Distributed Control Systems (DCS) used to control and monitor functions in such infrastructures are converging with Information Technology (IT) environments. This convergence has exposed infrastructures to new cyber risks. For this reason, EU Member States have been trying to build resilience against cyber-attacks to ensure the stable operation of their states. Several countries have established cybersecurity incident response procedures as well as steps or phases of response before, during, and after a cyber incident. The sum of these procedures and guidelines constitutes their national cyber emergency plans (NCEPs). Still, these NCEPs differ widely in their approaches. These differences manifest as both managerial, governmental, legal, and technical, creating a complex environment worldwide. In this paper, we gather four major NCEPs worldwide to analyze and compare them with prominent standards and industry guidelines in cybersecurity, like the ISO 27001 and NIST 800 series. We investigate NCEP approaches to building cyber resilience based on their response models, their involved entities, the cooperation between agencies and other countries, and their risk-based categorization for cyber incidents. We elaborate on their differences, potential issues and divergences and argue whether these plans can be combined to bridge potential weaknesses. We selected and surveyed four (4) cyber emergency plans from four (4) countries that are frequent targets of cyber-attacks and have long experience in managing and responding to cyber incidents.","PeriodicalId":258360,"journal":{"name":"European Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Survey on National Cyber Emergency Plans\",\"authors\":\"Konstantinos Adamos, Ioannis Filippopoulos, G. Stergiopoulos, D. Gritzalis\",\"doi\":\"10.34190/eccws.22.1.1039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Operators of Essential services (OESs) and Critical infrastructures (CIs), whether private companies or public organizations are going through a digital transformation to pace with the evolution of technology and to bring better services to customers and countries’ citizens. Operational Technology (OT) systems like Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) and Distributed Control Systems (DCS) used to control and monitor functions in such infrastructures are converging with Information Technology (IT) environments. This convergence has exposed infrastructures to new cyber risks. For this reason, EU Member States have been trying to build resilience against cyber-attacks to ensure the stable operation of their states. Several countries have established cybersecurity incident response procedures as well as steps or phases of response before, during, and after a cyber incident. The sum of these procedures and guidelines constitutes their national cyber emergency plans (NCEPs). Still, these NCEPs differ widely in their approaches. These differences manifest as both managerial, governmental, legal, and technical, creating a complex environment worldwide. In this paper, we gather four major NCEPs worldwide to analyze and compare them with prominent standards and industry guidelines in cybersecurity, like the ISO 27001 and NIST 800 series. We investigate NCEP approaches to building cyber resilience based on their response models, their involved entities, the cooperation between agencies and other countries, and their risk-based categorization for cyber incidents. We elaborate on their differences, potential issues and divergences and argue whether these plans can be combined to bridge potential weaknesses. We selected and surveyed four (4) cyber emergency plans from four (4) countries that are frequent targets of cyber-attacks and have long experience in managing and responding to cyber incidents.\",\"PeriodicalId\":258360,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34190/eccws.22.1.1039\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34190/eccws.22.1.1039","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

基本服务(OESs)和关键基础设施(ci)的运营商,无论是私营公司还是公共组织,都在经历数字化转型,以跟上技术的发展,为客户和国家公民提供更好的服务。操作技术(OT)系统,如监控和数据采集(SCADA)和分布式控制系统(DCS),用于控制和监控这些基础设施中的功能,正在与信息技术(IT)环境融合。这种融合使基础设施面临新的网络风险。因此,欧盟成员国一直在努力建立抵御网络攻击的弹性,以确保其国家的稳定运行。一些国家已经建立了网络安全事件响应程序,以及在网络事件发生之前、期间和之后的响应步骤或阶段。这些程序和准则的总和构成其国家网络应急计划(ncep)。尽管如此,这些ncep在方法上存在很大差异。这些差异体现在管理、政府、法律和技术方面,创造了一个复杂的全球环境。在本文中,我们收集了全球四个主要的ncep,并将其与网络安全方面的突出标准和行业指南(如ISO 27001和NIST 800系列)进行分析和比较。我们根据NCEP的响应模型、参与实体、机构与其他国家之间的合作以及基于风险的网络事件分类,研究了NCEP建立网络弹性的方法。我们详细阐述了它们之间的差异、潜在的问题和分歧,并讨论了这些计划是否可以结合起来弥合潜在的弱点。我们选择并调查了来自四(4)个国家的四(4)个网络应急计划,这些国家经常成为网络攻击的目标,并且在管理和响应网络事件方面具有长期经验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Survey on National Cyber Emergency Plans
Operators of Essential services (OESs) and Critical infrastructures (CIs), whether private companies or public organizations are going through a digital transformation to pace with the evolution of technology and to bring better services to customers and countries’ citizens. Operational Technology (OT) systems like Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) and Distributed Control Systems (DCS) used to control and monitor functions in such infrastructures are converging with Information Technology (IT) environments. This convergence has exposed infrastructures to new cyber risks. For this reason, EU Member States have been trying to build resilience against cyber-attacks to ensure the stable operation of their states. Several countries have established cybersecurity incident response procedures as well as steps or phases of response before, during, and after a cyber incident. The sum of these procedures and guidelines constitutes their national cyber emergency plans (NCEPs). Still, these NCEPs differ widely in their approaches. These differences manifest as both managerial, governmental, legal, and technical, creating a complex environment worldwide. In this paper, we gather four major NCEPs worldwide to analyze and compare them with prominent standards and industry guidelines in cybersecurity, like the ISO 27001 and NIST 800 series. We investigate NCEP approaches to building cyber resilience based on their response models, their involved entities, the cooperation between agencies and other countries, and their risk-based categorization for cyber incidents. We elaborate on their differences, potential issues and divergences and argue whether these plans can be combined to bridge potential weaknesses. We selected and surveyed four (4) cyber emergency plans from four (4) countries that are frequent targets of cyber-attacks and have long experience in managing and responding to cyber incidents.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
From Provoking Emotions to fake Images: The Recurring Signs of fake news and Phishing Scams Spreading on Social Media in Hungary, Romania and Slovakia A Commentary and Exploration of Maritime Applications of Biosecurity and Cybersecurity Intersections Cultural Influences on Information Security Processing Model and Classification of Cybercognitive Attacks: Based on Cognitive Psychology Role of Techno-Economic Coalitions in Future Cyberspace Governance: 'Backcasting' as a Method for Strategic Foresight
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1