Articles

Critical infrastructure defense: perspectives from the EU and USA cyber experts

• 
• 

User Rating:  / 0

PoorBest 

Details

Category: Content №5 2023

Last Updated on 27 October 2023

Published on 30 November -0001

Hits: 2654

Authors:

I.Leroy^1,2, orcid.org/0000-0003-3299-9149, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, the French Republic; European Security and Defence College, Brussels, the Kingdom of Belgium, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

I.Zolotaryova*³, orcid.org/0000-0002-1553-2849, Simon Kuznets Kharkiv National University of Econo­mics, Kharkiv, Ukraine, e-mail:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

* Corresponding author e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

повний текст / full article

Naukovyi Visnyk Natsionalnoho Hirnychoho Universytetu. 2023, (5): 165 - 170

https://doi.org/10.33271/nvngu/2023-5/165

Abstract:

Purpose. To examine the components of cyber autonomy according to the insights of seasoned professionals from the European Union (EU) and the United States of America (USA). The value of each element will be calculated by obtaining data from structured in-depth interviews.

Methodology. Through an investigation of different aspects of the research, we used the Delphi technique and research interviews include the option of the Interviewee Transcript Review (ITR). The Delphi method is processed in several rounds, usually three, with two rounds being considered as a minimum and in that respect the Delphi method helps our study explore, predict and identify the nature and fundamental elements of Cyber Autonomy.

Findings. The study findings demonstrate that elements such as “Policies”, “Reputation management”, and “Infrastructure and Architecture” hold substantial importance within Cyber Autonomy. These elements are considered critical for future perspectives. The research highlights the role of Cyber Autonomy in streamlining cybersecurity approaches, mitigating the impact of cyber-attacks, and safeguarding possible reputation damage. The study also highlights the importance of well-defined implementation methods and the organizational structure in successfully deploying Cyber Autonomy.

Originality. The research demonstrates the interdisciplinary nature of cybersecurity and applies a comprehensive approach covering information security, information security policy, technical and economic aspects, noting the important role of governance in the company share value recovery process. Cyber Autonomy could offer a concept of defense reputation that helps to identify potential cyber threats that are further intensified in connection with the development of various platforms for remote control of artificial intelligence, distance learning, and opportunities for autonomous operation of enterprise systems, the influence of multinational companies on financial markets, and automated decision-making systems.

Practical value. Experts’ insights are analyzed that can help to provide practical solutions for the Cyber Autonomy and risk management methods for implementing cyber resilience strategy for critical infrastructure. The research provides adjustments to existing cybersecurity frameworks and directives which consider new cyber elements of information security realities. The current study can be used as a guide to confidence-building measures for possible reputation and financial loss, reinforces protection actions against disinformation or negative cyber impact.

Keywords: cyber autonomy, critical infrastructure, cyber-attack, risk mitigation

References.

1. European Commission (2017). Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council: Resilience, Deterrence, and Defence: Building Strong Cybersecurity for the EU. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52017JC0450.

2. Leroy, I. (2021). Cyber Autonomy Toolbox – Project Management Digital Transformation. AARMS – Academic and Applied Research in Military and Public Management Science, (pp. 95-110). ISSN 2498-5392. https://doi.org/10.32565/aarms.2021.2.ksz.7.

3. Leroy, I. (2021). Cyber autonomy for business: building a European cyber resilience. Views on the progress of CSDP. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. ISBN: 978-3-902275-48-6.

4. Knowles, W., Prince, S., Hutchison, D., Pagna Disso, J. F., & Jones, K. (2015). A survey of cyber security management in industrial control systems. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 9, 52-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcip.2015.02.002.

5. Cartagena, S., Gosrani, V., Grewal, J., & Pikinska, J. (2020). Silent cyber assessment framework. British Actuarial Journal, 25, E2. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357321720000021.

6. Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique (n.d.). FRS: The European Union between strategic autonomy and technological sovereignty: impasses and opportunities. Retrieved from https://www.frstrategie.org/en/publications/recherches-et-documents/european-union-between-strategic-autonomy-and-technological-sovereignty-impasses-and-opportunities-2021.

7. Ministère des Armées France: REVUE STRATÉGIQUE DE DÉFENSE ET DE SÉCURITÉ NATIONALE (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.viepublique.fr/sites/default/files/rapport/pdf/174000744.pdf.

8. FIIA (2021). Report Strategic Autonomy and the transformation of the EU new agendas for the security, diplomacy, and trade technology. Finnish Institute of International Affairs. Retrieved from https://www.fiia.fi/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/fiia-report-67_niklas-helwig-et-al_strategic-autonomy-and-the-transformation-of-the-eu.pdf.

9. Reinhold, T., & Reuter, C. (2023). Preventing the escalation of cyber conflicts: towards an approach to plausibly assure the non-involvement in a cyberattack. Z Friedens und Konflforsch. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42597-023-00099-7.

10. EPRS (2016). European Parliament: CSDP. Cybersecurity in the EU Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Challenges and risks for the EU. EPRS, European Parliamentary Research Service. https://doi.org/10.2861/853031.

11. Kruszka, L., Klósak, M., & Muzolf, P. (2019). Critical Infrastructure Protection: Best Practices and Innovative Methods of Protection. Amsterdam: IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23052415.

12. Danet, D., & Desforges, A. (2021). Souveraineté numérique et autonomie stratégique en Europe: du concept aux réalités géopolitiques. Hérodote, 177-178(2-3), 179-195. https://doi.org/10.3917/her.177.0179.

13. D’Ambrosio, A. (2014). Cybersecurity: Executive Order 13636 and the Critical Infrastructure Framework. Nova Science Publishers, Inc. ISBN-13: 978-1631176715.

14. Talesh, S. (2018). Data Breach, Privacy, and Cyber Insurance: How Insurance Companies Act as “Compliance Managers” for Businesses. Law & Social Inquiry, 43(2), 417-440. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsi.1230.

15. European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (2015). For Digital Service Providers (NIS Directive) – ENISA (europa.eu). Retrieved from https://www.enisa.europa.eu/topics/incident-reporting/for-digital-service-providers-nis-directive.

16. Ponemon Institute (2020). Cost of a Data Breach Report: European Union. Ponemon Institute LLC. Retrieved from https://www.ibm.com/security/data-breach.

17. Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (2021). Introduction, In Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley, 12. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150755.

18. COUNCIL DECISION, CFSP 2020/1127: Amending Decision (CFSP) 2019/797 concerning restrictive measures against cyber-attacks threatening the Union or its Member States. Official Journal of the European Union. Brussels: 2020, Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32020D1127&from=E.

19. Jamshed, S. (2014). Qualitative research method-interviewing and observation. Journal of Basic and Clinical Pharmacy, 5(4), 87-88. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-0105.141942.

• < Prev
• Next >