Abstract
Whether carried out by individuals or states, cyberattacks are both growing in number and becoming more sophisticated. Since the attack on Estonian cyber infrastructure in 2007, many other examples of massive attacks have been reported. The use of spyware and malware—such as with Stuxnet, DuQu or Flames—to disrupt critical infrastructure has made headlines, questioning the ability of governments and private actors to respond to cyber threats. A broad array of potential threats poses a substantial challenge to existing governance structures, which are often behind the curve in comparison with the dynamically evolving cyberspace. Using existing literature and recent foresight studies, the article analyses the trends in the governance of cyberspace and their implications for governments and global regulatory regimes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bendiek A (2012) European cybersecurity policy. SWP website www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/research_papers/2012_RP13_bdk.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2013
Borg S (2005) Economically complex cyberattacks. Secur Priv 3(6):64–67
Brenner SW, Clarke LL (2010) Civilians in cyberwarfare: casualties. SMU science & technology law review 13.3. http://works.bepress.com/susan_brenner/3. Accessed 15 June 2013
Clarke RS, Knake RK (2010) Cyber war. HarperCollins, New York
Congressional Research Service (2012) Cybersecurity, selected legal issues. April 2012. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42409.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2013
Cornish P, Hughes R, Livingstone D (2009) Cyberspace and the national security of the united kingdom, threats and responses. Chatham house report, March 2009
Depository Trust & Clearing Corp (2013) Beyond the horizon. A white paper to the industry on systemic risk. August 2013. http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/leadership/whitepapers/Beyond_the_Horizon_White_Paper_Systemic_Risk.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2013
Dupont B (2012) L’environnement de la cybersécurité à l’horizon tendances, moteurs et implications.Note de recherche 14 Centre International de Criminology Compare. Université de Montréal, Montreal
FEMA (2011) Critical infrastructure. Strategic foresight initiative. June 2011. http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/programs/oppa/critical_infrastructure_paper.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2013
Georgia Institute of Technology (2013) Emergening cyberthreat report 2013. http://www.gtcybersecuritysummit.com/pdf/2013ThreatsReport.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2013
Gorman S, Bernes JE (2011) Cyber combat: act of war. Wall Str J. 31 May 2011
Institute for Information Infrastructure Protection (2003) Cybersecurity, research and development agenda. http://www.cyber.st.dhs.gov/docs/I3P%20Research%20Agenda%202003.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2013
Kay DJ, Pudas TJ, Young B (2012) Preparing the pipeline: the US cyber workforce for the future. Defense horizons. National Defense University, August 2012
Lewis AJ, Neuneck G (2013) The Cyber Index. International security trends and realities. New York and Geneva, United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research
Liberthal K, Singer PW (2012) Cybersecurity and US-China relations. Brookings Institution. February 2012
Lord KM, Sharp T (2011) America’s cyber future. Security and prosperity in the information age. Center for a New American Security. June 2011
McAfee (2013) 2013 Threat predictions. http://www.mcafee.com/us/resources/reports/rp-threat-predictions-2013.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2013
National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (2012) Attack surface: healthcare and public health Sector. http://info.publicintelligence.net/NCCIC-MedicalDevices.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2013
OECD (2011) Future global shocks, improving risk governance. OECD Review of Risk Management Policy. http://www.oecd.org/governance/48256382.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2013
OECD (2012) Cybersecurity policy making at a turning point: analysing new generation of national cybersecurity strategies for the internet economy. OECD digital economy papers 21. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k8zq92vdgtl-en. Accessed 15 June 2013
Ponemon Institute (2012) 2012 Cost of Cyber Crime Study: United States. http://www.ponemon.org/local/upload/file/2012_US_Cost_of_Cyber_Crime_Study_FINAL6%20.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2013
RAHS (2012) Future stake. RAHS, Singapore
Schneider B (2013) Cyberconflicts and national security. UN Chronicle. 18 July 2013
Shore M, Du Y, Zeadally S (2011) A public-private partnership model for national cybersecurity. Policy Internet 3:1–23
Symantec (2013) 2013 Internet Security Threat Report, Volume 18. http://www.symantec.com/security_response/publications/threatreport.jsp. Accessed 10 Aug 2013
Tessier Stall S (2011) The future of cybersecurity. The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies and TNO. Paper No 2001–04. http://www.inteltimes.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/The-Future-of-Cyber-Security.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2013
UK Cabinet Office (2008) Data handling procedures in government: final report. June 2008. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/65948/dhr080625.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2013
Valeriano B, Maness R (2011) Cyberwar and rivalry: the dynamics of cyber conflict between antagonists. University of Illinois, Chicago
World Economic Forum (2012) Risk and responsibility in a hyperconnected world. Pathways to global cyber resilience. June 2012
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The views expressed here are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the EUISS.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pawlak, P., Wendling, C. Trends in cyberspace: can governments keep up?. Environ Syst Decis 33, 536–543 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-013-9470-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-013-9470-5