Advertisement

Situational Status of Global Cybersecurity and Cyber Defense According to Global Indicators. Adaptation of a Model for Ecuador

  • Fabián Bustamante
  • Walter Fuertes
  • Theofilos Tulkeredis
  • Mario Ron
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 94)

Abstract

The aim of this study has been to establish a Cybersecurity and Cyber defense model in Ecuador, based on the comparison of the worldwide situation status. Therefore, we performed a descriptive research, which has been related to the metrics and indicators of the countries with greater relevance in such areas, which have been considered as important by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). Subsequently, we applied an incremental methodology in order to perform the comparative analysis. The main findings demonstrate that G8 countries appear or be the most prepared and mature in Cybersecurity/Cyber defense and Cyberwar. This has been also evidenced about countries with high technological level and which historically have maintained warlike conflicts. The final exposed results according to the Cybersecurity pillars of the ITU, yielded details of the relevant points and evidenced that on a global scale the United States and France are the most outstanding countries, which has led to propose a model to follow for Ecuador, which represents a country that still allows great opportunities for growth and improvement in this topic.

Keywords

GCI ITU Cybersecurity Cyber defense ISMS ICS 

References

  1. 1.
    Watkins, B.: The Impact of Cyber-Attacks on the Private Sector, p. 12. Association for International Affair, Briefing Paper (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brahima, S.: Global Cybersecurity Index 2017. International Telecommunication Union (ITU), pp. 1–77 (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    International Telecommunications Union. Cyber wellness Profiles. http://www.itu.int/pub/D-STR-SECU-2015
  4. 4.
    Davara, F.: Documentos de seguridad y defensa 60 Estrategia de la información y seguridad en el ciberespacio, pp. 1–120 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Parraguez, L.: The State of Cybersecurity in Mexico: An Overview, pp. 1–23. Wlson Center Mexico Institute, Mexico, January 2017Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Australian Cyber Security Centre: Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents – Migration Details, Australian Government, pp. 1–42, February 2017Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shackelford, S., Russell, S., Haut, J.: Bottoms Up: A comparison of voluntary Cybersecurity Frameworks, pp. 1–39 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cioaca, C., Bratu, A., Stefanescu, D.: The Analysis of Benchmarking Application in Cybersecurity, Romania, pp. 1–6 (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    National Institute of Standars and Technology: Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, United States Government, pp. 1–61, January 2017Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Craig, A., Shackelford, S., Hiller, J.: Proactive cybersecurity: a comparative industry and regulatory analysis, pp. 1–63 (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Department of Commerce United States: Meeting of the Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity. New York University – School of Law, pp. 1–26, May 2016Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Military Strength Ranking (2017). www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp
  13. 13.
    Symantec Corporation: Internet Security Threat Report, United States, vol. 22, pp. 1–77 (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Medina, M., Molist, M.: Ciberseguridad: Tendencias 2017, Universidad Internacional de Valencia, pp. 1–35, February 2017Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pilkey, A., Ahmad, A., Patel, A., et al.: 2017 State of cyber security, F-SECURE, pp. 1–77 (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bustamante, F., Fuertes, W., Díaz, P., Toulkeridis, T.: Integration of IT frameworks for the management of information security within industrial control systems providing metrics and indicators. IEEE Xplore, pp. 1–4, August 2017Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bustamante, F., Fuertes, W., Díaz, P., Toulkeridis, T.: Methodology for management of information security in industrial control systems: a proof of concept aligned with enterprise objectives. Adv. Sci. Technol. Eng. Syst. J. 2(3), 88–99 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bustamante, F., Fuertes, W., Díaz, P., Toulkeridis, T.: A methodological proposal concerning to the management of information security in Industrial Control Systems. In: Ecuador Technical Chapters Meeting (ETCM), vol. 1, pp. 1–6. IEEE, October 2016Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    ICS-CERT: “Year in Review”, Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team U.S. Department of Homeland Security, pp. 1–24 (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vishik, C., Matsubara, M., Plonk, A.: Key Concepts in Cyber Security: Towards a Common Policy and Technology Context for Cyber Security Norms, pp. 221–242. NATO CCD COE Publications, Tallinn (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tabansky, L.: Basic concepts in cyber warfare. Mil. Strateg. Aff. 3, 75–92 (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Boopathi, K., Sreejith, S., Bithin, A.: Learning cyber security through gamification. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 8(7), 642–649 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Abrahams, L., Mbanaso, U.: State of Internet Security and Policy in Africa, pp. 1–7, October 2017Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabián Bustamante
    • 1
  • Walter Fuertes
    • 1
  • Theofilos Tulkeredis
    • 1
  • Mario Ron
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversidad de las Fuerzas Armadas ESPESangolquíEcuador

Personalised recommendations