CONCERNING LEADERSHIP IN THE FIELD OF CYBERSECURITY: A PERSON OR A STATE (BASED ON FOREIGN PUBLICATIONS) - Наукові конференції
Головна
UA RU EN

Вас вітає Інтернет конференція!

Вітаємо на нашому сайті

Рік заснування видання - 2014

CONCERNING LEADERSHIP IN THE FIELD OF CYBERSECURITY: A PERSON OR A STATE (BASED ON FOREIGN PUBLICATIONS)

18.10.2022 18:32

[3. Філософські науки]

Автор: Trofymenko Volodymyr Anatolevich, candidate of Legal Sciences, associate professor, associate professor of the Department of Philosophy, Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University; Kalnytskyy Eduard Anatolevich, candidate of Philosophical Sciences, associate professor, associate professor of the Department of Philosophy, Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University


ORCID: 0000-0003-2240-3727 (Trofymenko V.A.)

ORCID: 0000-0002-1777-9992 (Kalnytskyy E.A.)

The topic of cyberspace and cyber security is very popular in academic circles today. The interests of scientists in these areas cover a large number of topics. But the rapid development of information, computer, network and other technologies and their rapid expansion does not allow researchers to create some kind of unified understanding of them. Despite the large number of publications, many theoretical and general questions regarding cyberspace and cyber security remain debatable. One of the main problems is the problem of interaction between the state and people in the field of cyber security. 

Paying attention to the fact that the demand for computer security is growing, and the trends of cyberization are characteristic features of the 20th century (the growth of cybercrime, digital currency and electronic government, etc.), the American R. Ramirez and N. Choucri [1] focused on the merciless band of investments in new technologies to protect computers around the world. Business and government, according to the latest opinion, have begun to focus their efforts on complex cyber security solutions. Thanks to these efforts, there was a need for closer cooperation between the research and industrial sectors. Despite many efforts, interdisciplinary cooperation in the field of computer security is still insufficient. The authors insist that this change is mainly related to the definition of international disciplinary practice, which is not justified to identify problems, which is clearly multifaceted. In addition, in accordance with standard scientific research in accordance with regulatory requirements, standard terminological safety measures for use in various disciplines, such as cooperation and guidelines for global research of rich castles on the Internet, which should be taken into account. Separately, American scientists propose to create a unified jargon in the field of security.

South African researchers: N. Gcaza, R. von Solms, M. Grobler, J. van Vuuren, and J. Jansen [2] are responsible for delineating the culture of cyber security. Cybersecurity, they note, has been a concern for years. To reduce cyber security risks, technological measures are considered the best solution. However, today, according to them, it is accepted that the cybersecurity process requires much more than just technical controls. Instead, it now requires a human-centric approach, including a cybersecurity culture. Although the role of culture cultivation in achieving cybersecurity is well recognized, research that focuses intensively on cybersecurity culture is still in its infancy. In addition, subject knowledge is not clearly limited and defined. 

Serbian scientists A. Kovačević, N. Putnik, and O. Tošković [3] also hold the same opinion. Theoretical and empirical analysis, they note, shows that cyber security awareness is of particular interest to cyber security. People are central figures in cyber security, and the way to reduce risk in cyberspace is to make people more security aware. When examining different aspects of cybersecurity awareness, researchers note that they are inconsistent and environment-dependent. An in-depth analysis of cyber security awareness needs to be conducted and try to find out how different factors such as socio-demographic factors, cyber security perception, previous cyber security breaches, IT usage and knowledge can individually or together influence cyber security. safety behavior. As an example, scientists conducted research on students, since they are the most technologically active part of society. Knowledge was found to be the dominant factor in cyber security awareness, and although students are digital natives, they do not feel safe in the cyber environment; they behave dangerously and lack the knowledge to protect themselves in cyberspace. Therefore, cyber security awareness should be systemic. 

The American scientist W. Dutton [4] also suggests drawing more attention to people in the field of cyber security. Cybersecurity experts, he notes, have recognized the need to pay more attention to the views, beliefs and practices of end users. Unfortunately, instead of driving user social research, this awareness has more often led users to blame security problems and sponsor fear-based campaigns aimed at end users. The author insists on the education of "safety thinking". Rather than simply identifying safe practices, the researcher writes, this will help shape a mindset that embeds cybersecurity considerations into everyday user choices. This, in turn, will allow working out the concept of the "mentality" of security and its social significance. The Canadian scientist G. Platsis [5] also takes similar positions. Considering the cross-spectrum of problems that the cyber domain affects in human decision-making, he argues that technical efforts and solutions are not enough. Until personal cyber awareness improves, he notes, we will not come close to solving this great problem of our time. 

The American researcher K. Carley [6] also makes a bias towards people in cyber security issues. She writes that a new science - social cyber security - can help in this matter. According to her, it is an applied field focused on the science of characterizing, understanding, and predicting cyber-mediated changes in human behavior and performance, as well as related social, cultural, economic, and political outcomes. On the engineering side, it involves creating the cyber infrastructure necessary for society to maintain its essential character in a cyber-mediated information environment, under changing conditions, in the presence of real or imminent social cyber threats. Research into social cyber security has shown, writes the scientist, that social media and personalized data assistants are critical technologies that influence how people navigate this cyber-mediated information space, as well as the way they interact and participate in discussions. This impact is complex and related to human socio-cognitive responses, the developed features of technology, and the policy/legal environment in which people and technology interact. The changing nature of interaction in the cyber-mediated information environment, Carly notes, creates new scientific and policy challenges that social cybersecurity practitioners must address. 

Indian scientists M. Khari, J. Shrivastava, S. Gupta and R. Gupta express a slightly different position regarding the place of a person in the field of cyber security [7]. Underscoring the overall importance of cyber security, they note that in computer security or information security, the relationship to the person is primarily related to their duty(s) in the security process. In cyber security, this factor has an additional dimension, making people targets for cyber attacks or even becoming part of cyber attacks unknowingly. A similar position about a person in the field of cyber security is expressed by the British researcher J. De Silva [8]. Based on surveys and interviews with chief information security officers at large private enterprises, he concludes that the private sector is unable to fully counter cyber threats. A person is not able to create a full-fledged defense system without the help of a large general mechanism. Recalling "Leviathan" and other works of Thomas Hobbes, the researcher believes that such a mechanism should be the state. Only she is able to give effective cyber security practices. 

In general, one can see the polar views of scientists regarding the person in the field of cyber security, which shows the incompleteness of this issue in the scientific community. 

Analyzing the place of the state in the field of cyber security, the Chinese scientist X. Wenhong [9] puts the problem of cyber sovereignty of the state in the first place. With the development of the Internet, the scientist writes, it gradually became an indispensable infrastructure for all countries of the world. Recently, various countries are facing cyber security issues and countries around the world are starting to create their own cyber security systems. The origin of all cyber security activity comes from cyber sovereignty. Sovereignty means the supreme and exclusive power to manage affairs within a particular jurisdiction. According to the scientist, cyber sovereignty is a natural extension of national sovereignty in cyberspace. Regarding the construction of cyber security, the author notes, there are different opinions. When the meaning of "Internet freedom" is important, it is believed that the word "cyber sovereignty" is first and foremost in building a cyber security system. And cyber sovereignty itself is the basis of all relevant activities. Theoretically, cyberspace has no borders, but legally it is not beyond the law. Cyber sovereignty now faces many challenges. To answer them, it is necessary to study future cyber sovereignty (security) with the participation of developing countries. No country, K. Wenhong notes, can achieve absolute security. Usually, a large power promotes freedom, while others emphasize the rules of the game. Emphasizing the role of cyber sovereignty in the development of cyber security does not mean closing cybernetics and separating the country from the outside world. The international community, the Chinese scientist believes, should create a new order of cyber governance based on mutual respect for cyber sovereignty and sovereign equality. Shared governance must be the future of cyber sovereignty. 

The German scientist L. Fichtne draws attention to the leading role of politics and political initiatives in the field of cyber security [10]. When a policy or initiative is chosen by policymakers, she writes, analyzing the underlying approach improves our understanding of how this shapes the relationships between actors, and the values that are prioritized, promoted, and inscribed in the technologies involved. Swiss scientists M. Cavelty and A. Wenger call politics the driving force in the field of cyber security [11]. This approach, in their opinion, makes it possible to predict the future development of this area. It is also worth noting that Swiss scientists also note the importance of the existence of an interdisciplinary approach to understanding processes in the field of cyber security. The importance of policy in the field of cyber security at the international level is emphasized by the Indonesian researcher F. Timur [12]. In recent decades, he notes, information technology has so strongly influenced global politics that defense and security experts are arguing for the beginning of a new era in warfare. Many foreign countries have begun to include the cyber threat as a determining factor in the space of international security, which also confirms the importance of cyber security in foreign policy, the scientist notes. 

Indian scientists J. Srinivas, A. Das and N. Kumar insist on a centralized approach in the field of cyber security with the state at the head [13]. Noting the large number and variety of cyber threats (viruses, phishing, Trojan horses, worms, denial-of-service (DoS) attacks, illegal access (such as theft of intellectual property or confidential information), attacks on control systems, etc.), they insist on the importance of creating various standards in cyber protection and building the architecture of the cyber security system. Scientists are convinced of the need for the development and adoption by the state of a national cyber security strategy for the protection of cyberspace, as well as various government policies for the protection of cyber security. Mexican scientists P. Orozco and G. Alejandro [14] generally propose to create a common platform for the purpose of comparing the cyber security models and strategies of states in order to highlight their most successful elements and build a comprehensive effective model or strategy. 

Looking at the danger of cyber threats to the state and society, Finnish researchers L. Limnel and M. Lehto [15] consider it necessary to have strategic leadership in the field of cyber security. Cybersecurity, they write, has become one of the biggest priorities for companies and governments. Optimizing and strengthening strategic leadership are key aspects of ensuring the realization of the cybersecurity vision. Strategic cybersecurity leadership, they believe, involves defining and setting goals based on protecting the digital operating environment. It also involves coordination and preparedness, as well as managing significant disruptions. From the perspective of effective strategic cybersecurity leadership, it is vital to define structures that can meet the operational requirements of the environment. As a foundation for national development and preparedness, a clear leadership model at the level of strategy and situational awareness that supports governance is needed. They are also required to manage severe, large-scale disruptions in both normal and emergency cyber operational environments. The problems of cyber security management, the researchers note, are especially noticeable at the level of strategic management. In order to ensure cyber security and achieve the set strategic goals, society must be able to involve different parties and coordinate resources and courses of action as efficiently as possible. Cyber capability, the researchers conclude, must be developed throughout society, requiring strategic coordination, governance and executive capacity. 

Thus, it can be concluded that the scientific community, according to the authors, is inclined to the position of state leadership in the field of cyber security. Only it has the ability to create a single, general cyber defense strategy that will make the fight against cyber threats more effective and efficient. It is worth saying that, again, only the state can establish all this at the legislative level. 

One cannot fail to note that the vision of a person in this area is gradually changing. If earlier it was considered mainly as an object of cyber threats, now one can see proposals to consider it as a subject. But at the same time, scientists emphasize, it is necessary to increase awareness and education of a person in the field of cyber security. In this regard, the emergence of new interdisciplinary sciences is emphasized, the purpose of which is the education of such a subject. 

In general, the problem of the interaction between the state and man in the fight against cyber threats has not yet been closed and has not lost its relevance, which will necessarily lead to the emergence of scientific and interesting scientific proposals on this topic. 

References

1. Ramirez R., Choucri N. Improving Interdisciplinary Communication With Standardized Cyber Security Terminology: A Literature Review. IEEE Access. 2016. Vol. 4. P. 2216-2243.

2. Gcaza N., von Solms R., Grobler M., van Vuuren J. A general morphological analysis: delineating a cyber-security culture. Information and computer security. 2017. №25 (3). P.259-278.

3. Kovačević A., Putnik N., Tošković O. Factors Related to Cyber Security Behavior. IEEE Access. 2020. Vol. 8. P.125140-125148.

4. Dutton W. Fostering a cyber security mindset. Internet Policy Review. 2017. № 6(1). Режим доступу: https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/fostering-cyber-security-mindset (дата звернення 25.09.2022 р.)

5. Platsis G. The Human Factor: Cyber Security's Greatest Challenge. International journal of public administration in the digital age. 2018. № 5 (2). P.23-39.

6. Carley K. The Science of Social Cyber-Security. 24th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom'18). (Association for Computing Machinery, 2018). New York, NY, USA, 2018. P. 459.

7. Khari M., Shrivastava G., Gupta S.,  Gupta R. Role of Cyber Security in Today's Scenario. Detecting and mitigating robotic cyber security risks. 2017. P.177-191.

8. De Silva J. Cyber security and the Leviathan. Computers & security. 2022. Vol.116. Режим доступу: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167404822000724?via%3Dihub (дата звернення 25.09.2022 р.)

9. Wenhong X. Challenges to cyber sovereignty and response measures. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya.2020. №64 (2). P.89-99.

10. Fichtne L. What kind of cyber security? Theorising cyber security and mapping approaches. Internet policy review. 2018.№7 (2). Режим доступу: https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/what-kind-cyber-security-theorising-cyber-security-and-mapping-approaches (дата звернення 25.09.2022 р.)

11. Cavelty M., Wenger A. Cyber security meets security politics: Complex technology, fragmented politics, and networked science, Contemporary Security Policy. 2020. №41:1. P.5-32. 

12. Timur F. The Rise of Cyber Diplomacy ASEAN’s Perspective in Cyber Security. KnE Social Sciences. 2017. №2(4). P.244-250. 

13. Srinivas J., Das A., Kumar N. Government regulations in cyber security: Framework, standards and recommendations. Future generation computer systems-the international journal of escience. 2019. №92. P.178-188.

14. Orozco P., Alejandro G. Chinese and American cyber security models: a comparative. Oasis-observatorio de analisis de los sistemas internacionales. 2021. №34. P.107-126.

15. Limnell J., Lehto M. The Importance of Strategic Leadership in Cyber Security: Case of Finland. 18th European Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security (ECCWS). Proceedings of the 18th european conference on cyber warfare and security (ECCWS 2019). P.288-296.



Creative Commons Attribution Ця робота ліцензується відповідно до Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
допомога Знайшли помилку? Виділіть помилковий текст мишкою і натисніть Ctrl + Enter

Інші наукові праці даної секції

Конференції

Конференції 2024

Конференції 2023

Конференції 2022

Конференції 2021

Конференції 2020

Конференції 2019

Конференції 2018

Конференції 2017

Конференції 2016

Конференції 2015

Конференції 2014

:: LEX-LINE :: Юридична лінія

Міжнародна інтернет-конференція з економіки, інформаційних систем і технологій, психології та педагогіки

Наукові конференції

Економіко-правові дискусії. Спільнота