Improving Interdisciplinary Communication With Standardized Cyber Security Terminology: A Literature Review

Abstract

The growing demand for computer security and the cyberization trend are hallmarks of the 21 st century. The rise in cyber-crime, digital currency, e-governance, and more, is well met by a corresponding recent jump in investment in new technology for securing computers around the globe. Recently, business and government sectors have begun to focus efforts on comprehensive cyber security solutions. With this growth has emerged the need for greater methods of collaboration and measurement of security. Despite all these efforts, this need has not been met, and there is still too little crossdisciplinary collaboration in the realm of computer security. This paper reviews the new trends in cyber security research, their contributions, and some identifiable limitations. We argue that these limitations are due largely to the absence of cooperation required to address a problem that is clearly multifaceted. We then identify a need for further standardization of terminology in computer security and propose guidelines for the global Internet multistakeholder community to consider when crafting such standards. We also assess the viability of some specific terms, including whether cyber should be used as a separate word when it is a descriptor (e.g. cyber security or cybersecurity), and conclude with recommendations for writing future papers on cyber security or the broader new field of all things relating to cyberspace, which has recently been dubbed Cybermatics, a term we also examine and propose alternatives to, like Cyber or Cybernomics. By furthering the effort of standardizing cyber security terminology, this paper lays groundwork for cross-disciplinary collaboration, agreement between technical and nontechnical stakeholders, and the drafting of universal Internet governance laws.

How does intellectual capital align with cyber security?

“…This relatively new responsibility makes BoDs and executive management teams nervous (Sims, 2019;Abraham et al, 2019). Only a third of IT professionals believe that board members really understand the cyber field (Bay Dynamics, 2015), probably because, despite cyber's ubiquity in modern organizational usage, the core concepts are poorly defined and understood (Ramirez and Choucri, 2016). This lack of clarity gets in the way of organizations achieving their objectives (Althonayan and Andronache, 2018).…”

Cyber risk management: History and future research directions

“…Terminology is another barrier to integrating cyber risk into an ERM framework on a couple of different levels. Collaboration across academic and industry disciplines is required to manage cyber risk with Ramirez and Choucri (2016), Shameli‐Sendi et al (2016), and Falco et al (2019) arguing that cooperation is hindered by lack of standard cyber risk management terminology. Within enterprises, this often results in the CISO and chief risk officer (CRO) not speaking the same language causing difficulty to integrate cyber risk into ERM risk portfolios (Doherty & Watson, 2017).…”

Extracting Key Factors of Cyber Hygiene Behaviour Among Software Engineers: A Systematic Literature Review

“…Cyber hygiene detection and security awareness are done in the same way and are done legally [53], [58], [63]. In [27], [55], [57], [59], [60], and [67], the authors suggested that the employees should receive ongoing training in cybersecurity awareness to identify unwanted and suspicious activities in the organization so that users can secure their information.…”

“…The studies [29], [65], [70] reported the amount of awareness a person has regarding cyber-security. Employees should be aware of unauthorized emails [44], [57], [58], [67], text messages, and know that an unauthorized person can access their personal and financial information. [27], [48], [51], [73], [74].…”