Cyber Intelligence Networks: A Typology

Abstract

In this research, we identify different types of cyber intelligence networks and specify their unique characteristics. While existing research discusses intelligence cooperation in general terms or analyzes single case studies, we provide insight in the diversity of cyber intelligence networks in existence. Based on a qualitative study of cyber intelligence networks in the Netherlands, we identify four distinct types: centralized networks, business networks, operational networks, and local networks. These networks differ in terms of their history, activities, governance structure, communication frequency, goal consensus, member commitment, and perceived results. Based on the typology, we claim that the network type influences the challenges and outcomes of cyber intelligence cooperation. Next, we argue for an expanded focus on private sector engagement in these networks. Lastly, we advocate for incentivizing bottom-up cyber intelligence cooperation.

A Reflection on Typology and Verification Flaws in consideration of Biocybersecurity/Cyberbiosecurity: Just Another Gap in the Wall

“…Even though investment in cybersecurity is conditioned by the capabilities, competencies and attacks of a specific organization, the possession of developed cybersecurity procedures has reduced the severity of threats and positively impacted the entire company. Kalkman & Wieskamp (2019) state that the type of network that is being used is also impacted by the lack of a clear typology for cybersecurity in terms of challenges and outcomes of cyber intelligence. There are four network types (centralized, business, operational, and local) that all are impacted by cyber threats in different ways.…”

“…However, with the frequency of change in the cyber threat landscape, it is nearly impossible for organizations to manage all of the threats on their own. Kalkman & Wieskamp (2019) argue that it is of utmost urgency to build a shared intelligence network that is collaborative. Collaboration is tricky because all of the different network types have unique characteristics which makes it both important to distinguish between network types when collaborating, and for those competing network types to collaborate.…”

Towards the Design of a Collaborative Cybersecurity Networked Organisation: Identification and Prioritisation of Governance Needs and Objectives

“…One of the four pilot projects launched to establish a cybersecurity competence network on the basis of the project consortium includes 30 partners from 14 European countries [31]. Recognising that networks differ widely in terms of history, activities, communication modalities, member commitment, consensus on goals, perceptions of results, and respective governance structures [32], the project invests significant effort into designing, implementing and enhancing an adequate network governance model.…”

Modeling of Advanced Threat Actors: Characterization, Categorization and Detection

“…Nowadays, intelligence sharing, from strategical to tactical, is a must for threat detection, as in most cases we face global threats and there is a consensus that no intelligence actor can successfully act alone [312]. Collaboration between organizations is a key point to prevent, detect and neutralize threats.…”