CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 98Maritime Navigation and SafetyInformation and Cyber SecurityMulti-Criteria Decision Making

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Cyber security risk assessment in autonomous shipping

Open access
Tusher, Hasan Mahbub, Munim, Ziaul Haque, Notteboom, Theo E., Kim, Tae-Eun, Nazir, Salman·2022·Maritime Economics & Logistics
DOI 10.1057/s41278-022-00214-0
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1057/s41278-022-00214-0

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Ahvenjärvi, S., I. Czarnowski, J. Kåla, A. Kyster, I. Meyer, J. Mogensen, and P. Szyman. 2019. Safe information exchange on board of the ship. TransNav 13 (1): 165–171. https://doi.org/10.12716/1001.13.01.17. · DOI
  2. Allianz. 2020. Safety and Shipping Review [Annual report]. Allianz Global Corporate and Speciality. https://www.agcs.allianz.com/content/dam/onemarketing/agcs/agcs/reports/AGCS-Safety-Shipping-Review-2020.pdf
  3. Ali, Y., M.A. Awan, M. Bilal, J. Khan, A. Petrillo, and A.A. Khan. 2019. Risk assessment of China-Pakistan fiber optic project (CPFOP) in the light of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM). Advanced Engineering Informatics 40: 36–45. · DOI
  4. Alop, A. 2019. The main challenges and barriers to the successful “smart shipping.” TransNav 13 (3): 521–528. https://doi.org/10.12716/1001.13.03.05. · DOI
  5. Androjna, A., T. Brcko, I. Pavic, and H. Greidanus. 2020. Assessing cyber challenges of maritime navigation. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 8 (10): 776. · DOI
  6. Balduzzi, M., K. Wihoit, and A. Pasta. 2013. Hey captain, where’s your ship? Attacking vessel tracking systems for fun and profit. Hack in the Box (HITB) Security Conference in Asia.
  7. Bolbot, V., G. Theotokatos, E. Boulougouris, and D. Vassalos. 2020. A novel cyber-risk assessment method for ship systems. Safety Science 131: 104908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104908. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Chang, C.H., S. Wenming, Z. Wei, P. Changki, and C.A. Kontovas. 2019. Evaluating cybersecurity risks in the maritime industry: a literature review. Proceedings of the International Association of Maritime Universities (IAMU) Conference
  9. Chauvin, C., S. Lardjane, G. Morel, J.-P. Clostermann, and B. Langard. 2013. Human and organisational factors in maritime accidents: analysis of collisions at sea using the HFACS. Accident Analysis & Prevention 59: 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.05.006. · DOI
  10. Delice, E.K., and G.F. Can. 2020. A new approach for ergonomic risk assessment integrating KEMIRA, best–worst and MCDM methods. Soft Computing 24 (19): 15093–15110. · DOI
  11. Emovon, I., R.A. Norman, J.M. Alan, and K. Pazouki. 2015. An integrated multicriteria decision making methodology using compromise solution methods for prioritising risk of marine machinery systems. Ocean Engineering 105: 92–103. · DOI
  12. Felski, A., and K. Zwolak. 2020. The ocean-going autonomous ship-Challenges and threats. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 8(1): 41. · DOI
  13. Fenrich, K. 2008. Securing your control system: the “CIA triad” is a widely used benchmark for evaluating information system security effectiveness. Power Engineering 112(2): 44–49.
  14. Gilks, W. R., S. Richardson, and D. Spiegelhalter. 1995. Markov chain Monte Carlo in practice. CRC Press. · DOI
  15. Heffner, K., and Ø.J. Rødseth. 2019. Enabling technologies for maritime autonomous surface ships. Journal of Physics 1357 (1): 012021.
  16. Jozi, S.A., M.T. Shoshtary, and A.R.K. Zadeh. 2015. Environmental risk assessment of dams in construction phase using a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 21 (1): 1–16. · DOI
  17. Kaliszewski, A., A. Kozlowski, J., Dąbrowski, and H. Klimek. 2021. LinkedIn survey reveals competitiveness factors of container terminals: forwarders’ view. Transport Policy 106: 131–140. · DOI
  18. Kardakova, M., I. Shipunov, A. Nyrkov, and T. Knysh. 2020. Cyber security on sea transport. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 982: 481–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19756-8_46. · DOI
  19. Kavallieratos, G., V. Diamantopoulou, and S.K. Katsikas. 2020a. Shipping 40: Security requirements for the cyber-enabled ship. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 16 (10): 6617–6625. https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2020.2976840. · DOI
  20. Kavallieratos, G., S. Katsikas, and V. Gkioulos. 2019. Cyber-attacks against the autonomous ship. In Computer security, ed. S.K. Katsikas, F. Cuppens, N. Cuppens, C. Lambrinoudakis, A. Antón, S. Gritzalis, J. Mylopoulos, and C. Kalloniatis, 20–36. New York: Springer International Publishing. · DOI
  21. Kavallieratos, G., S. Katsikas, and V. Gkioulos. 2020b. SafeSec Tropos: joint security and safety requirements elicitation. Computer Standards & Interfaces 70: 103429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2020.103429. · DOI
  22. Kou, G., Y. Peng, and G. Wang. 2014. Evaluation of clustering algorithms for financial risk analysis using MCDM methods. Information Sciences 275: 1–12. · DOI
  23. Lee, J.D., and T.F. Sanquist. 1996. Maritime Automation. In Automation and human performance: theory and applications, ed. R. Parasuraman and M. Mouloua, 365–384. Washington, DC: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  24. Mohammadi, M., and J. Rezaei. 2020. Bayesian best–worst method: a probabilistic group decision making model. Omega 96: 102075. · DOI
  25. Munim, Z.H., O. Duru, E., and Hirata. 2021. Rise, fall, and recovery of blockchains in the maritime technology space. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 9(3), 266. · DOI
  26. Rezaei, J. 2015. Best–worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53: 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009. · DOI
  27. Schmidt, D., K. Radke, S. Camtepe, E. Foo, and M. Ren. 2016. A survey and analysis of the GNSS spoofing threat and countermeasures. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 48 (4): 1–31. · DOI
  28. Sen, R. 2016. Cyber and information threats to seaports and ships. In Maritime security: An introduction (2nd edn., pp. 281–302). Elsevier. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Senarak, C. 2020. Port cybersecurity and threat: a structural model for prevention and policy development. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics. 37 (1): 20–36. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Silveira, P., A.P. Teixeira, J.R. Figueira, and C.G. Soares. 2021. A multicriteria outranking approach for ship collision risk assessment. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 24: 107789. · DOI
  31. Samonas, S. and D. Coss. 2014. The CIA strikes back: Redefining confidentiality, integrity and availability in security. Journal of Information System Security, 10(3), 21–45.
  32. Svilicic, B., I. Rudan, A. Jugović, and D. Zec. 2019. A study on cyber security threats in a shipboard integrated navigational system. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 7 (10): 364. · DOI
  33. Tam, K., and K. Jones. 2018. Cyber-risk assessment for autonomous ships. In: 2018 International Conference on Cyber Security and Protection of Digital Services, Cyber Security 2018. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/CyberSecPODS.2018.8560690 · DOI
  34. Thombre, S., M.Z.H. Bhuiyan, P. Eliardsson, B. Gabrielsson, M. Pattinson, M. Dumville, D. Fryganiotis, S. Hill, V. Manikundalam, M. Pölöskey, H. Kuusniemi. 2018. GNSS threat monitoring and reporting: Past, present, and a proposed future. The Journal of Navigation 71 (3): 513–529. · DOI
  35. Wang, Y.-M., and T.M. Elhag. 2006. Fuzzy TOPSIS method based on alpha level sets with an application to bridge risk assessment. Expert Systems with Applications 31 (2): 309–319. · DOI
  36. Wróbel, K., J. Montewka, and P. Kujala. 2017. Towards the assessment of potential impact of unmanned vessels on maritime transportation safety. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 165: 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2017.03.029. · DOI
  37. Zaccone, R. 2021. COLREG-compliant optimal path planning for real-time guidance and control of autonomous ships. 22 · DOI
  38. Zavadskas, E.K., Z. Turskis, and S. Kildienė. 2014. State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technological and Economic Development of Economy 20 (1): 165–179. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 98

Metadata

Authors
Tusher, H. M., Munim, Z. H., Notteboom, T. E., Kim, T.-E., & Nazir, S.
Affiliations
  • University of South-Eastern Norway (NO)
  • University of Antwerp (BE)
Corresponding author
Munim, Ziaul Haque
ORCID
Venue
Maritime Economics & Logistics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-01-26
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
208-227
ISSN
  • 1479-2931 (ISSN-L)
  • 1479-294X
DOI
10.1057/s41278-022-00214-0
OpenAlex
W4210531685
Cited by
98
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 9
FWCI
8.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Maritime Economics & Logistics (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Ocean Engineering › Maritime Navigation and Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Multi-Criteria Decision Making
Keywords
autonomous shipping, cybersecurity risk assessment, cyber-physical systems, maritime cybersecurity, vulnerability ranking, multi-criteria decision making, Bayesian best-worst method, GNSS, ECDIS, propulsion systems, sailors, domain experts

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review