The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year.
Maritime cybersecurity: are onboard systems ready?
Open accessAbstract
Recent maritime cybersecurity accidents reveal that shipping is facing increased exposure to cyber threats, especially due to the fast-growing digitalisation of the sector, leaving vessels and their onboard systems vulnerable to cyberattacks. This research aims at evaluating the relationship among the critical dimensions influencing cybersecurity performance in the maritime industry. To achieve this, six critical dimensions related to cybersecurity preparedness are first identified through literature review, namely 'regulations', 'company procedures' from a managerial perspective and 'shipboard systems readiness', 'training and awareness', 'human factor' and 'compliance monitoring' at an operation level. A Likert-scale questionnaire is designed and used to collect empirical data from 133 seafarers and shore-based staff. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) is applied to examine the causal relationships between the six dimensions and shipboard cybersecurity performance. The results show that 'regulations' positively influence shipping companies' cybersecurity-related 'procedures', which in turn positively affects 'shipboard systems readiness', 'training and awareness', and 'monitoring'. Further, 'training and awareness' positively influences the cybersecurity performance of ships. The results have profound implications for the shipping industry on how to strengthen their cyber practices in order to improve their cybersecurity performance. Recommendations for future academic research related to maritime cybersecurity are also provided.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Many studies have suggested that training and educating seafarers and staff is an effective method to improve maritime cybersecurity.
“Many studies have suggested that training and educating seafarers and staff is an effective method to improve maritime cybersecurity (Jones et al., 2016;Bolbot et al., 2020;Kanwal et al., 2022).”
From A BN driven FMEA approach to assess maritime cybersecurity risks (2023) · cites this paper as Kanwal et al., 2022
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 41
- 10.1016/j.trpro.2020.03.058 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.5505/jems.2019.85057 · DOI
- 10.1177/1071181311551233 · DOI · Paper page
- Boyes, H., and R. Isbell. 2017. Code of Practice, Cyber Security for Ships. London: Institution of Engineering and Technology.
- 10.1109/MCOM.001.1900632 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ress.2020.107324 · DOI
- 10.1080/13675567.2021.1915263 · DOI
- Chang, C. H., W. Shi, W. Zhang, C. Park, and C. Kontovas 2019. “Evaluating Cybersecurity Risks in the Maritime Industry: A Literature Review.” Paper presented at the International Association of Maritime Universities (IAMU) Conference, Tokyo, October - 01st November 29th October - 01st.
- Chang, C. H., W. Zhang, W. Shi, and C. Park 2020. “Evaluating Cybersecurity in the Maritime Industry.” Paper presented at the 10th Asian Logistics Round Table (ALRT) 2020 Conference, Tasmania, 19-20 November.
- 10.26735/WLPW6121 · DOI
- 10.1177/002224378101800104 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1108/JIC-06-2021-0166 · DOI
- 10.1080/03088839.2018.1440441 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/19480881.2018.1519056 · DOI
- 10.1049/etr.2015.0123 · DOI
- Kala, N., and M. Balakrishnan. 2019. “Cyber Preparedness in Maritime Industry.” International Journal of Scientific and Technical Advancements 5: 19–28.
- 10.1016/j.tre.2008.09.007 · DOI
- Kline, R. B. 2016. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 4th. New York: The Guilford Press.
- 10.1007/s13437-021-00235-1 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.bushor.2021.02.022 · DOI
- 10.1504/IJSTL.2021.113985 · DOI
- 10.1080/03088839.2016.1199918 · DOI
- 10.1108/MABR-12-2019-0056 · DOI
- 10.1080/03088830802652262 · DOI
- 10.1080/10548408.2018.1507866 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.22215/timreview/837 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.trf.2021.01.001 · DOI
- 10.1108/JGOSS-05-2019-0042 · DOI
- Paul, C. L., and J. Dykstra. 2017. “Understanding Operator Fatigue, Frustration, and Cognitive Workload in Tactical Cybersecurity Operations.” Journal of Information Warfare 16 (2): 1–11.
- Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. 4th ed. New York: Free Press.
- Sakar, C., B. Koseoglu, M. Buber, and A. C. Toz 2019. “Are the Ships Fully Secured against the cyber-attacks?” In Global Conference on Innovation in Marine Technology and the Future of Maritime Transportation 18th-19th of April 2019 İzmir, 276–288.
- 10.36756/JCM.v1.3.2 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0373463318001157 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/25725084.2021.1922148 · DOI
- 10.1080/23738871.2018.1513053 · DOI
- 10.22619/IJCSA.2019.100125 · DOI
- 10.33175/mtr.2021.241410 · DOI
- 10.1167/jov.21.9.2111 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.tra.2020.11.002 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.tre.2018.08.001 · DOI
- 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AEF.27.221 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A BN driven FMEA approach to assess maritime cybersecurity risks
Park, C., Kontovas, C., Yang, Z., & Chang, C.-H. (2023) · Ocean & Coastal Management · doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023.106480 · Cited by 98
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Kanwal, K., Shi, W., Kontovas, C., Yang, Z., & Chang, C.-H.
- Affiliations
- Liverpool John Moores University (GB)
- University of Tasmania (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Chang, Chia-Hsun
- Venue
- Maritime Policy & Management
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2022-09-16
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 484-502
- ISSN
- 0308-8839 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5254
- PMC
- PMC11146163
- OpenAlex
- W4296078790
- Cited by
- 68
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 9.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Maritime Policy & Management (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Liverpool John Moores University (acceptedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council (ID: 864724)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Maritime Security and History
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Cybersecurity and Cyber Warfare Studies
- Keywords
- maritime cybersecurity, shipboard systems, cybersecurity preparedness, shipping industry, cyber threats, cybersecurity regulation, training and awareness, human factors, compliance monitoring, sailors
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
