The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A taxonomy of cyber-harms: Defining the impacts of cyber-attacks and understanding how they propagate
Open accessAbstract
Technological advances have resulted in organizations digitalizing many parts of their operations. The threat landscape of cyberattacks is rapidly changing and the potential impact of such attacks is uncertain, because there is a lack of effective metrics, tools and frameworks to understand and assess the harm organizations face from cyber-attacks. In this article, we reflect on the literature on harm, and how it has been conceptualized in disciplines such as criminology and economics, and investigate how other notions such as risk and impact relate to harm. Based on an extensive literature survey and on reviewing news articles and databases reporting cyber-incidents, cybercrimes, hacks and other attacks, we identify various types of harm and create a taxonomy of cyber-harms encountered by organizations. This taxonomy comprises five broad themes: physical or digital harm; economic harm; psychological harm; reputational harm; and social and societal harm. In each of these themes, we present several cyber-harms that can result from cyber-attacks. To provide initial indications about how these different types of harm are connected and how cyber-harm in general may propagate, this article also analyses and draws insight from four real-world case studies, involving Sony (2011 and 2014), JPMorgan and Ashley Madison. We conclude by arguing for the need for analytical tools for organizational cyber-harm, which can be based on a taxonomy such as the one we propose here. These would allow organizations to identify corporate assets, link these to different types of cyber-harm, measure those harms and, finally, consider the security controls needed for the treatment of harm.
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.
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
Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732305276687 · Cited by 44,601
The qualitative content analysis process
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x · Cited by 22,617
Risk Society, Towards a New Modernity
Leiss, W., Beck, U., Ritter, M., Lash, S., & Wynne, B. (1994) · Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie · doi:10.2307/3341155 · Cited by 12,546
Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity
Boyd, W., Beck, U., & Shrader-Frechette, K. S. (1993) · Economic Geography · doi:10.2307/143601 · Cited by 9,215
The Economics of Information Security
Anderson, R., & Moore, T. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1130992 · Cited by 823
Cavusoglu, H., Mishra, B., & Raghunathan, S. (2004) · International Journal of Electronic Commerce · doi:10.1080/10864415.2004.11044320 · Cited by 774
Campbell, K., Gordon, L. A., Loeb, M. P., & Zhou, L. (2003) · Journal of Computer Security · doi:10.3233/jcs-2003-11308 · Cited by 735
The Terrorist Threat: World Risk Society Revisited
Beck, U. (2002) · Theory, Culture & Society · doi:10.1177/0263276402019004003 · Cited by 664
Measuring the Cost of Cybercrime
Anderson, R., Barton, C., Böhme, R., Clayton, R., van Eeten, M. J. G., Levi, M., Moore, T., & Savage, S. (2013) · The Economics of Information Security and Privacy · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39498-0_12 · Cited by 550
Risk factors for and functions of deliberate self-harm: An empirical and conceptual review.
Gratz, K. L. (2003) · Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice · doi:10.1093/clipsy.bpg022 · Cited by 540
Cited by
Lallie, H. S., Shepherd, L. A., Nurse, J. R. C., Erola, A., Epiphaniou, G., Maple, C., & Bellekens, X. (2021) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2021.102248 · Cited by 671
Self-citationCyber risk and cybersecurity: a systematic review of data availability
Cremer, F., Sheehan, B., Fortmann, M., Kia, A. N., Mullins, M., Murphy, F., & Materne, S. (2022) · The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice · doi:10.1057/s41288-022-00266-6 · Cited by 355
Zhang, R., Li, H., Meng, H., Zhan, J., Gan, H., & Lee, Y.-C. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713429 · Cited by 123
“Domain-specific taxonomies address specific harmful issues, such as privacy risks [49], misinformation [92], cyber-attacks [2], cyberbullying [5], and online toxicity [6, 81].”
A Comprehensive Review of Encryption and Protection Techniques for Healthcare Data
Nedunoori, V. (2025) · Information Systems Engineering and Management · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-84404-1_8 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Agrafiotis, I., Nurse, J. R. C., Goldsmith, M., Creese, S., & Upton, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Cybersecurity
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2018-01-01
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2057-2085 (ISSN-L)
- 2057-2093
- OpenAlex
- W2896921551
- Cited by
- 375
- References
- 27
- FWCI
- 28.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A taxonomy of cyber-harms: Defining the impacts of cyber-attacks and understanding how they propagate. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/cybsec/tyy006
- The paper
- Agrafiotis, I., Nurse, J. R. C., Goldsmith, M., Creese, S., & Upton, D. (2018). A taxonomy of cyber-harms: Defining the impacts of cyber-attacks and understanding how they propagate. Journal of Cybersecurity. https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyy006
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.