CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 21Information and Cyber SecurityCybersecurity and Cyber Warfare StudiesDigitalization, Law, and Regulation

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Does the NIS implementation strategy effectively address cyber security risks in the UK?

Open access
Shukla, Meha, Johnson, Shane D., Jones, Peter·2019·2019 International Conference on Cyber Security and Protection of Digital Services (Cyber Security)
DOI 10.1109/cybersecpods.2019.8884963
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This research explored how cyber security risks are managed across UK Critical National Infrastructure (CNI) sectors following implementation of the 2018 Networks and Information Security (NIS) legislation. Being in its infancy, there has been limited study into the effectiveness of this national framework for cyber risk management. The analysis of data gathered through interviews with key stakeholders against the NIS objectives indicated a collaborative implementation approach to improve cyber-risk management capabilities in CNI sectors. However, more work is required to bridge the gaps in the NIS framework to ensure holistic security across cyber spaces as well as non-cyber elements: cyber-physical security, cross-sector CNI service security measures, outcome-based regulatory assessments and risks due to connected smart technology implementations alongside legacy systems. This paper proposes ten key recommendations to counter the danger of not meeting the NIS key strategic objectives. In particular, it recommends that the approach to NIS implementation needs further alignment with its objectives, such as bringing a step-change in the cyber-security risk management capabilities of the CNI sectors.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/cybersecpods.2019.8884963

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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: 58

  1. 0, Table view of principles and related guidance
  2. 2018, Of Com, GUIDANCE Of com's interim guidance for Operators of Essential Services in the digital infrastructure subsector under the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018
  3. 2018, DoH, Title The Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018 Guide for the health sector in England
  4. 2018, DfT, Implementation of the NIS Directive Moving Britain Ahead
  5. 2017, CAA, CAP 1574 Version 1 0
  6. 0, Oral evidence - Cyber Security Critical National Infrastructure
  7. 2018, BEIS, SECURITY OF NIS REGULATION
  8. 2018, DCMS-b, Security of Network and Information Systems Department for Digital Culture Media and Sport
  9. 2017, Defra, Water Sector Cyber Security Strategy
  10. 2018, House of Commons, Cyber-attack on the NHS Thirty-Second Report of Session 2017–19
  11. 2017, Regulating Cyber the UK's plans for the NIS Directive
  12. 0, Table view of principles and related guidance
  13. 2016, BoE, CBEST Intelligence-Led Testing CBEST Implementation Guide
  14. 10.1016/j.diin.2017.06.015 · DOI
  15. cerrudo, 2016, Cyber Security Guidelines for Smart City Technology Adoption
  16. 10.1109/MS.2017.4541031 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/j.clsr.2017.12.004 · DOI
  18. 10.1093/itnow/bwu048 · DOI
  19. 2017, DCMS, UK Finance response to Department for Digital Culture Media and Sport consultation on the implementation of the NIS Directive
  20. 10.2307/j.ctt1xhr7hq.10 · DOI
  21. 0, Welcome to GCHQ
  22. 0, Introduction to the NIS Directive
  23. 0, Security for ICS - Framework Overview
  24. 0, Security for Industrial Control Systems
  25. barth, 2018, President signs NIST Small Business Cybersecurity Act into law, SC Media
  26. 2015, BSI
  27. government, 2018, EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE NIS REGULATIONS 2018 No 506
  28. house, 2018, William Smart Chief Information Officer for Health and Social Care Lessons learned review of the WannaCry Ransomware Cyber Attack
  29. 2017, Security by design
  30. 2014, BSI, Smart cities-Vocabulary BSI Standards Publication Bio- based products-PAS 600 2013 Part 0
  31. 2017, The Key Principles of Cyber Security for CAV
  32. 0, Implementation of the NIS Directive in Germany ? Digital Single Market
  33. 2016, H.M. Government, National Cyber Security Strategy 2016-2021
  34. 0, Data Security and Protection Toolkit - NHS Digital
  35. 2018, DCMS-d, Security of Network and Information Systems Guidance for Competent Authorities
  36. 2018, GLA, Smarter London Together
  37. 10.1057/s41284-016-0083-9 · DOI
  38. 10.1080/10357718.2017.1320972 · DOI
  39. 2018, NIST, Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity Version 1 1
  40. maglaras, 2018, NIS directive The case of Greece
  41. 2015, Department of Homeland Security, The Cybersecurity Act of 2015
  42. bada, 2016, About the Global Cybersecurity Capacity Centre Lead Editor and Author Contact details
  43. piggin, 2018, Protecting our critical infrastructure Understanding new cyber security laws
  44. guy, 2017, Cybersecurity and healthcare: how safe are we?, BMJ, 358, 4
  45. 10.1177/0894439310392197 · DOI
  46. 2018, Microsoft, Risk Management for Cybersecurity Security Baselines Risk Management for Cybersecurity
  47. 2018, DCMS-c, The Network and Information Systems Regulation 2018
  48. parliament, 0, Official Journal of the European Union
  49. government-a, 2018, National Security Capability Review - March 2018
  50. 2017, EECSP, EECSP Report Cyber Security in the Energy Sector
  51. 0, Financial services code
  52. treasury, 2016, G7 Fundamental Elements of Cybersecurity for the Financial Sector
  53. 2017, NCSC, Introduction
  54. 2015, UKRN, Cross-sector Resilience - Phase 1 report
  55. 2017, BSI, Smart cities-Guide to establishing a decision-making framework for sharing data and information services BSI Standards Pnblication
  56. cpni, 2017, PAS 185 2017 Smart Cities - Specification for establishing and implementing a security-minded approach
  57. simon, 0, Cyber Security Critical National Infrastructure Inquiry
  58. 2018, CPNI, PROTECTIVE SECURITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (PSEMS) CHECKLIST

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 21

Metadata

Authors
Shukla, M., Johnson, S. D., & Jones, P.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
ORCID
Venue
2019 International Conference on Cyber Security and Protection of Digital Services (Cyber Security)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2019-06
Pages
1-11
DOI
10.1109/cybersecpods.2019.8884963
OpenAlex
W2982483307
Cited by
21
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3
FWCI
1.68
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Conference on Cyber Security and Protection of Digital Services (Cyber Security) (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Department of Health and Social Care
  • Imperial College London
  • University College London
  • University of Oxford
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Cybersecurity and Cyber Warfare Studies
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
Keywords
critical national infrastructure, regulatory implementation, cyber-physical security, legacy systems, regulatory evaluation, stakeholder collaboration

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