The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Qualitative Risk Assessment of Cybersecurity and Development of Vulnerability Enhancement Plans in Consideration of Digitalized Ship
Open accessAbstract
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) published the Guidelines on Maritime Cyber Risk Management in 2017 to strengthen cybersecurity in consideration of digitalized ships. As part of these guidelines, the IMO recommends that each flag state should integrate and manage matters regarding cyber risk in the ship safety management system (SMS) according to the International Safety Management Code (ISM Code) before the first annual verification that takes place on or after 1 January 2021. The purpose of this paper is to identify cybersecurity risk components in the maritime sector that should be managed by the SMS in 2021 and to derive priorities for vulnerability improvement plans through itemized risk assessment. To this end, qualitative risk assessment (RA) was carried out for administrative, technical, and physical security risk components based on industry and international standards, which were additionally presented in the IMO guidelines. Based on the risk matrix from the RA analysis results, a survey on improving cybersecurity vulnerabilities in the maritime sector was conducted, and the analytic hierarchy process was used to analyze the results and derive improvement plan priority measures.
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?
Current maritime cybersecurity risk assessment is conducted using either qualitative analysis or very traditional quantitative risk analysis methods such as Bow-Tie analysis and risk matrices.
“The current maritime cybersecurity risk assessment is conducted using either qualitative analysis or very traditional quantitative risk analysis methods such using Bow-Tie analysis (Progoulakis et al., 2021) and risk matrices (Yoo and Park, 2021).”
From A BN driven FMEA approach to assess maritime cybersecurity risks (2023) · cites this paper as Yoo and Park, 2021
The Conclusions report using a risk matrix for maritime cybersecurity assessment, supporting the risk-matrix example attributed to Yoo and Park. But the same passage explicitly calls that assessment qualitative, not quantitative. Bow-Tie analysis is attributed to a different citation in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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: 23
- Kessler, 2018, A taxonomy framework for maritime cybersecurity: A demonstration using the automatic identification system, J. Trans. Nav., 12, 429
- Oikonomou, S. (2019). Maritime Cybersecurity Practices Scheme (Block Box). [Master’s Thesis, School of Science Informatics and Computational Biomedicine, University of Thessaly].
- You, B., Zhang, Y., and Cheng, L.C. (2017, January 19–21). Review on cybersecurity risk assessment and evaluation and their approaches on maritime transportation. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of International Chinese Transportation Professionals Association, Houston, TX, USA.
- Kessler, 2019, Cybersecurity in the maritime domain, Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council, Volume 76, 34
- Park, C., Shi, W., Zhang, W., Kontovas, C., and Chang, C.H. (November, January 30). Cybersecurity in the maritime industry: A literature review. Proceedings of the International Association of Maritime Universities (IAMU) Conference, Tokyo, Japan.
- ALLIANZ (2019). Safety and Shipping Review 2019: An Annual Review of Trends and Developments in Shipping Losses and Safety, Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty. [2019 ed.].
- Kavallieratos, G., and Katsikas, S. (2020). Managing cyber security risks of the cyber-enabled ship. J. Mar. Sci. Eng., 8. · DOI
- Tam, 2018, Maritime cyber-security policy: The scope and impact of evolving technology on international shipping, J. Cyber Policy, 3, 147, 10.1080/23738871.2018.1513053 · DOI
- Rodseth, 2015, Risk assessment for an unmanned merchant ship, J. TransNav, 9, 147
- Chang, 2021, Risk assessment of the operations of maritime autonomous surface ships, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 207, 1, 10.1016/j.ress.2020.107324 · DOI
- Svilicic, B., Rudan, I., Jugovic, A., and Zec, D. (2019). A study on cyber security threats in a shipboard Integrated Navigational System. J. Mar. Sci. Eng., 7. · DOI
- Awan, M., and Ghamdi, M. (2019). Understanding the vulnerabilities in digital components of an Integrated Bridge System (IBS). J. Mar. Sci. Eng., 7. · DOI
- Kang, 2018, Analysis of on-board ship cybersecurity, J. Kor. Soc. Mar. Eng., 42, 463
- Miron, 2014, Cybersecurity capability maturity models for providers for critical infrastructure, Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev., 4, 33, 10.22215/timreview/837 · DOI
- Kang, 2012, A study on national cyber capability assessment methodology, J. Kor. Inst. Info. Secur. Cryptol., 22, 1039
- Bae, 2015, A study on the development for the national cybersecurity capability assessment criteria, J. Kor. Inst. Info. Secur. Cryptol., 25, 1293
- Hopcraft, 2018, Effective maritime cybersecurity regulation—The case for a cyber code, J. Indian Ocean Reg., 14, 354, 10.1080/19480881.2018.1519056 · DOI
- Bernasconi, 2010, The analytic hierarchy process and the theory of measurement, Manag. Sci., 56, 699, 10.1287/mnsc.1090.1123 · DOI
- Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resources Allocation, McGraw-Hill. · DOI
- Saaty, 1990, How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 48, 9, 10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I · DOI · Paper page
- Taherdoost, 2017, Decision making using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP): A step by step approach, Econ. Manag. Syst., 2, 244
- Han, S.H. (2014, January 3–6). A practical approaches to decrease the consistency index in AHP. Proceedings of the 5th SCIS & ISIS 2014, Kitakyushu, Japan. · DOI
- Lee, J.G. (2015). A Study on Decision Factor of Residential Environments of NEW STAY Using the AHP. [Master’s Thesis, Graduate School of Real Estate Studies, Konkuk University].
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Yoo, Y., & Park, H.-S.
- Affiliations
- Maritime Safety Department, Korea Maritime Institute, Busan 49111, Korea
- Korea Maritime Institute (KR)
- Corresponding author
- Park, Han-Seon
- ORCID
- Yoo, Yunja
- Venue
- Journal of Marine Science and Engineering
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2021-05-24
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 565
- ISSN
- 2077-1312 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3164302863
- Cited by
- 47
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3
- FWCI
- 4.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Marine Science and Engineering (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Korea Maritime Institute (KMI201916)
- Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries (20200615)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Ocean Engineering › Maritime Navigation and Safety
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Maritime Security and History
- Keywords
- maritime cybersecurity, qualitative risk assessment, ship safety management system, International Safety Management Code, administrative security, technical security, physical security, risk matrix, analytic hierarchy process
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
