Global Cybersecurity Index 2017

Acknowledgments

This report has been produced by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) with the support of Michael Minges. The Cybersecurity Team of the ITU would like to express its appreciation to Dr. Sherif Hashem (NTRA Egypt), Michaela Saisanna and Hedvig Norlen (Joint Research Centre of the European Commission) as well as the Rapporteurs of the Study Group 2 Question 3 Rozalin Al-Balushi (Oman) and Eliot Lear (USA) for their input to the Global Cybersecurity Index (GCI) work and report.

The online questionnaire preparation, secondary data collection, data validation and report elaboration have been carried out with the support of Mohaamed Ahmed Yousef Aly, Ahmed Abd Allah Abd El- Latif, Tymoteusz Kurpeta, Benjamin Lim, Daniela Toma, Grace Rachael Acayo, and Lena Lattion.

If you have any comments, please contact the ITU Cybersecurity Team: cybersecurity@itu.int

ISBN

978-92-61-25061-4 (paper version)

978-92-61-25071-3 (electronic version)

978-92-61-25081-2 (EPUB version)

978-92-61-25091-1 (Mobi version)

Revision Date 19 July 2017

Please consider the environment before printing this report.

© ITU 2017

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, by any means whatsoever, without the prior written permission of ITU.

Foreword

The global community is increasingly embracing ICTs as key enabler for social and economic development. Governments across the world recognize that digital transformation has the power to further the prosperity and wellbeing of their citizens. In supporting this transformation, they also recognize that cybersecurity must be an integral and indivisible part of technological progress.

In 2016, nearly one percent of all emails sent were essentially malicious attacks, the highest rate in recent years. Ransomware attacks increasingly affected businesses and consumers, with indiscriminate campaigns pushing out massive volumes of malicious emails. Attackers are demanding more and more from victims, with the average ransom demand rising to over 1,000 USD in 2016, up from approximately 300 USD a year earlier. In May 2017, a massive cyberattack caused major disruptions to companies and hospitals in over 150 countries, prompting a call for greater cooperation around the world.

First launched in 2014, the goal of the Global Cybersecurity Index (GCI) is to help foster a global culture of cybersecurity and its integration at the core of ICTs. This second iteration of the GCI measures the commitment of ITU Member States towards cybersecurity in order to drive further efforts in the adoption and integration of cybersecurity on a global scale.

The GCI reaffirms ITU’s commitment to build confidence and security in the use of ICTs. This report on the second iteration of the GCI continues to show the cybersecurity commitment of ITU Member States around the world, and I am pleased to note that the overall picture shows improvement and strengthening of the global cybersecurity agenda.

I wish to thank Member States for their contribution to this effort.

The collection of information for the GCI is an ongoing process, and I therefore invite all ITU Member States to continue sending and updating information on their cybersecurity efforts so that we can effectively share experiences, views and solutions in order to make the digital world a more secure and safe environment for all citizens.

Brahima Sanou

Director, Telecommunication Development Bureau

Executive Summary

The Global Cybersecurity Index (GCI) is a survey that measures the commitment of Member States to cybersecurity in order to raise awareness.

The GCI revolves around the ITU Global Cybersecurity Agenda (GCA) and its five pillars (legal, technical, organizational, capacity building and cooperation). For each of these pillars, questions were developed to assess commitment. Through consultation with a group of experts, these questions were weighted in order to arrive at an overall GCI score. The survey was administered through an online platform through which supporting evidence was also collected.

One-hundred and thirty-four Member States responded to the survey throughout 2016. Member States who did not respond were invited to validate responses determined from open-source research. As such, the GCI results reported herein cover all 193 ITU Member States.

The 2017 publication of the GCI continues to show the commitment to cybersecurity of countries around the world. The overall picture shows improvement and strengthening of all five elements of the cybersecurity agenda in various countries in all regions. However, there is space for further improvement in cooperation at all levels, capacity building and organizational measures. As well, the gap in the level of cybersecurity engagement between different regions is still present and visible. The level of development of the different pillars varies from country to country in the regions, and while commitment in Europe remains very high in the legal and technical fields in particular, the challenging situation in the Africa and Americas regions shows the need for continued engagement and support.

In addition to providing the GCI score, this report also provides a set of illustrative practices that give insight into the achievements of certain countries.

This is an updated version of the GCI 2017 report, released on 6 July 2017, reflecting a corrected ranking of the GCI scores. Please note that to ensure accuracy, revisions of the report may be published in the future. Please check the site http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Cybersecurity/Pages/GCI-2017.aspx for the latest revision.

Table of Contents

Foreword

Executive Summary

1 Introduction

2 GCI Scope and Framework

2.1 Background

2.2 Reference model

2.3 Conceptual framework

3 Methodology

4 Key Findings

4.1 Heat Map of National Cybersecurity Commitments

4.2 GCI Groups

5 Global Outlook

5.1 Noteworthy figures

5.2 Comparing GCI with other indices

6 Regional Outlook

6.1 Africa

6.2 Americas

6.3 Arab States

6.4 Asia and the Pacific

6.5 Commonwealth of Independent States

6.6 Europe

7 Illustrative practices by pillar

7.1 Legal

7.1.1 Cybercrime legislation

7.1.2 Cybersecurity regulation

7.1.3 Cybersecurity training

7.2 Technical

7.2.1 National CERT/CIRT/CSIRT

7.2.2 Government CERT/CIRT/CSIRT

7.2.3 Sectoral CERT/CIRT/CSIRT

7.2.4 Cybersecurity standards implementation framework for organizations

7.2.5 Child online protection

7.3 Organizational

7.3.1 Strategy

7.3.2 Public consultation

7.3.3 Responsible agency

7.3.4 Cybersecurity metrics

7.4 Capacity building

7.4.1 Standardization bodies

7.4.2 Good practice

7.4.3 Cybersecurity research and development programmes

7.4.4 Public awareness campaigns

7.4.5 Cybersecurity professional training courses

7.4.6 National education programmes and academic curricula

7.4.7 Incentive mechanisms

7.4.8 Home-grown cybersecurity industry

7.5 Cooperation

7.5.1 Bilateral agreements

7.5.2 Multilateral agreements

7.5.3 Participation in international fora

7.5.4 Public -private partnerships

7.5.5 Interagency partnerships

8 Conclusion

Abbreviations

Annex 1 – ITU Member States Global Cybersecurity Commitment Score By Region

Annex 2 – GCI 2017 Score

List of tables and figures

Tables

Table 3.1: Numbers of responses received from all Members States regionally

Table 5.1: Top ten most committed countries, GCI (normalized score)

Table 6.1.1: Top three ranked countries in Africa

Table 6.2.1: Top three ranked countries in the Americas

Table 6.3.1: Top three ranked countries in the Arab States

Table 6.4.1: Top three ranked countries in Asia and the Pacific

Table 6.5.1: Top three ranked countries in Commonwealth of Independent States

Table 6.6.1: Top three ranked countries in Europe

Figures

Figure 2.3.1: GCI pillars and sub-pillars

Figure 2.3.2: GCA tree structure illustrating all pillars (simplified)

Figure 2.3.3: GCI tree structure illustrating Legal pillar

Figure 4.1.1: GCI Heat Map

Figure 4.2.1: GCI Tiers

Figure 5.1.1: Cybersecurity strategy and training commitments

Figure 5.1.2: Computer emergency response teams and metrics

Figure 5.1.3: Home-grown industry and international participation

Figure 5.2.1: Global comparison GCI and IDI

Figure 5.2.2: Comparison GCI and IDI in the Africa region

Figure 5.2.3: Comparison GCI and IDI in the Americas region

Figure 5.2.4: Comparison GCI and IDI in the Arab States

Figure 5.2.5: Comparison GCI and IDI in the Asia and the Pacific region

Figure 5.2.6: Comparison GCI and IDI in the Commonwealth of Independent States

Figure 5.2.7: Comparison GCI and IDI in the Europe region

Figure 6.1: Average pillar scores by region

Figure 6.1.1: Top three ranked countries in Africa and global ranked of all countries in Africa

Figure 6.1.2: Africa region scorecard

Figure 6.2.1: Top three ranked countries and an average score of all the Americas

Figure 6.2.2: Americas region scorecard

Figure 6.3.1: Top three ranked countries and an average score of the Arab States

Figure 6.3.2: Arab States scorecard

Figure 6.4.1: Top three ranked countries and an average score of all Asia and the Pacific

Figure 6.4.2: Asia and the Pacific Region Scorecard

Figure 6.5.1: Top three ranked countries and an average score of all CIS

Figure 6.5.2: CIS region scorecard

Figure 6.6.1: Top three ranked countries and an average score of all Europe

Figure 6.6.2: Europe region scorecard

1 Introduction

The information and communication technologies (ICT) networks, devices and services are increasingly critical for day-to-day life. In 2016, almost half the world used the Internet (3.5 billion users)[1] and according to one estimate, there will be over 12 billion machine-to-machine devices connected to the Internet by 2020[2]. Yet, just as in the real world, the cyber world is exposed to a variety of security threats that can cause immense damage.

Statistics on threats to computer networks are sobering and reflect a shift from the relatively innocuous spam of yesteryear to threats that are more malicious. A security company tracking incidents in 2016 found that malicious emails became a weapon of choice for a wide range of cyberattacks during the year used by everyone from state sponsored cyber espionage groups to mass-mailing ransomware gangs. One-in-131 emails sent were malicious, the highest rate in five years.

Ransomware continues to plague businesses and consumers, with indiscriminate campaigns pushing out massive volumes of malicious emails. In some cases, organizations can be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of ransomware-laden emails they receive. Attackers are demanding more and more from victims with the average ransom demand in 2016 rising to USD 1 077, up from USD 294 a year earlier[3]. The scale of cybercrime makes it critical for governments to have a robust cybersecurity ecosystem in place to reduce threats and enhance confidence in using electronic communications and services.

It is therefore clear that there is a direct cause-effect principle between the growth of ICTs and their illicit and malicious use. To counter this effect, cybersecurity is becoming more and more relevant in the minds of countries’ decision makers, and cybersecurity related doctrines have been established in almost all countries in the world.

However, there is still an evident gap between countries in terms of awareness, understanding, knowledge and finally capacity to deploy the proper strategies, capabilities and programmes to ensure a safe and appropriate use of ICTs as enablers for economic development.

In this context, ITU, together with international partners from private-public and private sector as well as academia, has established the GCI with the key objective of building capacity at the national, regional and international level, through assessing the level of engagement of countries on cybersecurity, and, with the data gathered, producing a list of good practices that can be used by countries in need.

[1] www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx

[2] www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/vni-hyperconnectivity-wp.html

[3] www.symantec.com

2 GCI Scope and Framework

2.1 Background

The GCI is included under Resolution 130 (Rev. Busan, 2014) on strengthening the role of ITU in building confidence and security in the use of ICT. Specifically, Member States are invited “to support ITU initiatives on cybersecurity, including the Global Cybersecurity Index (GCI), in order to promote government strategies and the sharing of information on efforts across industries and sectors”.

A first iteration of the GCI was conducted in 2013-2014 in partnership with ABI Research[1], and the final results have been published[2].

Following feedback received from various communities, a second iteration of the GCI was planned and undertaken. This new version was formulated around an extended participation from Member States, experts and industry stakeholders as contributing partners (namely World Bank and Red Team Cyber as new GCI partners joining the Australia Strategic Policy Institute, FIRST, Indiana University, INTERPOL, ITU-Arab Regional Cybersecurity Centre in Oman, Korea Internet & Security Agency, NTRA Egypt, The Potomac Institute of Policy Studies, UNICRI, University of Technology Jamaica and UNODC) who all provided support with the provision of secondary data, response activation, statistical analysis, qualitative appreciation amongst other.

The data collected via GCI 2017 for ITU-D Study Group 2 Question 3 (SG2Q3) surveys have been analysed by the Rapporteur and co-Rapporteur for inclusion in the SG2Q3 final report. GCI partners have been active in providing expertise and secondary data as appropriate, while the UN office of ICT (New York) has also initiated collaborative work. ITU is also working in a multi-stakeholder collaboration led by the World Bank to elaborate a toolkit on “Best practice in Policy/Legal enabling Framework and Capacity Building in Combatting Cybercrime”. ITU is providing support on the component on capacity building from a cybersecurity perspective based on GCI 2017 data.

An enhanced reference model was thereby devised. Throughout the steps of this new version, Member States were consulted using various vehicles including ITU-D Study Group 2 Question 3/2, where the overall project was submitted, discussed and validated.

2.2 Reference model

The GCI is a composite index combining 25 indicators into one benchmark measure to monitor and compare the level of ITU Member States cybersecurity commitment with regard to the five pillars identified by the High-Level Experts Group and endorsed by the GCA. These pillars form the five pillars of GCI.

The main objectives of the GCI are to measure:

• the type, level and evolution over time of cybersecurity commitment in countries and relative to other countries;

• the progress in cybersecurity commitment of all countries from a global perspective;

• the progress in cybersecurity commitment from a regional perspective;

• the cybersecurity commitment divide, i.e. the difference between countries in terms of their level of engagement in cybersecurity programmes and initiatives.

The objective of the GCI as an initiative is to help countries identify areas for improvement in the field of cybersecurity, as well as to motivate them to take action to improve their ranking, thus helping raise the overall level of commitment to cybersecurity worldwide.

Through the information collected, the GCI aims to illustrate the practices of other countries so that Member States can implement selected aspects suitable to their national environment, with the added benefits of helping harmonize practices and fostering, a global culture of cybersecurity.

2.3 Conceptual framework

The five pillars of the GCI are briefly explained below:

1. Legal: Measured based on the existence of legal institutions and frameworks dealing with cybersecurity and cybercrime.

2. Technical: Measured based on the existence of technical institutions and frameworks dealing with cybersecurity.

3. Organizational: Measured based on the existence of policy coordination institutions and strategies for cybersecurity development at the national level.

4. Capacity Building: Measured based on the existence of research and development, education and training programmes; certified professionals and public sector agencies fostering capacity building.

5. Cooperation: Measured based on the existence of partnerships, cooperative frameworks and information sharing networks.

Each pillar was then further divided in sub-pillars (Figure 2.3.1).

Figure 2.3.1: GCI pillars and sub-pillars

The questionnaire was elaborated on the basis of these sub-pillars [3]. The values for the 25 indicators were therefore constructed through 157 binary questions. This was done in order to achieve the required level of granularity and ensure accuracy and quality on the answers.

Figure 2.3.2 below represents all the five pillars from GCA with their indicators.

Figure 2.3.2: GCA tree structure illustrating all pillars (simplified)

Figure 2.3.3 below illustrates the relationship between the GCA, the pillars, sub-pillars and questions (expanded only for the legal pillar due to space considerations).

Figure 2.3.3: GCI tree structure illustrating Legal pillar

[1] https://www.abiresearch.com/

[2] http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Cybersecurity/Pages/GCI-2014.aspx

[3] http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Cybersecurity/Documents/QuestionnaireGuide-E.pdf

3 Methodology

The GCI includes 25 indicators and 157 questions. The indicators used to calculate the GCI were selected on the basis of the following criteria:

• relevance to the five GCA pillars and in contributing towards the main GCI objectives and conceptual framework;

• data availability and quality;

• possibility of cross verification through secondary data.

The whole concept of a new iteration of the GCI is based on a cybersecurity development tree map and binary answer possibilities.

The tree map concept, which is illustrated in Figures 2.3.2 and 2.3.3, is an example of different possible paths that might be taken by countries in order to enhance their cybersecurity commitment.

Each of the five pillars are associated with a specific colour. The deeper the path taken, indicating a more developed level of commitment, the deeper the colour depicting it becomes.

The various levels of cybersecurity development among countries, as well as the different cybersecurity needs reflected by a country’s overall ICT development status, were taken into consideration. The concept is based on the assumption that the more developed cybersecurity is, the more complex the solutions observed will be. Therefore, the further a country goes along the tree map by confirming the presence of pre-identified cyber solutions, the more complex and sophisticated the cybersecurity commitment is within that country, allowing it to obtain a higher score with the GCI.

The rationale behind using binary answer possibilities is the elimination of opinion-based evaluation and of any possible bias towards certain types of answers.

Moreover, the simple binary concept will allow quicker and more complex evaluation as it will not require lengthy answers from countries. This, in turn, is assumed to accelerate and streamline the process of providing answers and further evaluation. The idea is that the respondent will only confirm the presence or lack of certain pre-identified cybersecurity solutions. An online survey mechanism, which was used for gathering answers and uploading all relevant materials, enabled the extraction of good practices.

The key difference in methodology between GCI 2014 and GCI Version 2017 is the use of a binary system instead of a three-level system. The binary system evaluates the existence or absence of a specific activity, department or measure. Unlike GCI Version 2014, it does not take 'partial' measures into consideration. The facility for respondents to upload supporting documents and URLs is a way of providing more information to substantiate the binary response. Furthermore, a number of new questions have been added in each of the five pillars in order to refine the depth of research.

The GCI 2014 and GCI 2017 are not directly comparable due to a change in methodology. While the 2014 index used a simple average methodology, the 2017 index employs a weighting factor for each pillar.

The questionnaire, made available through an online survey from January to September 2016, was administered to the 193 ITU Member States (plus State of Palestine) in the regions of Africa, Americas, Arab States, Asia and the Pacific, the Commonwealth of Independent States, and Europe. 134 countries responded to the online survey while 59 countries did not provide primary data.

Table 3.1: Numbers of responses received from all Members States regionally

Region

Africa

Americas

Arab States

Asia and the Pacific

CIS

Europe

Global

Responses

29

23

16

25

7

34

134

Non-responses

15

12

5

13

5

9

59

Total of participants

44

35

21

38

12

43

193

The data collection process was implemented as follows:

1. A Letter of Invitation was sent by the ITU Secretariat to all Member States, informing them on the initiative and requesting the identification of a country level GCI focal point with whom ITU could liaise and who would be responsible for collecting all relevant data for completing the online GCI questionnaire. A guideline to the online questionnaire which provided explanations and examples for each question, was attached to the letter [1].

2. Primary data collection (for countries who responded to the questionnaire):

• Verification of the responses received by the specific Member State to identify possible missing elements (no or missing responses, no or missing supporting documents, no or missing links, etc.).

– For instance, if a Member State answered “No”, ITU researched to prove that they do not have any documents in the ITU database or online.

– If a Member State answered “Yes”, ITU researched to verify that answers provided were correct and corresponded to the question.

• The focal point identified by the concerned Member State was contacted and provided with indications on how to improve the accuracy of the responses. Where necessary ITU provided comments and guidance to improve the completed questionnaire.

• After the necessary rounds of iterations, the pre-final questionnaire was sent back to the concerned Member State for final approval.

• Once formal approval was received, the questionnaire was considered validated and used for the analysis, scoring and ranking.

3. Secondary data collection (for countries that did not respond to the questionnaire):

• ITU elaborated an initial draft of the response to the questionnaire using publicly available data and online research.

• The draft was then sent to the concerned Member State for review.

• The reviewed response received, the focal point identified by the concerned Member State was contacted and provided with indications on how to improve the accuracy of the responses. Where necessary ITU provided comments and guidance to improve the completed questionnaire.

• After the necessary rounds of iterations, the pre-final questionnaire was sent back to the concerned Member State for final approval.

• Once formal approval was received, the questionnaire was considered validated and used for the analysis, scoring and ranking. For the ranking, the approach taken was to use “dense ranking”, whereby Member States that have an equal GCI score receive the same ranking number, and the next country receives the immediately following ranking number, thus reflecting a ranking of the GCI scores rather than the countries themselves.

The GCI 2017 methodology encompassed the use of a panel of experts, identified according to their specific expertise on the subject, who acted in their personal capacity in order to provide an expert view on the weighting to be used for the scoring.

[1] http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Cybersecurity/Documents/QuestionnaireGuide-E.pdf

4 Key Findings

This section presents the finding of the GCI 2017. Please note that to ensure accuracy, revisions of the report may be published in the future. Please check the site http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Cybersecurity/Pages/GCI-2017.aspx for the latest revision.

4.1 Heat Map of National Cybersecurity Commitments

Out of the 193 Member States, there is a huge range in cybersecurity commitments, as the heat map below illustrates.

Level of commitment: from Green (highest) to Red (lowest)

Figure 4.1.1: GCI Heat Map

4.2 GCI Groups

Member States were classified into three categories by their GCI score (Figure 4.2.1).

• Initiating stage refers to the 96 countries (i.e., GCI score less than the 50th percentile) that have started to make commitments in cybersecurity.

• Maturing stage refers to the 77 countries (i.e., GCI score between the 50th and 89th percentile) that have developed complex commitments, and engage in cybersecurity programmes and initiatives.

• Leading stage refers to the 21 countries (i.e., GCI score in the 90th percentile) that demonstrate high commitment in all five pillars of the index.

Figure 4.2.1: GCI Tiers

5 Global Outlook

All of the six ITU regions are represented in the top ten commitment level in the GCI. There are three from Asia and the Pacific, two each from Europe and the Americas, and one from Africa, the Arab States, and the Commonwealth of Independent States.

This suggests that being highly committed is not strictly tied to geographic location.

Table 5.1: Top ten most committed countries, GCI (normalized score)

Country

GCI Score

Legal

Technical

Organizational

Capacity Building

Cooperation

Singapore

0.92

0.95

0.96

0.88

0.97

0.87

United States

0.91

1

0.96

0.92

1

0.73

Malaysia

0.89

0.87

0.96

0.77

1

0.87

Oman

0.87

0.98

0.82

0.85

0.95

0.75

Estonia

0.84

0.99

0.82

0.85

0.94

0.64

Mauritius

0.82

0.85

0.96

0.74

0.91

0.70

Australia

0.82

0.94

0.96

0.86

0.94

0.44

Georgia

0.81

0.91

0.77

0.82

0.90

0.70

France

0.81

0.94

0.96

0.60

1

0.61

Canada

0.81

0.94

0.93

0.71

0.82

0.70

As the GCI shows, there is a wide gulf in cyber preparedness around the globe. This gap exists between and within regions.

Further, cybersecurity related commitments are often unequally distributed with countries performing well in some pillars and less so in others. Cybersecurity is an ecosystem where laws, organizations, skills, cooperation and technical implementation need to be in harmony to be most effective.

Additionally, cybersecurity is not just a concern of the government but also needs commitment from the private sector and consumers. Thus, it is important to develop a cybersecurity culture where citizens are aware of the trade-off between risks and monitoring when using electronic networks.

5.1 Noteworthy figures

The GCI consists of 25 different indicators. Some relate to precise commitments that help to concretize the status of specific cybersecurity activities throughout the world.

One of the strongest commitments is to outline a cybersecurity strategy describing how the country will prepare and respond to attacks against its digital networks. Only 38% countries have a published cybersecurity strategy and only 11% have a dedicated standalone strategy (Figure 5.1.1, left); another 12% have a cybersecurity strategy under development.

More effort is needed in this critical area, particularly since it conveys that the government considers digital risks high priority. In the area of training, efforts need to be enhanced particularly for those who are most likely going to legally handle cybersecurity crimes given that less than half the Member States (43%) have capacity-building programmes for law enforcement and the judicial system (Figure 5.1.1, right).

Figure 5.1.1: Cybersecurity strategy and training commitments

Despite half of the Member States not having a cybersecurity strategy, 61% do have an emergency response team (i.e., CIRT, CSRIT, and CERT) with national responsibility (Figure 5.1.2, left). However, just over a fifth (21%) publish metrics on cybersecurity incidents (Figure 5.1.2, right). This makes it difficult in most countries to objectively assess incidents based on the evidence and determine if protection measures are working.

Figure 5.1.2: Computer emergency response teams and metrics

Just less than a third of countries (32%) replied affirmatively to the existence of a homegrown cybersecurity industry (Figure 5.1.3, left). More efforts need to be devoted to this area as a local industry will have knowledge of national circumstances and make the security ecosystem more sustainable. The potential for global cooperation is heightened by participation in international cybersecurity events. This is almost universal with 95% of countries replying affirmatively (Figure 5.1.3, right).

Figure 5.1.3: Home-grown industry and international participation

5.2 Comparing GCI with other indices

A qualitative comparison has been performed to raise awareness on the importance of investing on cybersecurity, as an integral component of any national ICT for development strategy.

This paragraph is not intended to provide thorough, exhaustive statistical analysis, but rather an indication on how cybersecurity can relate to existing national processes, in order to emphasize the importance of investing and being committed.

Comparing GCI scores to notable ICT for Development Indices does not reveal an especially close relationship as experience shows that countries which score high in term of ICT for Development do not necessarily invest in cybersecurity with the same level of commitment, and vice versa.

For example, comparing the GCI with the ITU ICT for Development Index (IDI), shows that some countries are performing much better in the GCI than their level of ICT development would suggest.

The following figures show the relation between the GCI and IDI with each graph identifying the top three countries for each region.

Figure 5.2.1: Global comparison GCI and IDI

Figure 5.2.2: Comparison GCI and IDI in the Africa region

Figure 5.2.3: Comparison GCI and IDI in the Americas region

Figure 5.2.4: Comparison GCI and IDI in the Arab States

Figure 5.2.5: Comparison GCI and IDI in the Asia and the Pacific region

Figure 5.2.6: Comparison GCI and IDI in the Commonwealth of Independent States

Figure 5.2.7: Comparison GCI and IDI in the Europe region

6 Regional Outlook

During the active data collection phase of the GCI 2017 exercise, there was a varied response from countries in the ITU regions:

• Out of the 44 Member States in the Africa region, 29 responded to the survey.

• Out of 35 Member States in the Americas region, 23 responded to the survey

• Out of 21 Member States in the Arab States region, 17 including the State of Palestine responded to the survey.

• Out of 38 Member States in the Asia and the Pacific region, 25 responded to the survey

• Out of the 12 Member States in the Commonwealth of Independent States region, 7 responded to the survey

• Out of 43 Member States in the Europe region, 34 responded to the survey.

Figure 6.1 illustrates the average GCI score for all countries in a particular region for the respective pillar. Scores that fall below the 33rd percentile have a red background, scores that are between the 33rd to 65th percentiles have a yellow background and scores that lie above the 65th percentile have a green background. There is scope for improvement since most regions have an average score for the different pillars (i.e., lying between 33rd and 65th percentiles).

The exception is Europe, where average scores are high across all pillars. The Africa region averages low scores for the organizational pillar while the Commonwealth of Independent States region averages a high score for the legal pillar.

The following sub-sections show the findings for each individual ITU region, highlighting the results and findings for the three top-scoring countries in each region. As well, a “regional scorecard” summarizes the countries’ level of commitment to every pillar and sub-pillars (green for high, yellow for medium, and red for low).

Figure 6.1: Average pillar scores by region

6.1 Africa

Table 6.1.1: Top three ranked countries in Africa

Country

GCI Score

Legal

Technical

Organizational

Capacity Building

Cooperation

Mauritius

0.83

0.85

0.96

0.74

0.91

0.7

Rwanda

0.6

0.6

0.71

0.79

0.66

0.28

Kenya

0.57

0.75

0.73

0.36

0.41

0.6

Mauritius is the top ranked country in the Africa region. It scores particularly high in the legal and the technical areas. The Botnet Tracking and Detection project allows Computer Emergency Response Team of Mauritius (CERT-MU) to proactively take measures to curtail threats on different networks within the country. Capacity building is another area where Mauritius does well. The government IT Security Unit has conducted 180 awareness sessions for some 2 000 civil servants in 32 government ministries and departments.

Rwanda, ranked second in Africa, scores high in the organizational pillar and has a standalone cybersecurity policy addressing both the public and private sector[1]. It is also committed to develop a stronger cybersecurity industry to ensure a resilient cyber space.

Kenya, ranked third in the region, provides a good example of cooperation through its National Kenya Computer Incident Response Team Coordination Centre (National KE-CIRT/CC)[2]. The CIRT coordinates at national, regional and global levels with a range of actors. Nationally this includes ISPs and the financial and educational sectors; regionally it works with other CIRTs through the East African Communications Organization; and internationally it liaises with ITU, FIRST, and bi-laterally with the United States and Japan CIRTs among others.

Figure 6.1.1: Top three ranked countries in Africa and global ranked of all countries in Africa

Figure 6.1.2: Africa region scorecard

6.2 Americas

Table 6.2.1: Top three ranked countries in the Americas

Country

GCI Score

Legal

Technical

Organizational

Capacity Building

Cooperation

United States

0.91

1

0.96

0.92

1

0.73

Canada

0.81

0.94

0.93

0.71

0.82

0.70

Mexico

0.66

0.91

0.89

0.48

0.68

0.34

The top three ranked countries in the Americas region are the members of the North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA).

The United States of America has the highest scores for the legal and capacity building pillars. One notable aspect of both capacity building and cooperation in the country is the initiatives to coordinate cybersecurity among all states. To that end, the National Governor's Association established the Resource Center for State Cybersecurity, which offers best practices, tools and guidelines [3].

Canada ranks second in the region with its highest score in the legal pillar. The country's Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) features several sections relating to cybersecurity[4]. It requires organizations to notify privacy authorities in the event of privacy breaches that could cause significant damage with penalties for those who fail to report them.

Mexico is third and some 16 points behind Canada, illustrating the cybersecurity divide in the region. Like the other top ranked countries in the region, it scores best in the legal pillar with a full suite of cyber legislation covering criminality, data protection, data privacy and electronic transactions.

Figure 6.2.1: Top three ranked countries and an average score of all the Americas

Figure 6.2.2: Americas region scorecard

6.3 Arab States

Table 6.3.1: Top three ranked countries in the Arab States

Country

GCI Score

Legal

Technical

Organizational

Capacity Building

Cooperation

Oman

0.87

0.98

0.82

0.85

0.95

0.75

Egypt

0.77

0.92

0.92

0.4

0.92

0.7

Qatar

0.67

0.83

0.82

0.65

0.78

0.33

Sultanate of Oman is the top ranked in the Arab States with the highest scores in the legal and capacity building pillars. Oman has a robust organizational structure, including a high-level cybersecurity strategy and master plan and comprehensive roadmap.

Egypt ranks second with a full range of cooperation initiatives. It is a member of the UN Government Group of Experts (GGE) on cybersecurity[5], has chaired the ITU Working Group for Child Online Protection[6], was a founding member of AfricaCERT[7], and has a number of bi-lateral and multilateral agreements on cybersecurity cooperation.

Qatar ranks third and has been building a cybersecurity culture through campaigns such as Safer Internet Day and has spread warnings about online threats, such as fraud and Internet scams, via print and social media. The Qatar Cyber Crimes Investigation Center and Information Security Center support efforts to safeguard the public and crack down on those who use technology to carry out criminal activities.

Figure 6.3.1: Top three ranked countries and an average score of the Arab States

Figure 6.3.2: Arab States scorecard

6.4 Asia and the Pacific

Table 6.4.1: Top three ranked countries in Asia and the Pacific

Country

GCI Score

Legal

Technical

Organizational

Capacity Building

Cooperation

Singapore

0.92

0.95

0.96

0.88

0.97

0.87

Malaysia

0.89

0.87

0.96

0.77

1

0.87

Australia

0.82

0.94

0.96

0.86

0.94

0.44

Singapore is the top ranked country in the region. The island state has a long history of cybersecurity initiatives. It launched its first cybersecurity master plan back in 2005. The Cyber Security Agency of Singapore was created in 2015 as a dedicated entity to oversee cybersecurity and the country issued a comprehensive strategy in 2016[8].

Malaysia is ranked second in the Asia and the Pacific region and scores a perfect 100 on capacity building due to a range of initiatives in that pillar. Cybersecurity Malaysia, the government entity responsible for information security in the country, offers professional training via higher education institutions in Malaysia. It maintains the Cyberguru website, dedicated to professional security training[9].

Australia[10] is third ranked in the region and home to AusCERT, one of oldest CERTs in the region formed in 1993[11]. The highest scoring pillar is technical where there is a certification programme for information security skills provided by the Council of Registered Ethical Security Testers (CREST)[12]. Modelled after CREST, the council offers assessment, accreditation, certification, education and training in cyber and information security for individuals and corporate entities in both Australia and New Zealand.

Figure 6.4.1: Top three ranked countries and an average score of all Asia and the Pacific

Figure 6.4.2: Asia and the Pacific Region Scorecard

6.5 Commonwealth of Independent States

Table 6.5.1: Top three ranked countries in Commonwealth of Independent States

Country

GCI Score

Legal

Technical

Organizational

Capacity Building

Cooperation

Georgia

0.81

0.91

0.77

0.82

0.9

0.7

Russian Federation

0.78

0.82

0.67

0.85

0.91

0.7

Belarus

0.59

0.85

0.63

0.33

0.68

0.47

Georgia is top ranked in the CIS. After large-scale cyber-attacks on the country in 2008, the government has strongly supported protection of the country's information systems[13]. The Information Security Law[14] established a Cyber Security Bureau with a particular emphasis on protecting critical information systems in the military sphere.

The Russian Federation, ranked second in the region, scores best in capacity building. Its commitments range from developing cybersecurity standards to R&D and from public awareness to a home-grown cybersecurity industry. An example of the latter is Kaspersky Labs, founded in 1997 and whose software protects over 400 million users and some 270 000 organizations[15].

Belarus is the third ranked country, where child protection initiatives include public and private partnerships. Mobile operator MTS has implemented a project with the Ministry of Education to teach children about safe Internet practices that has so far reached some 6 000 children[16].

Figure 6.5.1: Top three ranked countries and an average score of all CIS

Figure 6.5.2: CIS region scorecard

6.6 Europe

Table 6.6.1: Top three ranked countries in Europe

Country

GCI Score

Legal

Technical

Organizational

Capacity Building

Cooperation

Estonia

0.84

0.99

0.82

0.85

0.94

0.64

France

0.81

0.94

0.96

0.6

1

0.61

Norway

0.78

0.96

0.89

0.64

80.8

0.57

Estonia is the highest-ranking nation in the Europe region. Like Georgia, Estonia enhanced its cybersecurity commitment after a 2007 attack. This included the introduction of an organizational structure that can respond quickly to attacks as well as a legal act that requires all vital services to maintain a minimal level of operation if they are cut off from the Internet[17]. The country also hosts the headquarters of the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence[18].

France is the second highest ranked in the Europe region, scoring a perfect 100 in capacity building. There is widespread cybersecurity training available in the country, and the National Agency for Information System Security (ANSSI in French) publishes a list of dozens of universities that provide accredited cybersecurity degrees recognized[19].

Norway is ranked third in Europe with its highest score in the legal pillar. Apart from laws dealing with cybersecurity, Norway has also conducted research on its cybersecurity culture including surveying citizens about the degree to which they will accept monitoring of their online activities.[20]

Figure 6.6.1: Top three ranked countries and an average score of all Europe

Figure 6.6.2: Europe region scorecard

[1] http://www.myict.gov.rw/fileadmin/Documents/National_Cyber_Security_Policy/Rwanda_Cyber_Security_Policy_01.pdf

[2] http://www.ke-cirt.go.ke/index.php/members/

[3] https://www.nga.org/cms/statecyber

[4] http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-8.6/

[5] https://www.un.org/disarmament/topics/informationsecurity/

[6] http://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-cop/Pages/default.aspx

[7] https://www.africacert.org/home/

[8] https://www.csa.gov.sg/news/publications/singapore-cybersecurity-strategy

[9] http://www.cyberguru.my

[10] http://thecommonwealth.org/member-countries

[11] https://www.auscert.org.au

[12] https://www.crestaustralia.org

[13] http://www.mfa.gov.ge/MainNav/ForeignPolicy/NationalSecurityConcept.aspx?lang=en-US

[14] https://matsne.gov.ge/en/document/view/1679424

[15] https://usa.kaspersky.com/about

[16] http://www.mts.by/news/97338/

[17] http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2015/01/heres-what-us-could-learn-estonia-about-cybersecurity/103959/

[18] https://ccdcoe.org

[19] https://www.ssi.gouv.fr/particulier/formations/formation-et-cybersecurite-en-france/

[20] https://norsis.no/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/The-Norwegian-Cybersecurity-culture-web.pdf

7 Illustrative practices by pillar

This chapter identifies noteworthy and thought-provoking practices in cybersecurity across the various GCI pillars. Examples are drawn from a number of countries and provide an insight on the cybersecurity commitment taken in their focus areas.

7.1 Legal

Examples for this pillar illustrate practices in national cybercrime legislation regarding unauthorized access, data and system interference or interception, and misuse of computer systems.

7.1.1 Cybercrime legislation

Colombia became one of the first countries in the world when, in 2009, it enacted a law specifically targeting cyberspace. Law 1273 (entitled "By means of which the Penal Code is amended, a new legal right is created - called ’protection of information and data‘- and systems that use information and communication technologies are fully preserved, among other provisions"[1]) calls for a prison sentence or large fines for anyone convicted of information systems or telecommunication network crimes. The law covers areas such as illegally accessing personal information, intercepting data, destroying data or using malicious software.

Georgia established cybercrime legislation in line with the principles and rules of the Budapest Convention both in terms of substantive and procedural aspects. Illegal access to information systems, data and system interference, and misuse of devices are criminalized by the Georgia criminal code. The Personal Data Protection Act was enacted by Parliament in 2011 and is intended to ensure protection of human rights and freedoms, including the right to privacy, in the course of personal data processing.[2]

7.1.2 Cybersecurity regulation

Sultanate of Oman established the eGovernance Framework, a set of standards / best practices and process management systems to enhance the delivery of government services in alignment with the mission of e.oman (Sultanate of Oman Digital Oman Strategy and eGovernment). The framework spells out the rules and procedures that ensure that government IT projects and systems are sustainable and in compliance with the Information Technology Authority (ITA) strategies and objectives. It provides assurance about the value of IT projects and framework for the management of IT-related risks. It helps in putting controls to minimize risks and better delivery of IT initiatives[3].

7.1.3 Cybersecurity training

Mauritius makes available training for law enforcement and judiciary which has been conducted under the GLACY Project since 2013 and is still ongoing. CERT-MU also carried out cybersecurity trainings on digital forensic investigator professional and network forensic (packet analysis) for law enforcement officers. Training on information security standards and best practices is given to the technical officers of the IT Security Unit (ITSU) of the Ministry of Technology, Communication and Innovation[4].

The New Zealand (NZ) Police is introducing a 3-tiered training program for specialist cyber staff, investigators and then frontline staff. This is outlined in NZ Police's Prevention First National Cybercrime Strategy 2014-2017 [5]. NZ Police also provides training to the judiciary and prosecutors.

7.2 Technical

Examples for this pillar illustrate practices in areas such as existence of technical institutions, child online protection and industry standards and certification.

7.2.1 National CERT/CIRT/CSIRT

Egypt provides computer emergency response team (EG-CERT) support to several entities in the ICT sector, the financial sector as well as the government sector, in order to help them tackle cybersecurity related threats. EG-CERT is expanding and is currently upgrading its laboratories in the four key operational departments. Additional laboratories are being planned for mobile cybersecurity and industrial control systems cybersecurity[6].

Brazil has three computer emergency response teams with different functions, namely: the national CERT, a government CSIRT and a sector specific SCIRT. The Brazil Federal Police participates in the I-24/7 global police communications system developed by Interpol to connect law enforcement officers, including cybercrimes. There is also a complementary Standard No. 17/IN01/DSIC/GSIPR that establishes guidelines for the certification and accreditation for information and communication security professionals of the direct and indirect Federal Public Administration.

7.2.2 Government CERT/CIRT/CSIRT

Luxembourg created a computer emergency response team (GOVCERT.LU) in 2011 to help protect government computer systems and data as well as specific infrastructures and is engaged at both national and international level under the name of NCERT.LU[7]. GOVCERT.LU is also a critical player in the event of a large cyber-attack affecting country's ICT assets.

7.2.3 Sectoral CERT/CIRT/CSIRT

Sri Lanka created the Financial Sector Computer Security Incident Response Team (FINCSIRT) in 2014 with responsibility for receiving, reviewing, processing and responding to computer security alerts and incidents affecting banks and other licensed financial institutions in the country[8]. FINCSIRT is a joint initiative of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka and the Sri Lanka computer emergency response team and is steered and funded by the banking sector. Related to FINCSIRT is LankaClear, the country's certification authority owned by the Central Bank and commercial banks[9].

7.2.4 Cybersecurity standards implementation framework for organizations

Malaysia created the Information Security Certification Body (ISCB), a department of Cybersecurity Malaysia, which manages information security certification[10]. The certification services are consistent with international standards and guidelines and include among others the Malaysian Common Criteria Evaluation and Certification (MyCC), which certifies security functions of ICT products based on the ISO/IEC 15408 international standard[11].

Hungary national regulation lays out the framework for information security training for state and local government officials[12]. The National University for Public Service (NKE) is charged with training and establishing a certification system[13]. Certificates issued include information security risk assessment and testing of electronic information systems.

7.2.5 Child online protection

Singapore’s Internet Content Providers (ICPs) and Internet Access Service Providers (IASPs) are licensable under the Broadcasting Act and they are required to comply with the Internet Code of Practice to protect children online. Since 2012, all service providers have been legally obligated to offer filtering services with Internet subscriptions and to make this known to consumers when they subscribe or renew. The Info-communications Media Development Authority also symbolically blocks 100 pornographic, extremist or hate websites.

7.3 Organizational

Examples for this pillar illustrate practices where governments are organized by having a cybersecurity strategy, a coordinating agency and compilation of indicators for tracking cybercrime.

7.3.1 Strategy

United Kingdom issued in 2016 its second five years National Cyber Security Strategy[14]. The strategy, issued by the Cabinet Office, aims to make the country one of the safest places in the world to carry out online business and doubles investment in cybersecurity compared to the first plan.

Russian Federation officially adopted its National Security Strategy in 2000 and National Security Concept of the Russian Federation as well as Concept of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation in 2013. It established an Information Security Doctrine of the Russian Federation in 2000 and each government entity in the Russian Federation performs an annual audit of its own networks and systems in line with the doctrine and the areas identified in the various strategies adopted.

7.3.2 Public consultation

Canada conducted a three-month public consultation on updating its cybersecurity strategy, asking security professionals and citizens for inputs and views. The consultation was done to help identify gaps and opportunities, bring forward new ideas to shape Canada’s renewed approach to cybersecurity and capitalize on the advantages of new technology and the digital economy[15].

7.3.3 Responsible agency

Iceland created the Cyber Security Council, appointed by the Minister of the Interior that is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the National Cyber Security Strategy. In addition, a cyber security forum has been created as a collaborative venue for representatives of public bodies who sit on the Cyber Security Council and of private entities.

7.3.4 Cybersecurity metrics

Netherlands uses metrics annually in order to measure cybersecurity development at a national level, summarized in the Cyber Security Assessment Netherlands report[16]. The National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) compiles disclosure reports, security advisories and incidents using a registration system. The metrics allow trends to be observed and acted on.

7.4 Capacity building

Examples of practices for capacity building include the aspects of developing the technical and human resources for fighting cybercrime. This includes raising awareness about cybersecurity among the public, the existence of cybersecurity standards and standards bodies, best practices guides, education initiatives and research and development.

7.4.1 Standardization bodies

Romania created the National Standardization Organization[17] to produce relevant national standards on processes, tools and technologies for software products and systems in the area of security in information technology. It also tests the standardization integrity of encryption algorithms, authentication services and algorithms for confidential services in compliance with accepted international standards[18].

7.4.2 Good practice

Canada created the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization (IIROC) that is the national self-regulatory organization overseeing investment dealers and their trading activity in the country's debt and equity markets. IIROC published a cybersecurity best practices guide for its members[19].

7.4.3 Cybersecurity research and development programmes

Germany signed an agreement in 2009 on cooperation in IT security research between the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the Federal Ministry of the Interior (BMI). The IT Security Research programme covers research and development in new information security technologies. The BMBF has been supporting three research centres since 2011 that bring together leading university and non-university establishments in cybersecurity [20].

Kenya Education Network, (KENET), is the National Research and Education Network (NREN) of Kenya. KENET is the computer emergency response team (CERT) for the academic community and is licensed by the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) as a not-for-profit operator serving the education and research institutions. They most notably provide affordable, cost-effective and low-congestion Internet bandwidth services to member institution campuses in Kenya.

7.4.4 Public awareness campaigns

Latvia has published a series of articles on its national CERT portal about free-of-charge security solutions including anti-viruses, firewalls, NoScript, etc.[21] Twice a year, the national CERT organizes a campaign where people can bring their computers for a check-up to see if they are infected, and it also distributes commercial anti-virus installations during the campaigns that are made available free-of-charge for one year.

7.4.5 Cybersecurity professional training courses

Bulgaria established the International Cyber Investigation Training Academy in 2009, which is a non-governmental organization[22]. The academy aims to improve the qualification of specialists working in the field of cybersecurity. It has trained over 1 300 people from both the public and private sectors.

7.4.6 National education programmes and academic curricula

Germany has several universities and institutes providing degrees and certificates in information security[23]. The Federal Ministry of Education and Research funds the KASTEL competence centre that offers training leading to a certificate equivalent to a specialized master degree in IT security[24]. The Technical University of Darmstadt has been offering a Master of Science Degree in IT security since 2010[25].

7.4.7 Incentive mechanisms

Korea Internet Security Agency (KISA) is committed to establishing a network foundation for Internet users and Internet companies by improving competitiveness of Internet services and reliability of Internet information and knowledge. KISA supports start-ups to commercialize their business models and enhance competitive edge in the field of security technology through programmes that aim to nurture start-ups in the Internet-of-things, security, and Fintech industry. They also established the one-stop service to support start-ups to gain ground not only in the domestic market but also the global market to expand their business models.

7.4.8 Home-grown cybersecurity industry

Ireland has the largest proportion of the Information and Communication sector of its economy compared to all other countries in Europe and is leveraging that advantage to grow its cybersecurity industry. The country is drawing on existing incentives and attractions with the aim of being a cybersecurity capital[26]. These incentives include a favourable business environment and low taxes, a talented pool of highly skilled and multilingual workers and a good base for access to European markets[27].

7.5 Cooperation

This pillar considers collaborative efforts across national and international domains and between the public and private sector.

7.5.1 Bilateral agreements

Finland is an active member of many organizations, such as the Council of Europe (CoE), the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the United Nations (UN). Finland has also joined the NATO Partnership for Peace and is engaged in cooperation with the organization in, for example, crisis management. There is also local partnership with Finnish company Codenomicon, which later was acquired by Synopsys, to develop the national IDS system and automatic incident reporting service with FICORA[28].

7.5.2 Multilateral agreements

Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden collaborate through the Nordic National CERT Collaboration. This includes technical cooperation and cybersecurity exercises to assess and strengthen cyber preparedness, examine incident response processes and enhance information sharing in the region[29].

7.5.3 Participation in international fora

Participation in international cybersecurity events, workshops and training is the one indicator where virtually all countries score high on the GCI. Therefore, it is more revealing to describe one of the most significant initiatives in this regard. The Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST)[30] was founded in 1990. Its members are security and incident response teams from the public, private and academic sectors. It organizes an annual conference, technical colloquia and training workshops.

7.5.4 Public -private partnerships

The United Kingdom is working with local company Netcraft on cyber security initiatives.[31] This includes combatting phishing and malware hosted in the United Kingdom as well as phishing targeting the government[32]. The partnership helped stop 34,550 potential attacks on government departments in the last six months of 2016, or 200 incidents a day.

7.5.5 Interagency partnerships

The United States of America started its first cross-government security information sharing agreement in 2015. The Multilateral Information Sharing Agreement (MISA) binds government agencies from defence, health, justice, intelligence community and energy to work collaboratively to enhance cybersecurity information sharing, with an emphasis on information exchanges at machine speed[33].

South Africa established the national cybersecurity hub to serve as a central point for collaboration between industry, government and civil society on all cybersecurity incidents. The cybersecurity hub is mandated by the National Cybersecurity Policy Framework (NCPF) that was passed by Cabinet in 2012. The hub enhances interaction and consultations as well as promoting a coordinated approach regarding engagements with the private sector and civil society[34].

[1] Government of Colombia. Law 1273 of 2009. Por medio de la cual se modifica el Código Penal, se crea un nuevo bien jurídico tutelado - denominado "de la protección de la información y de los datos"- y se preservan integralmente los sistemas que utilicen las tecnologías de la información y las comunicaciones, entre otras disposiciones. http://www.mintic.gov.co/portal/604/w3-article-3705.html

[2] https://personaldata.ge/en/legislation/national-legislation ; https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/16426?impose=translateEn

[3] http://www.ita.gov.om/ITAPortal/Government/Government_Projects.aspx?NID=76

[4] http://www.coe.int/en/web/cybercrime/news/-/asset_publisher/S73WWxscOuZ5/content/glacy-support-to-mauritius-judicial-training-courses-on-cybercrime-delivered

[5] http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/publications/nz-cyber-security-cybercrime-plan-december-2015.pdf (page 10)

[6] http://www.egcert.org

[7] https://www.govcert.lu/en/ncert.html

[8] http://www.fincsirt.lk

[9] http://www.lankaclear.com/about/index.php

[10] http://www.cybersecurity.my/en/our_services/iscb/main/detail/2327/index.html

[11] http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=50341

[12] http://njt.hu/cgi_bin/njt_doc.cgi?docid=164331.250717

[13] http://en.uni-nke.hu

[14] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/567242/national_cyber_security_strategy_2016.pdf

[15] http://www.itworldcanada.com/article/breaking-news-ottawa-announces-public-consultation-on-cyber-security-strategy/385740#ixzz4dm1QjsTu

[16] https://www.ncsc.nl/english/current-topics/Cyber+Security+Assessment+Netherlands/cyber-security-assessment-netherlands-2016.html

[17] http://www.asro.ro/

[18] http://www.asro.ro/CTmementoSite.html#BM208

[19] http://www.iiroc.ca/industry/Documents/CybersecurityBestPracticesGuide_en.pdf

[20] https://www.bmbf.de/en/cybersecurity-research-to-boost-germany-s-competitiveness-1418.html

[21] https://www.esidross.lv/category/bezmaksas-risinajumi/page/2/

[22] http://e-crimeacademy.com/

[23] https://www.bmbf.de/en/cybersecurity-research-to-boost-germany-s-competitiveness-1418.html

[24] http://www.kastel.kit.edu

[25] https://www.tu-darmstadt.de/studieren/abschluesse/master/it-sicherheit-msc.en.jsp

[26] https://www.siliconrepublic.com/companies/cybersecurity-hub-ireland

[27] http://www.idaireland.com/how-we-help/resources/infographics/ida-cyber-security/IDA_CYBER_SECURITY.pdf

[28] http://formin.finland.fi/public/default.aspx?nodeid=49303&contentlan=2&culture=fi-FI https://www.synopsys.com/services.html

[29] https://www.msb.se/en/Tools/News/Nordic-cyber-security-exercise-was-conducted-in-Linkoping/

[30] www.FIRST.org

[31] https://news.netcraft.com/archives/2016/11/01/the-chancellor-of-the-exchequer-sets-out-plans-for-the-uk-government-to-work-with-netcraft.html

[32] https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/blog-post/active-cyber-defence-tackling-cyber-attacks-uk

[33] https://www.ise.gov/blog/kshemendra-paul/coordinating-cybersecurity-programs

[34] https://www.cybersecurityhub.gov.za/

8 Conclusion

Cybersecurity is an increasingly important part of our life today, and the degree of interconnectivity of networks implies that anything and everything can be exposed, and everything from national critical infrastructure to our basic human rights can be compromised. Governments are therefore urged to consider policies that support continued growth in technology sophistication, access and security, and as a crucial first step, to adopt a national cybersecurity strategy.

The GCI 2017 edition measured the commitment of the ITU Member States to cybersecurity and highlighted a number of illustrative practices from around the world. As a logical continuation of the first iteration of the GCI issued in 2014, this version has motivated countries to improve their work related to cybersecurity, raised awareness in countries for the need to start bilateral, multilateral and international cooperation, and increased the visibility of what countries are doing to improve cybersecurity.

However, the research also revealed that while increased Internet access and more mature technological development is correlated with improvement in cybersecurity at the global level, this is not necessarily true for countries with developing economies and lower levels of technological development. The data collection shows that developing countries lack well-trained cybersecurity experts as well as a thorough appreciation and the necessary education on cybersecurity issues for law enforcement, and continued challenges in the judiciary and legislative branches. There is a need for the developed world to help train local experts in cybersecurity, and more cooperation should be initiated between developed and developing countries to assist them in cybersecurity development.

For the Global Cybersecurity Index to have an impact on raising awareness on this crucial emerging concern over time, continuity of the GCI effort is essential. ITU therefore welcomes all Member States and industry stakeholders to actively participate in future efforts to enhance the current reference model. As well, the success of future iterations of the GCI largely depends on the engagement of Member States and the quality of their responses to the questionnaire, and ITU calls on all Member States to take part in the next GCI survey.

ITU would like to thank all Member States for their valuable support for the conduct of the GCI survey and the publication of this report as well as future ones.

Please note that to ensure accuracy, revisions of the report may be published in the future. Please check the site http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Cybersecurity/Pages/GCI-2017.aspx for the latest revision.

Abbreviations

CERT

Computer Emergency Response Team

CIRT

Computer Incident Response Team

CIIP

Critical Information Infrastructure Protection

CIS

Commonwealth of Independent States

CREST

Council of Registered Ethical Security Testers

CSIRT

Computer Security Incident Response Team

COP

Child Online Protection

FIRST

Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams

GCA

Global Cybersecurity Agenda

GOVCERT

Governmental Computer Emergency Response Team

GCI

Global Cybersecurity Index

ICT

Information and Communication Technology

ITU

International Telecommunication Union

ISP

Internet Service Provider

NCS

National Cybersecurity Strategy

UN

United Nations

R&D

Research and Development

NATO

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NAFTA

North American Free Trade Association

PIPEDA

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act

ANSSI

National Agency for Information System Security

ISCB

Information Security Certification Body

MyCC

Malaysian Common Criteria Evaluation and Certification

MTPS

Malaysia Trustmark for Private Sector

NCSC

The National Cyber Security Centre

BMBF

Federal Ministry of Education and Research

ISACA

Information Systems Audit and Control Association

ICP

Internet Content Provider

IASPs

Internet Access Service Provider

NCSC

Nation Cyber Security Centre

MSIP

Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning

IDI

ICT Development Index

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

FINCSIRT

Financial Sector Computer Security Incident Response Team

KISA

Korea Internet and Security Agency

IIROC

The Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada

CERT-MU

Computer Emergency Response Team of Mauritius

National KE-CIRT/CC

National Kenya Computer Incident Response Team Coordination Centre

AfricaCERT

Computer Emergency Response Team of Africa

AusCERT

Computer Emergency Response Team of Australia

GOVCERT.LU

Government Computer Emergency Response Team of Luxembourg

NCERT.LU

National Computer Emergency Response Team of Luxembourg

OCERT

Oman Computer Emergency Response Team

APCERT

Asia and the Pacific Computer Emergency Response Team

Annex 1 – ITU Member States Global Cybersecurity Commitment Score By Region

AFRICA Region

Country

Score

Global Rank

Mauritius

0.830

6

Rwanda

0.602

36

Kenya

0.574

45

Nigeria

0.569

46

Uganda

0.536

50

South Africa

0.502

57

Botswana

0.430

68

Cote d'Ivoire

0.416

73

Cameroon

0.413

74

Ghana

0.326

86

Tanzania

0.317

87

Senegal

0.314

88

Zambia

0.292

90

Ethiopia

0.267

98

Togo

0.218

106

Burkina Faso

0.208

107

Mozambique

0.206

108

Zimbabwe

0.192

112

Seychelles

0.184

114

Niger

0.170

119

Madagascar

0.168

120

Liberia

0.149

123

Sierra Leone

0.145

125

Gabon

0.139

127

Gambia

0.136

129

Burundi

0.120

134

Lesotho

0.094

142

Guinea

0.090

143

Malawi

0.084

144

Angola

0.078

145

Eritrea

0.076

146

Chad

0.072

147

Benin

0.069

148

South Sudan

0.067

149

Namibia

0.066

150

Mali

0.060

151

Cape Verde

0.058

152

Swaziland

0.041

159

Sao Tome and Principe

0.040

160

Democratic Republic of the Congo

0.040

160

Congo

0.040

160

Guinea-Bissau

0.034

161

Central African Republic

0.007

163

Equatorial Guinea

0.000

164

AMERICAS Region

Country

Score

Global Rank

United States of America

0.919

2

Canada

0.818

9

Mexico

0.660

28

Uruguay

0.647

29

Brazil

0.593

38

Colombia

0.569

46

Panama

0.485

61

Argentina

0.482

62

Ecuador

0.466

65

Peru

0.374

78

Venezuela

0.372

79

Chile

0.367

80

Jamaica

0.339

84

Costa Rica

0.336

85

Paraguay

0.326

86

Barbados

0.273

94

Guyana

0.269

97

El Salvador

0.208

107

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

0.189

113

Belize

0.182

115

Antigua and Barbuda

0.179

116

Dominican Republic

0.162

121

Suriname

0.155

122

Nicaragua

0.146

124

Bahamas

0.137

128

Bolivia

0.122

133

Grenada

0.115

136

Guatemala

0.114

137

Trinidad and Tobago

0.098

140

Saint Kitts and Nevis

0.066

150

Cuba

0.058

152

Saint Lucia

0.053

155

Honduras

0.048

156

Haiti

0.040

160

Dominica

0.010

162

ARAB STATES Region

Country

Score

Global Rank

Oman

0.871

4

Egypt

0.772

14

Qatar

0.676

25

Tunisia

0.591

40

Saudi Arabia

0.569

46

United Arab Emirates

0.566

47

Morocco

0.541

49

Bahrain

0.467

64

Algeria

0.432

67

Jordan

0.277

92

Sudan

0.271

95

Syrian Arab Republic

0.237

101

State of Palestine

0.228

103

Libya

0.224

104

Lebanon

0.172

118

Mauritania

0.146

124

Kuwait

0.104

138

Djibouti

0.099

139

Iraq

0.043

158

Comoros

0.040

160

Somalia

0.034

161

Yemen

0.007

163

ASIA AND THE PACIFIC Region

Country

Score

Global Rank

Singapore

0.925

1

Malaysia

0.893

3

Australia

0.824

7

Japan

0.786

11

Republic of Korea

0.782

13

New Zealand

0.718

19

Thailand

0.684

22

India

0.683

23

China

0.624

32

Philippines

0.594

37

Democratic People's Republic of Korea

0.532

52

Brunei Darussalam

0.524

53

Bangladesh

0.524

53

Iran

0.494

59

Pakistan

0.447

66

Indonesia

0.424

69

Sri Lanka

0.419

71

Lao

0.392

76

Tonga

0.292

90

Cambodia

0.283

91

Nepal

0.275

93

Myanmar

0.263

99

Viet Nam

0.245

100

Afghanistan

0.245

100

Mongolia

0.228

103

Fiji

0.222

105

Bhutan

0.199

109

Nauru

0.140

126

Vanuatu

0.134

130

Kiribati

0.123

132

Solomon Islands

0.095

141

Papua New Guinea

0.067

149

Maldives

0.056

154

Palau

0.053

155

Samoa

0.048

156

Marshall Islands

0.048

156

Micronesia

0.044

157

Tuvalu

0.034

161

Timor-Leste

0.034

161

COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDANT STATES Region

Country

Score

Global Rank

Georgia

0.819

8

Russian Federation

0.788

10

Belarus

0.592

39

Azerbaijan

0.559

48

Ukraine

0.501

58

Moldova

0.418

72

Kazakhstan

0.352

82

Tajikistan

0.292

90

Uzbekistan

0.277

92

Kyrgyzstan

0.270

96

Armenia

0.196

110

Turkmenistan

0.133

131

EUROPE Region

Country

Score

Global Rank

Estonia

0.846

5

France

0.819

8

Norway

0.786

11

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

0.783

12

Netherlands

0.760

15

Finland

0.741

16

Sweden

0.733

17

Switzerland

0.727

18

Spain

0.718

19

Israel

0.691

20

Latvia

0.688

21

Germany

0.679

24

Ireland

0.675

26

Belgium

0.671

27

Austria

0.639

30

Italy

0.626

31

Poland

0.622

33

Denmark

0.617

34

Czech Republic

0.609

35

Luxembourg

0.602

36

Croatia

0.590

41

Romania

0.585

42

Turkey

0.581

43

Bulgaria

0.579

44

Hungary

0.534

51

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

0.517

54

Portugal

0.508

55

Lithuania

0.504

56

Cyprus

0.487

60

Greece

0.475

63

Montenegro

0.422

70

Malta

0.399

75

Iceland

0.384

77

Slovakia

0.362

81

Slovenia

0.343

83

Albania

0.314

88

Serbia

0.311

89

Monaco

0.236

102

Liechtenstein

0.194

111

San Marino

0.174

117

Bosnia and Herzegovina

0.116

135

Andorra

0.057

153

Vatican

0.040

160

Annex 2 – GCI 2017 Score

Country

Score

Global Rank

Singapore

0.925

1

United States of America

0.919

2

Malaysia

0.893

3

Oman

0.871

4

Estonia

0.846

5

Mauritius

0.830

6

Australia

0.824

7

Georgia

0.819

8

France

0.819

8

Canada

0.818

9

Russian Federation

0.788

10

Japan

0.786

11

Norway

0.786

11

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

0.783

12

Republic of Korea

0.782

13

Egypt

0.772

14

Netherlands

0.760

15

Finland

0.741

16

Sweden

0.733

17

Switzerland

0.727

18

Spain

0.718

19

New Zealand

0.718

19

Israel

0.691

20

Latvia

0.688

21

Thailand

0.684

22

India

0.683

23

Germany

0.679

24

Qatar

0.676

25

Ireland

0.675

26

Belgium

0.671

27

Mexico

0.660

28

Uruguay

0.647

29

Austria

0.639

30

Italy

0.626

31

China

0.624

32

Poland

0.622

33

Denmark

0.617

34

Czech Republic

0.609

35

Rwanda

0.602

36

Luxembourg

0.602

36

Philippines

0.594

37

Brazil

0.593

38

Belarus

0.592

39

Tunisia

0.591

40

Croatia

0.590

41

Romania

0.585

42

Turkey

0.581

43

Bulgaria

0.579

44

Kenya

0.574

45

Colombia

0.569

46

Saudi Arabia

0.569

46

Nigeria

0.569

46

United Arab Emirates

0.566

47

Azerbaijan

0.559

48

Morocco

0.541

49

Uganda

0.536

50

Hungary

0.534

51

Democratic People's Republic of Korea

0.532

52

Brunei Darussalam

0.524

53

Bangladesh

0.524

53

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

0.517

54

Portugal

0.508

55

Lithuania

0.504

56

South Africa

0.502

57

Ukraine

0.501

58

Iran

0.494

59

Cyprus

0.487

60

Panama

0.485

61

Argentina

0.482

62

Greece

0.475

63

Bahrain

0.467

64

Ecuador

0.466

65

Pakistan

0.447

66

Algeria

0.432

67

Botswana

0.430

68

Indonesia

0.424

69

Montenegro

0.422

70

Sri Lanka

0.419

71

Moldova

0.418

72

Cote d'Ivoire

0.416

73

Cameroon

0.413

74

Malta

0.399

75

Lao

0.392

76

Iceland

0.384

77

Peru

0.374

78

Venezuela

0.372

79

Chile

0.367

80

Slovakia

0.362

81

Kazakhstan

0.352

82

Slovenia

0.343

83

Jamaica

0.339

84

Costa Rica

0.336

85

Ghana

0.326

86

Paraguay

0.326

86

Tanzania

0.317

87

Senegal

0.314

88

Albania

0.314

88

Serbia

0.311

89

Zambia

0.292

90

Tajikistan

0.292

90

Tonga

0.292

90

Cambodia

0.283

91

Uzbekistan

0.277

92

Jordan

0.277

92

Nepal

0.275

93

Barbados

0.273

94

Sudan

0.271

95

Kyrgyzstan

0.270

96

Guyana

0.269

97

Ethiopia

0.267

98

Myanmar

0.263

99

Viet Nam

0.245

100

Afghanistan

0.245

100

Syrian Arab Republic

0.237

101

Monaco

0.236

102

Mongolia

0.228

103

State of Palestine

0.228

103

Libya

0.224

104

Fiji

0.222

105

Togo

0.218

106

Burkina Faso

0.208

107

El Salvador

0.208

107

Mozambique

0.206

108

Bhutan

0.199

109

Armenia

0.196

110

Liechtenstein

0.194

111

Zimbabwe

0.192

112

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

0.189

113

Seychelles

0.184

114

Belize

0.182

115

Antigua and Barbuda

0.179

116

San Marino

0.174

117

Lebanon

0.172

118

Niger

0.170

119

Madagascar

0.168

120

Dominican Republic

0.162

121

Suriname

0.155

122

Liberia

0.149

123

Mauritania

0.146

124

Nicaragua

0.146

124

Sierra Leone

0.145

125

Nauru

0.140

126

Gabon

0.139

127

Bahamas

0.137

128

Gambia

0.136

129

Vanuatu

0.134

130

Turkmenistan

0.133

131

Kiribati

0.123

132

Bolivia

0.122

133

Burundi

0.120

134

Bosnia and Herzegovina

0.116

135

Grenada

0.115

136

Guatemala

0.114

137

Kuwait

0.104

138

Djibouti

0.099

139

Trinidad and Tobago

0.098

140

Solomon Islands

0.095

141

Lesotho

0.094

142

Guinea

0.090

143

Malawi

0.084

144

Angola

0.078

145

Eritrea

0.076

146

Chad

0.072

147

Benin

0.069

148

South Sudan

0.067

149

Papua New Guinea

0.067

149

Saint Kitts and Nevis

0.066

150

Namibia

0.066

150

Mali

0.060

151

Cape Verde

0.058

152

Cuba

0.058

152

Andorra

0.057

153

Maldives

0.056

154

Saint Lucia

0.053

155

Palau

0.053

155

Samoa

0.048

156

Honduras

0.048

156

Marshall Islands

0.048

156

Micronesia

0.044

157

Iraq

0.043

158

Swaziland

0.041

159

Sao Tome and Principe

0.040

160

Haiti

0.040

160

Democratic Republic of the Congo

0.040

160

Congo

0.040

160

Vatican

0.040

160

Comoros

0.040

160

Tuvalu

0.034

161

Timor-Leste

0.034

161

Somalia

0.034

161

Guinea-Bissau

0.034

161

Dominica

0.010

162

Yemen

0.007

163

Central African Republic

0.007

163

Equatorial Guinea

0.000

164