Structure of the document. The deliverable is structured as follows:
Structure of the document. After completing the introduction in this section, we continue by explaining the role of the cyber risk modelling in the WISER framework in Section 2. Having thus provided the context, in Section 3 we explain our rationale for selecting the three WISER risk modelling languages, which are CORAS for human-readable risk models, DEXi for qualitative risk assessment algorithms, and R for quantitative risk algorithms. In Section 4, we give a short overview of each of these languages, in order to provide some background for the rest of the document aimed at readers not familiar with the languages, as well as references for further information. We then move on to the actual guidelines. In Section 5, we present the overall method for risk cyber risk modelling in WISER. This overall method is the same whether one chooses to use qualitative or quantitative assessment. Section 6 provides specific guidelines for creating CORAS models, which is the first step of the overall method and is performed independently of whether qualitative or quantitative assessment will be used. In Section 7, we give guidelines for defining qualitative assessment algorithms based on a CORAS diagram using DEXi, while Section 8 offer similar guidelines for quantitative algorithms using R. Although simple support for impact assessment is included in Section 7 and Section 8, these sections are primarily dedicated to likelihood assessment. In Section 9, we present a more in-depth approach to economic impact assessment, while societal impact assessment is addressed in Section 10. We then conclude in Section 11. This document also contains five appendices. Appendix I defines what it means for a function on intervals to be monotonically increasing, as this concept plays a role in the guidelines offered in Section 8. Appendix II presents the naming conventions we use in order to ensure clear links between the elements of a CORAS diagram and a corresponding DEXi model or R script. The next three appendices illustrate results of applying the guidelines from Section 7 and Section 8 on a CORAS diagram. First, we present the CORAS diagram in Appendix III. Then we show a corresponding DEXi model in Appendix IV, and finally a corresponding R script in Appendix V.
Structure of the document. The structure of the document in the following sections is explained below: In Section 2, the overall design of the Hybrid Threat Intelligence framework is explained, based on the architecture of the project. Every subcomponent has its design described, including key ideas, kinds of data that is communicated or stored, and foreseen interfaces and communications channels with other PALANTIR components. Afterwards, any internal module is also described in its own subsection, which includes the explicit goal, behaviour and relations in the internal interactions or workflows devised for the subcomponent. In Section 3, the relevant requirements from D2.1 are revisited and mapped to implementation specifications. This effectively refines more generic requirements into specific technical needs to be fulfilled, and is aimed towards a more clear and concise definition of the expected features of each subcomponent.
Structure of the document. The document is structured as follow: Section Errore. L'origine riferimento non è stata trovata., this section, introduces the deliverable and contextualises it in the framework of the XXXXXXXXXXXX.xx project.
Structure of the document. The document is structured as follows: • The introduction defines risk assessment and socio-economic impacts, looks at the main drivers for SME risk management, and provides a sample of sources consulted. • Section2 defines selected cyber threats and then presents a set of case studies illustrating different types of socio-economic impacts resulting from successful cyber-attacks while also showing new trends in the cyber threat landscape. It concludes with key takeaways for WISER based on key points emerging from the case studies.
Structure of the document. The current document is comprised of 11 main Chapters and an Executive Summary. Chapter 1 is the Introduction and describes the structure of the document, the objectives and the relationship with the other deliverables.
Structure of the document. This deliverable aims to describe the ICT-Emissions Project corporate identity, more specifically, Chapter 2 introduces the ICT-Emissions logotype, the Word and Power Point templates. The ICT-Emissions Project should have a strong identity using the project logo; an overall corporate identity (document and slideshow templates) has been developed for the project to give it a common image towards the outside world and to communicate in a consistent way and with a clear and recognisable brand. A colour scheme of 3 shades of Green wording on the logo will make the ICT-Emissions project easily identifiable are important for dissemination, raising awareness around the achievements of the whole project. The ICT-Emissions logo should be used in the front page of all project reports, in the top left corner of each page (as in the present document). The logo is illustrated below as Figure 9. Different types and qualities for the logo can be found in the Downloads section of the ICT-Emissions website (xxx.xxx-xxxxxxxxx.xx).
Structure of the document. The remainder of this document is organized as follows: •
Structure of the document. The document addresses the existing IoT architectures first (Section [4]). Instead of developing a new architecture, we adopted an approach of building on top of the existing IoT architectures and aligning it with the ongoing related developments in several projects and standardization bodies. Section [5] provides a description of the initial IoT6 architecture. Section [6]Erreur ! Source du renvoi introuvable. concludes the document with the summary and indicates future work planned. [4] Existing IoT Architectures Over the years, a number of projects have specified their own versions of IoT architectures, basing them on the specific requirements the projects were addressing (IoT-A, IoT-I, SENSEI, etc.). Due to a large heterogeneity of application domains and consequently the requirements, the approaches to the architecture specification differed between the projects thus resulting in different, more or less, complex architectures comprised of a number of components and protocols. Currently, there is ongoing work aiming to harmonize different approaches and to specify a single IoT architecture. The most prominent work is done in two FP7 projects, IoT-A and FI- WARE, and in the framework of the ETSI M2M Technical Committee [5]. The approach we selected towards definition of the IoT6 architecture is to leverage the ongoing related activities and base the initial IoT6 architecture on the available IoT architecture specifications. Therefore, we will first analyze ETSI M2M architecture [15] and FI-WARE IoT architecture [6]. Based on the results of the analysis, we will then focus on those components and functions of these architectures that can be enhanced with IPv6 features and IoT6 needs. In the following sections, ETSI M2M and FI-WARE architectures are described. The activities in the IoT-A project are highly relevant and have been taken into account in the requirements analysis phase. The IoT-A project aims at specifying a IoT reference model architecture and was used extensively as an input to the FI-WARE architecture specification. The work done in the FP7 SENSEI project has been taken into consideration by both ETSI M2M TC and FI-WARE project. As we consider the ETSI M2M (technical specifications issued) and FI-WARE (architecture based on a number of inputs taking into consideration various recent activities) as the most advanced in terms of the IoT/M2M architecture specification, we decided to use these activities as the basis for the IoT6 architecture.
Structure of the document. The rest of the document is structured into three main parts. The second section analyses the way that the identified trustworthiness properties are satisfied throughout the project. In this direction, the requirements regarding data processing imposed by the GDPR are defined and analysed as well. Next, emphasis is given to the requirements of privacy, transparency, fairness and stability, which are fully covered by WP6.
