00801nas a2200265   4500008004100000022001400041245007000055210006700125260004200192300000800234490000600242653001100248653001600259653002800275653001800303653002200321653001900343653001500362653003000377653003800407100001800445700001700463700001900480856003600499       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Critical Infrastructures and Cybersecurity (June 2015)0 aEditorial Critical Infrastructures and Cybersecurity June 2015  aOttawabTalent First Networkc06/2015  a3-50 v510abotnet10aclub theory10acritical infrastructure10acybersecurity10adesign principles10adesign science10ahealthcare10anetworked medical devices10aproject management maturity model1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aCraigen, Dan1 aMuegge, Steven  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/90100804nas a2200289   4500008004100000022001400041245004400055210004100099260004200140300000800182490000600190653002900196653002100225653001200246653002200258653002800280653001800308653001800326653002200344653001700366653001300383653001600396653002900412100001800441700001900459856003600478       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Cybersecurity (January 2015)0 aEditorial Cybersecurity January 2015  aOttawabTalent First Networkc01/2015  a3-40 v510aautomotive manufacturing10abotnet takedowns10abotnets10acommercialization10acritical infrastructure10acyber-attacks10acybersecurity10aemployee training10agamification10aInternet10aoutsourcing10aquantum key distribution1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aBailetti, Tony  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/86000669nas a2200217   4500008004100000022001400041245006800055210006500123260004200188300001000230490000600240653002700246653002800273653001800301653001800319653002700337653001300364653002000377100001800397856003600415       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aQ&A. Should the Internet Be Considered Critical Infrastructure?0 aQA Should the Internet Be Considered Critical Infrastructure  aOttawabTalent First Networkc01/2015  a37-400 v510acommunication networks10acritical infrastructure10acyber-attacks10acybersecurity10ainformation technology10aInternet10avulnerabilities1 aMiron, Walter  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/86502332nas a2200277   4500008004100000022001400041245008600055210006900141260004200210300001000252490000600262520153500268653001301803653001601816653003101832653001501863653002801878653001401906653001901920653001501939653001501954653001401969100001801983700001702001856003602018       2014                        eng d  a1927-032100aCybersecurity Capability Maturity Models for Providers of Critical Infrastructure0 aCybersecurity Capability Maturity Models for Providers of Critic  aOttawabTalent First Networkc10/2014  a33-390 v43 aCritical infrastructure such as power generation and distribution systems, telecommunications networks, pipelines and pipeline control networks, transportation control networks, financial networks, and government information and communications technology (ICT) have increasingly become the target of cyber-attacks. The impact and cost of these threats, as well as regulatory pressure to mitigate them, have created an impetus to secure these critical infrastructures. Managers have many controls and models at their disposal to help them secure infrastructure technology, including cybersecurity capability maturity models to enable measurement and communication of cybersecurity readiness to top management teams, regulators, and customers, thereby facilitating regulatory compliance, corporate responsibility, and improved brand quality. However, information and awareness is lacking about which models are most appropriate for a given situation and how they should be deployed.

This article examines relevant cybersecurity capability maturity models to identify the standards and controls available to providers of critical infrastructure in an effort to improve their level of security preparedness. These capability models are described and categorized by their relevance to different infrastructure domains, and then recommendations are provided on employing capability maturity models to measure and communicate readiness. This article will be relevant to regulators, critical infrastructure providers, and researchers. 10aadoption10abersecurity10acapability maturity models10acompliance10acritical infrastructure10aframework10amunicipalities10aprotection10aregulation10astandards1 aMiron, Walter1 aMuita, Kevin  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/83701660nas a2200241   4500008004100000022001400041245008300055210006900138260004200207300001000249490000600259520093900265653002801204653001801232653001901250653001401269653001801283653001801301653001501319653002601334100002201360856003601382       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aProtecting Critical Infrastructure by Identifying Pathways of Exposure to Risk0 aProtecting Critical Infrastructure by Identifying Pathways of Ex  aOttawabTalent First Networkc08/2013  a34-400 v33 aIncreasingly, our critical infrastructure is managed and controlled by computers and the information networks that connect them. Cyber-terrorists and other malicious actors understand the economic and social impact that a successful attack on these systems could have. While it is imperative that we defend against such attacks, it is equally imperative that we realize how best to react to them. This article presents the strongest-path method of analyzing all potential pathways of exposure to risk – no matter how indirect or circuitous they may be – in a network model of infrastructure and operations. The method makes direct use of expert knowledge about entities and dependency relationships without the need for any simulation or any other models. By using path analysis in a directed graph model of critical infrastructure, planners can model and assess the effects of a potential attack and develop resilient responses. 10acritical infrastructure10acybersecurity10adirected graph10amodelling10apath analysis10arisk analysis10asimulation10astrongest-path method1 aO’Neill, Philip  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/714