This report is based on a study and analysis of approaches to
national-level risk assessment and threat modelling for cyber security
which was conducted between April and October 2013. ENISA aims to
provide an evidence-based methodology for establishing a National-level
Risk Assessment in order to contribute to the wider objective of
improving national contingency planning practices (NCPs) . This report
will help towards rationalising national risk assessments in EU Member
States in order to reduce or eliminate vulnerabilities of critical
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) services and
infrastructures.
In conclusion we can see that understanding of the national approach to
cyber security and how risk decisions are taken in different countries
is important to ensure that the results of any National-level Risk
Assessment reach key decision-makers at the right time. It is also clear
that there are a variety of approaches and levels of sophistication
used in National-level Risk Assessments. Qualitative tools appeared to
be preferred due to the complexities of understanding risk in the cyber
domain. Depending on the preconditions regarding implementation, risk
assessment could be performed using a common set of methods or in a more
decentralised fashion. Challenges included the diversity of
methodologies and approaches to National-level Risk Assessments (which
highlights the need for this guidance document) as well as the
complexities of public–private cooperation. As might be expected, many
countries studied drew lessons from others when preparing their
National-level Risk Assessment programmes. Some countries had identified
priorities that they were seeking to focus on, including greater
understanding of threats, improved stakeholder engagement and better
national CIIP frameworks.
Based on an analysis of the data gathered we recommend the following:
1. Member States should understand better the underlying cyber threats
and risks that they face and the impact to society.
2. Member States are advised to integrate National-level Risk Assessment
into the lifecycle of NIS incident management and cooperation plans and
procedures.
3. Member States should expand public–private sector dialogue and
information sharing.
4. A practical step-by-step guide on how to perform National-level Risk
Assessments should be developed, tested and maintained. Such a guide
should be piloted by countries at the early stages of preparing their
own National-level Risk Assessment programme. ENISA or another
international institution would be appropriate bodies to oversee this
action.
5. A catalogue of scenarios to help Member States in their
National-level Risk Assessments should be established at EU level. Such a
catalogue could be based on work already being done at ENISA on the
threat landscape and incident reporting .
6. The EU community of practitioners with an interest in cyber
National-level Risk Assessments should be established and strengthened
as information exchange platform, e.g., within the framework of the
European Commission’s NIS Platform .
7. Risk analysis expertise must be shared from other domains that assess
complex cross-border risks, such as border security, financial
services, aviation or public health for example within the European
Commission’s NIS Platform and other activities organised by ENISA.
Report: http://www.enisa.europa.eu/activities/Resilience-and-CIIP/cyber-crisis-cooperation/nis-cooperation-plans/nlra-analysis-report
Report: http://www.enisa.europa.eu/activities/Resilience-and-CIIP/cyber-crisis-cooperation/nis-cooperation-plans/nlra-analysis-report