Read thanless than
Overall Rating
main
compare
The overall rankings tab shows the performance of the economies tested against each other and aggregates their scores across four pillars: critical infrastructure, cybersecurity resources, organizational capacity, and policy commitment.
This pillar indicates how well each country is served by strong and secure telecommunications and digital networks and the computing resources that underpin key economic activity. In addition to the UN’s overall telecommunications capacity index, the indexes incorporate the number of data centers and secure servers in the country. This pillar also includes indicators drawn from our global survey, in which respondents rated the robustness of each country’s critical infrastructure.
This pillar collects several views on the technology and law enforcement “assets” in each country to prevent improper access and use of data. These include ITU’s comprehensive assessment of cybersecurity capabilities, our own ratings for digital privacy protection, and survey respondents’ views on how effective the tools and services are. network security infrastructure is applied in their market.
This pillar measures the relative maturity of the country’s businesses and organizations in terms of cybersecurity and digital experience. This includes a measure of digital participation in government, the extent to which organizations are familiar with artificial intelligence, and survey respondents’ assessment of the extent to which cybersecurity capabilities are strategic and formally integrated in their organizations.
This pillar measures the comprehensiveness, quality, and effectiveness of a country’s regulatory environment in enhancing and promoting agile cybersecurity practices. This measure combines the World Bank’s assessment of the effectiveness and quality of government cybersecurity regulation, as well as the survey respondents’ assessment of the robustness and adequacy of regulation. there.
Compare
Access to critical technology journalism.
MIT Technology Review provides in-depth reporting on today’s most important technologies to prepare you for what’s to come.
Backside
Experts
MIT Technology Review Insights would like to thank the following commenters for their time and insights:
-
Magda Chelly, Senior Cyber Security Specialist, Founder of Women on Cyber, and Co-Founder of Responsibility Cyber, Singapore
-
Michael Henri Coden, Co-Founder and VP of Cybersecurity, MIT Sloan (CAMS) and Senior Advisor at BCG Platinion, USA
-
Sadie Creese, Director, Global Cybersecurity Competency Center, and Professor of Cybersecurity, University of Oxford, UK
-
Terry Cutler, Scam Mobile App Creator, Cyber Security Expert, and Founder and CEO of Cyology Labs, Canada
-
Alexander Klimburg, Director of the Center for Cybersecurity, World Economic Forum, Austria
-
Manion Le Blanc, Head of International Cyber Policy, Security and Defense Policy, European External Action Service, Brussels
-
Clay Lin, World Bank Information and Technology Solutions Manager, and Director of Information Security, USA
-
Andrew W. Lo, Professor of Finance, Director, MIT Financial Engineering Laboratory, USA
-
Andrew Milroy, Cybersecurity Advisor, Founder of Veqtor8, Singapore
-
Taylor Reynolds, Director of Technology Policy, MIT Internet Policy Research Initiative, USA
-
Denis Robitaille, World Bank Group Vice President for Information and Technology Solutions, and Chief Information Officer, WBG, USA
-
Daniel Weitzner, Founding Director, MIT Internet Policy Research Initiative, USA
-
Yufei Wu, Professor, Center for Information and Communication Technology, University of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
Backside
About
Methodology: Cyber Defense Index 2022/23
The MIT Technology Review Insights Cyber Defense Index assesses and ranks the capacity of the world’s largest and largest digital transition economies to prepare against, respond to, and recover from security threats. network security. It assesses the world’s 20 major economies (mostly members of the G20 forum, excluding Russia and adding Poland) according to the extent to which their organizations have adopted digital technology and practices to against cyberattacks and the effectiveness of governments and policy frameworks promoting secure digital transactions.
The indicator was developed by combining two vast input data sets:
-
Secondary source data, including statistics on global digital technology adoption, policy and regulatory data, is largely derived from international organizations and benchmarks.
-
A global survey of 1000 senior executives (with an equal number of respondents from each country ranked in the Index) who are responsible for cybersecurity for their respective organizations their. Forty-three percent of respondents are CIOs, CTOs or chief security officers. Respondents were asked to rate the effectiveness of their own technology adoption, policy and regulatory formulation, and cybersecurity practices, as well as comment on their technology development priorities. them in the next two to three years.
Both datasets provide information on a range of indicators—a list of qualitative and quantitative factors—which are then selected, disseminated, and organized into four pillars. Data from secondary sources were converted into scores. This is also done for indicators derived from survey responses, where each country’s responses are ranked according to their variance from the global mean.
The use of survey data in CDI is intended to provide “boot-on-the-ground” assessments of current operating conditions to maintain a cybersecurity environment. This is similar to how purchasing managers or business confidence indexes incorporate experts’ views on their own (or their country’s) relative performance.
The index data has been trend-analyzed, informed by key research interviews with global cybersecurity experts, technology developers, analysts and policymakers. This is complemented by a consultative peer-review process with cybersecurity technology analysts. Based on these inputs, weighting assumptions were assigned to determine the relative importance that each indicator and pillar influences a country’s cybersecurity situation.
The four pillars of CDI are:
This pillar indicates how well each country is served by strong and secure telecommunications and digital networks and the computing resources that underpin key economic activity. In addition to the UN’s overall telecommunications capacity index, the indexes incorporate the number of data centers and secure servers in the country. This pillar also includes indicators drawn from our global survey, in which respondents rated the robustness of each country’s critical infrastructure. The indicators of this pillar account for a total of 30% of the CDI score.
This pillar collects several views on the technology and law enforcement “assets” in each country to prevent improper access and use of data. These include ITU’s comprehensive assessment of cybersecurity capabilities, our own ratings for digital privacy protection, and survey respondents’ views on how effective the tools and services are. network security infrastructure is applied in their market. At 35%, this pillar contributes the most to the Index’s score.
This pillar measures the relative maturity of the country’s businesses and organizations in terms of cybersecurity and digital experience. This includes a measure of digital participation in government, the extent to which organizations are familiar with artificial intelligence, and survey respondents’ assessment of the extent to which cybersecurity capabilities strategic and formally integrated into their organizations. This pillar accounts for 20% of the total score.
This pillar measures the comprehensiveness, quality, and effectiveness of a country’s regulatory environment in enhancing and promoting agile cybersecurity practices. This measure combines the World Bank’s assessment of the effectiveness and quality of government cybersecurity regulation, as well as the survey respondents’ assessment of the robustness and adequacy of regulation. there. This pillar accounts for 15% of the total score.
About us
MIT Technology Review was founded at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1899.
MIT Technology Review Insights is the custom publishing division of MIT Technology Review. We conduct qualitative and quantitative research and analysis worldwide and publish a wide variety of content, including articles, reports, infographics, videos and podcasts.
If you have any comments or questions, please
contact.
