, (8), 102–106.| Figure 2.1 | Main stages of ANASTACIA framework |
| Figure 2.2 | Anastacia high-level architectural view |
| Figure 2.3 | Security orchestration plane |
| Figure 2.4 | Security orchestration and enforcement in case of a reactive scenario |
| Figure 3.1 | High-level architecture of the SAINT framework |
| Figure 3.2 | Stakeholder reference model |
| Figure 3.3 | Global security map of Finland |
| Figure 4.1 | Information technology security vs cyber-security |
| Figure 4.2 | Incidents reported to US-CERT, Fiscal Years 2006–2014 |
| Figure 4.3 | FORTIKA deployment diagram (High level) |
| Figure 4.4 | FORTIKA accelerator architecture |
| Figure 4.5 | Middleware use in FORTIKA |
| Figure 4.6 | SBH and LwM2M client components of the middleware |
| Figure 4.7 | Synthesis engine component of the middleware |
| Figure 4.8 | Synthesis sequence steps |
| Figure 4.9 | Process of deployment and management within FORTIKA marketplace |
| Figure 4.10 | ABAC components |
| Figure 4.11 | ABAC layered approach |
| Figure 4.12 | SEARS architecture |
| Figure 4.13 | SEARS conceptual design |
| Figure 5.1 | BAID describing the cybersecurity resource allocation problem |
| Figure 5.2 | Screenshot of the online cybersecurity shop in the experiment |
| Figure 5.3 | A snapshot of the CYBECO tool, gathering inputs on assets to feed the cyber risk analysis tool |
| Figure 6.1 | Map of deployed SISSDEN sensors |
| Figure 6.2 | High-level architecture of the SISSDEN network |
| Figure 6.3 | Shows the genesis of the attack over time (measures made each 5 minutes) |
| Figure 7.1 | Overall CIPSEC innovations due to various solutions integration |
| Figure 7.2 | CIPSEC reference architecture for protection of critical infrastructures |
| Figure 7.3 | CIPSEC dashboard |
| Figure 8.1 | The CS-AWARE approach |
| Figure 8.2 | Roles and responsibilities in European cybersecurity strategy |
| Figure 8.3 | Systems thinking |
| Figure 8.4 | CS-AWARE framework. |
| Figure 8.5 | I/P/O interface definition framework |
| Figure 8.6 | Soft systems analysis rich picture |
| Figure 8.7 | System and dependency analysis use case example |
| Figure 8.8 | From tweets to knowledge graphs |
| Figure 8.9 | The CS-AWARE visualization component |
| Figure 8.10 | CTI exchange interoperability layers |
| Figure 8.11 | The traffic light protocol |
| Figure 8.12 | Properties of self-healing research |
| Figure 8.13 | Self-healing subcomponents activity diagram |
| Figure 9.1 | Dynamic learning capabilities of the systems to update keywords, vector spaces, rule patterns, algorithms and models |
| Figure 9.2 | Layered application architecture |
| Figure 9.3 | Complex event processing module – Logical component diagram |
| Figure 9.4 | Illustration of a possible output of the SNA tool |
| Figure 9.5 | Two-layer networked privacy preserving big data analytics model between coalition forces. |
| Figure 9.6 | Main system user interface – Component interactions diagram |
| Figure 9.7 | Centralized audit and logging – Interactions diagram |
| Figure 10.1 | TRUESSEC.eu core areas of trustworthiness |
| Figure 10.2 | Developing the criteria catalogue |
| Figure 10.3 | Core areas of trustworthiness and related ICT system properties |
| Figure 10.4 | Guiding elements of the operationalization process |
| Figure 10.5 | TRUESSEC.eu labelling proposal |
| Figure 10.6 | (Illustrative) Levels of conformance |
| Figure 11.1 | ARIES ecosystem overview |
| Figure 11.2 | e-Commerce demonstrator scenario overview |
| Figure 12.1 | The LIGHTest reference architecture. |
| Figure 12.2 | Sequence diagram for trust publication of a qualified signature |
| Figure 12.3 | Representation of trust scheme publications in the TSPA |
| Figure 13.1 | Abstract data flow in CREDENTIAL |
| Figure 13.2 | Architecture of the CREDENTIAL eHealth pilot |
| Figure 14.1 | FutureTrust partners |
| Figure 14.2 | FutureTrust System Architecture |
| Figure 14.3 | Outline of the Architecture of the Scalable Preservation Service |
| Figure 14.4 | National eID cards, platforms and applications supported by IdMS |
| Figure 14.5 | Enrolment and usage phase for SigS |
| Figure 15.1 | eIDAS network and CEF building blocks background |
| Figure 15.2 | eIDAS adapter architecture general overview |
| Figure 15.3 | SP integration with eIDAS node using greek connector(s) |
| Figure 15.4 | eIDAS WebApp 2.0 |
| Figure 15.5 | eIDAS ISS 2.0 (plus this WebApp) |
| Figure 15.6 | Spanish eIDAS adapter modules |
| Figure 15.7 | LEPS services and automated eCATS tool |
| Table 1.1 | Main cybersecurity research challenges and related EU project’s |
| Table 1.2 | Main Privacy related research challenges and related EU projects |
| Table 10.1 | TRUESSEC.eu Core Areas of trustworthiness |
| Table 10.2 | Criterion – Information |
| Table 10.3 | Example of the guiding elements of the operationalization process |
| Table 12.1 | Types of trust scheme publications in LIGHTest |
| Table 15.1 | Cost of three eIDAS connectivity options |
| AAA | Authentication, Authorization and Accounting |
| ABAC | Attribute Based Access Control |
| ABC | Anti-Bot Code of Conduct |
| ABC | Attribute Based Credentials |
| ACS | Anonymous Credential Systems |
| AD | Architectural Description |
| AI | Artificial Intelligence |
| API | Application Programming Interface |
| AQDRS | Regional System of Detection of Air Quality |
| ASN | Anonymous Communication Networks |
| ASR | Automatic Speech Recognition |
| ATHEX | Athens Exchange Group |
| BAID | Bi-Agent Influence Diagram |
| C&C | Command & Control |
| CEF | Connecting Europe Facility |
| CEP | Complex Event Processing |
| CERT | Community Emergency Response Team |
| CERTs | Community Emergency Response Teams |
| CI, CIs | Critical Infrastructure, Critical Infrastructures |
| CIDR | Classless Inter-Domain Routing |
| CIPIs | Critical Infrastructure Performance Indicator |
| CMS | Compliance Management Service |
| CNN | Convolutional Neural Network |
| Conpo | Honeypot, http://conpot.org/ |
| CORAS | Name of the risk analysis method developed by Lund, Solhaug and Stølen |
| CPS | Cyber Physical Systems |
| CSIRTs | Computer Security Incident Response Teams |
| CTI | Cyber Threat Intelligence |
| CYBECO | Accronym of the H2020 project “Supporting Cyberinsurance from a Behavioural Choice Perspective” |
| DDoS | Distributed Denial of Service |
| Dionaea | Honeypot, https://github.com/DinoTools/dionaea |
| DKMS | Decentralized Key Management System |
| DNP3 | Distributed Network Protocol |
| DoS | Denial of Service |
| DoS | Denial of Service Attacks |
| DoW | Description of Work |
| DSI | Digital Service Infrastructure |
| DSM | Digital Single Market |
| DSS | Decision Support System |
| EBA | Eisenbahnbundesamt (Railway Federal Office) |
| EC | European Commission |
| EC3 | European Cybercrime Centre |
| EHEA | European Higher Education Area |
| EIA | Ethical Impact Assessment |
| eID | electronic Identity |
| eID | electronic identification |
| eIDAS | electronic IDentification, Authentication and trust Services |
| ELTA | Hellenic Post |
| ENISA | European Union Agency for Network and Information Security |
| EU | European Union |
| FICORA | Finnish communications regulatory authority |
| FP7 | 7th Framework Programme |
| FPGA | Field Programmable Gate Array |
| G20 | Group of 20 |
| GDP | Gross Domestic Product |
| GDPR | General Data Protection Regulation (EU) |
| GSM | SAINT’s Global Security Map |
| GW | Gateway |
| H2020 | Horizon 2020 |
| HIDS | Host Intrusion Detection Systems |
| HMI | Human-Machine Interface |
| HTTP | Hypertext Transfer Protocol |
| ICS | Integrated Computer Solution |
| ICT | Information and Communication Technology |
| ICTs | Information Communication Technologies |
| IdM | Identity Management |
| IdP | Identity Provider |
| IDPS | Intrusion Detection and Prevention System |
| IDS | Intrusion Detection System |
| IMG | Industry Monitoring Group |
| IMPACT | International Multilateral Partnership Against Cyber Threats |
| IoT | Internet of Things |
| IP | Internet Protocol |
| IP, IPs | Internet Protocol, IP addresses |
| IPS | Intrusion Prevention System |
| ISAC | Information Sharing and Analysis Center |
| ISF | Information Security Forum |
| ISO | International Organization for Standardization |
| ISPs | Internet Service Providers |
| ISS | Interconnection Supporting Service |
| IT | Information Technology |
| ITU | International Telecommunication Union |
| ITU-GCA | IUT Global Cyber-security Agenda |
| JBPM | Java Business Process Model |
| JSON | JavaScript Object Notation |
| JWT | JASON Web Token |
| Kippo | Honeypot, https://github.com/desaster/kippo |
| KPI | Key Performance Indicator |
| KPIs | Key Performance Indicators |
| LEA | Law Enforcement Agency |
| LEAs | Law Enforcement Agencies |
| LEPS | Leveraging eID in the Private Sector |
| LoA | Level of Assurance |
| MDM | Data Management systems |
| ML | Meta-Learning |
| MMT | Montimage Monitoring Tool |
| Modbus | Communications protocol, http://www.modbus.org/ |
| MS | Member State |
| MSPL | Medium Security Policy Language |
| NFC | Near Field Communication |
| NFV | Network Function Virtualization |
| NHS | Britain’s National Health Service |
| NIDS | Network Intrusion Detection Systems |
| NIS | Directive EU Directive on Security of Network and Information Systems |
| NLP | Natural Language Processing |
| NTA | Network Traffic Analysis |
| OC | Operations Centre |
| OPC | UA Open Platform Communications |
| OPC | Open Platform Communications |
| OSGi | Open Services Gateway initiative |
| OT | Open Platform Communications Unified Architecture |
| PAP | Policy Administration Point |
| PC | Personal Computer |
| PCAP | Packet Capture |
| PDP | Policy Decision Point |
| PEP | Policy Enforcement Point |
| PHR | Patient Healthcare Record |
| PIP | Policy Information Point |
| PLCs | Programmable Logic Controller |
| RDBMS | Relational Database Management System |
| ROI | Return of Investment |
| RPN | Region Proposal Network |
| RTNTA | Real Time Network Traffic Analyzer |
| SAINT | Systemic Analyser In Network Threats |
| SAML | Security Assertion Mark-up Language |
| SCADA | Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition |
| SDA | Slow DoS Attack |
| SDN | Software Defined Networks |
| SEARS | Social Engineering Attack Recognition System |
| SFC | Service Function Chain |
| SIEM | Security Information and Event Management |
| SISSDEN | Secure Information Sharing Sensor Delivery event Network |
| SLA | Service-Level Agreement |
| SMA | Semantic Multimedia Analysis |
| SME | Small and Medium Enterprises |
| SNA | Social Network Analysis |
| SoC | System on-Chip |
| SP | Service Provider |
| SQL | Structured Query Language |
| SSH | Secure Shel |
| SSI | Self-Sovereign Identity |
| STIX/TAXII | Structured Threat Information eXpression/rusted Automated Exchange of Indicator Information |
| UI | User Interface |
| UK | United Kingdom |
| URL | Uniform Resource Locator |
| URLs | Uniform Resource Locators |
| US | United States of America |
| USB | Universal Serial Bus |
| UTM | Unified Thread Management |
| VHDL | VHSIC Hardware Description Language |
| VHSIC | Very High Speed Integrated Circuit |
| VLAN | Virtual Local Area Network |
| VM | Virtual Machine |
| VNF | Virtual Network Functions |
| VPS | Virtual Private Server |
| VSA | Virtual Security Appliance |
| WPAN | Wireless Personal AreaNetworks |
| WSDL | Web Services Description Language |
| XL-SIEM | Cross-Layer Security Information and Event Management |
| ZKP | Zero Knowledge Proof |
| Challenge ID | Name | EU projects addressing the challenge |
| 1 | Interoperable and scalable security management in heterogeneous ecosystems | ANASTACIA |
| 2 | Autonomic Security orchestration and enforcement in softwarized and virtualized IoT/CPS systems and mobile environments | ANASTACIA, FORTIKA, CIPSEC |
| 3 | Cognitive detection and mitigation of evolving new kind of cyber-threats | ANASTACIA, CIPSEC, CS-AWARE, RED-ALERT |
| 4 | Dynamic Risk assessment and evaluation of cybersecurity, trustworthiness levels, privacy and legal compliance of ICT systems | CYBECO, CIPSEC, TRUESSEC, ANASTACIA |
| 5 | Digital Forensics handling, security intelligent and incident information exchange | SIESSDEN, SAINT, CIPSEC, CS-AWARE |
| 6 | Cybersecurity and privacy tools for end-users and SMEs. The usability and human factor challenges | FORTIKA |
| Challenge ID | Name | EU projects addressing the challenge |
| 7 | Reliable and privacy-preserving physical and virtual identity management | ARIES, LEPS |
| 8 | Efficient and secure cryptographic mechanisms to strengthen confidentiality and privacy | CREDENTIAL |
| 9 | Global trust management of eID and related services | LIGHTest, Future Trust |
| 10 | Privacy assessment, run-time evaluation of the quality of security and privacy risks | ANASTACIA |
, (8), 102–106.| Customers | The organisations customers. The stakeholders of the system |
| Actors | The employees of the organisation. The people involved in ensuring that a transformation takes place |
| Transformation | The process by which inputs become outputs e.g. raw materials become finished goods |
| World view | The wider view of all of the interested parties – employees, suppliers, customers etc... The “big picture” |
| Owner | The owner of the system or process. The organisation in control |
| Environmental constraints | Finances, legislation ethics |
| TRUESSEC.eu Core Areas | Multidisciplinary TRUESSEC.eu Understanding |
| Transparency | The ICT product or service is provided in line with information duties regarding personal data processing and the product/service itself. |
| Privacy | The ICT product or service allows the user to control access to and use of their personal information and it respects the protection of personal data. |
| Anti-discrimination | The ICT product or service does not include any discriminative practices and biases. |
| Autonomy | The ICT product or service gives users the opportunity to make decisions and respects those decisions. The ICT product or service also respects other parties’/persons’ rights and freedoms. |
| Respect | ICT products or services are to be provided in accordance with the legitimate expectations related to them. |
| Protection | ICT products and services are provided in accordance with safety and cybersecurity standards. |
| Type of Trust Scheme Publication | Example | Verifiable Information |
| Boolean | ETSI_EN_319_401 | Compliance of an entity to a trust scheme |
| Ordinal | LoA4.ISO29115 | Compliance of an entity to an ordinal value of a trust scheme |
| Tuple-Based | {(authentication:2Factor), (identityProofing: inPerson)} | Requirements of a trust scheme |
| Integration Scenario | Fixed Cost (in EUR) | Operational Cost (in EUR per year) |
| Build from scratch (Scenario 1) | 41,739.36 | 34,748.44 |
| Build by using CEF Demo SP (Scenario 2) | 33,792.96 | 32,627.80 |
| LEPS eIDAS API Connectors (Scenario 3) | 25,734.46 | 30,945.28 |