Many nations are currently navigating the complexities of national cyber policy without access to reliable data. A recent report from the Zurich Insurance Group highlights that existing regulations typically emphasize incident reporting after cyberattacks occur, leaving governments without a proactive framework to gauge their resilience against such threats. This gap not only exposes economies to significant risks but also hampers their ability to respond effectively to systemic cyber threats.
The report critiques the conventional approach to cybersecurity, which often relies on compliance metrics and the number of incidents reported. While these figures provide some insight, they do not adequately reflect a country’s preparedness to withstand and recover from cyberattacks. Policymakers currently lack a standardized measure—akin to a Richter scale for earthquakes—that would allow for meaningful comparison of resilience across different sectors. Furthermore, the absence of uniform metrics complicates efforts to quantify the cyber risk protection gap, which is alarmingly evident as only about 1% of total economic losses from cyber incidents are insured.
To address these challenges, the report proposes six essential indicators that governments should track to better understand their cyber resilience. These metrics are aligned with functions in the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, making them recognizable to security leaders and practitioners in the field.
Six Key Metrics for Cyber Resilience
The proposed indicators include:
1. **Cyber insurance or audit certification coverage:** This metric evaluates the percentage of organizations with cyber insurance or a recognized security audit. A higher percentage indicates greater awareness and preparedness within the economy.
2. **Aging vulnerabilities:** This tracks the proportion of exploited vulnerabilities that are over one year old. A significant number suggests inadequate patching and slow remediation, highlighting areas where organizations must improve their security practices.
3. **Significant incidents:** This measures the number of major breaches or cyberattacks within a defined reporting period. Governments need to establish what constitutes a “significant” incident, whether by financial loss, the number of individuals affected, or disruptions to critical services.
4. **Containment time:** This indicator looks at the average duration required to isolate threats once they are detected. Shorter containment times indicate stronger detection and response capabilities across both public and private sectors.
5. **Restoration time:** This measures the average time taken to return to normal operations after a breach is contained. Faster recovery times demonstrate higher resilience and reduced overall impact on the economy and society.
6. **Workforce gap:** This metric assesses the percentage of unfilled cybersecurity roles, which can hinder governance and response efforts. A large number of vacancies restricts a nation’s ability to effectively prevent, detect, and respond to cyber threats.
These indicators, while not exhaustive, are designed to be easily interpretable for policymakers. They provide a national overview of strengths and weaknesses in cyber resilience. Currently, no country consistently collects all six data points. Even in the European Union, where incident reporting is mandated under regulations like NIS2 and DORA, the data requirements fall short. Of the six proposed indicators, only detection is comprehensively covered by EU regulations.
The fragmented approach to data collection creates significant blind spots. Various agencies across Europe gather incident reports, but data sharing among them is infrequent. This lack of coordination complicates the identification of sector-wide trends and the alignment of national responses with regional needs.
To enhance data collection, the report advocates for the establishment of National Cyber Statistics Bureaus. These entities would standardize and centralize the collection of cyber-related data, enabling continuous tracking of incidents, workforce capacity, and resilience measures. The findings would be published in a manner that empowers policymakers to act decisively.
Over time, an international body could aggregate this data, issue global alerts, and align standards across jurisdictions. In the absence of such institutions, national strategies will continue to rely on incomplete information, leaving economies vulnerable.
The report illustrates how a structured bureau could produce scorecards depicting the state of national cyber health, using color-coded metrics to track progress against targets. This approach mirrors public dashboards employed in other policy areas, making the data accessible and actionable for decision-makers.
By implementing these measures, governments can foster a more resilient cybersecurity landscape that not only enhances their ability to respond to threats but also safeguards their economies from the pervasive risks associated with cyberattacks.
