Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 Acknowledgments This report has been produced by the International Telecommunication Union ITU with the support of Michael Minges The Cybersecurity Team of the ITU would like to express its appreciation to Dr Sherif Hashem NTRA Egypt Michaela Saisanna and Hedvig Norlen Joint Research Centre of the European Commission as well as the Rapporteurs of the Study Group 2 Question 3 Rozalin Al-Balushi Oman and Eliot Lear USA for their input to the Global Cybersecurity Index GCI work and report The online questionnaire preparation secondary data collection data validation and report elaboration have been carried out with the support of Mohaamed Ahmed Yousef Aly Ahmed Abd Allah Abd El- Latif Tymoteusz Kurpeta Benjamin Lim Daniela Toma Grace Rachael Acayo and Lena Lattion If you have any comments please contact the ITU Cybersecurity Team cybersecurity@itu int ISBN 978-92-61-25061-4 paper version 978-92-61-25071-3 electronic version 978-92-61-25081-2 EPUB version 978-92-61-25091-1 Mobi version Revision Date 6 July 2017 Please consider the environment before printing this report C ITU 2017 All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced by any means whatsoever without the prior written permission of ITU Foreword The global community is increasingly embracing ICTs as key enabler for social and economic development Governments across the world recognize that digital transformation has the power to further the prosperity and wellbeing of their citizens In supporting this transformation they also recognize that cybersecurity must be an integral and indivisible part of technological progress In 2016 nearly one percent of all emails sent were essentially malicious attacks the highest rate in recent years Ransomware attacks increasingly affected businesses and consumers with indiscriminate campaigns pushing out massive volumes of malicious emails Attackers are demanding more and more from victims with the average ransom demand rising to over 1 000 USD in 2016 up from approximately 300 USD a year earlier In May 2017 a massive cyberattack caused major disruptions to companies and hospitals in over 150 countries prompting a call for greater cooperation around the world First launched in 2014 the goal of the Global Cybersecurity Index GCI is to help foster a global culture of cybersecurity and its integration at the core of ICTs This second iteration of the GCI measures the commitment of ITU Member States towards cybersecurity in order to drive further efforts in the adoption and integration of cybersecurity on a global scale The GCI reaffirms ITU's commitment to build confidence and security in the use of ICTs This report on the second iteration of the GCI continues to show the cybersecurity commitment of ITU Member States around the world and I am pleased to note that the overall picture shows improvement and strengthening of the global cybersecurity agenda I wish to thank Member States for their contribution to this effort The collection of information for the GCI is an ongoing process and I therefore invite all ITU Member States to continue sending and updating information on their cybersecurity efforts so that we can effectively share experiences views and solutions in order to make the digital world a more secure and safe environment for all citizens Brahima Sanou Director Telecommunication Development Bureau iii Executive Summary The Global Cybersecurity Index GCI is a survey that measures the commitment of Member States to cybersecurity in order to raise awareness The GCI revolves around the ITU Global Cybersecurity Agenda GCA and its five pillars legal technical organizational capacity building and cooperation For each of these pillars questions were developed to assess commitment Through consultation with a group of experts these questions were weighted in order to arrive at an overall GCI score The survey was administered through an online platform through which supporting evidence was also collected One-hundred and thirty-four Member States responded to the survey throughout 2016 Member States who did not respond were invited to validate responses determined from open-source research As such the GCI results reported herein cover all 193 ITU Member States The 2017 publication of the GCI continues to show the commitment to cybersecurity of countries around the world The overall picture shows improvement and strengthening of all five elements of the cybersecurity agenda in various countries in all regions However there is space for further improvement in cooperation at all levels capacity building and organizational measures As well the gap in the level of cybersecurity engagement between different regions is still present and visible The level of development of the different pillars varies from country to country in the regions and while commitment in Europe remains very high in the legal and technical fields in particular the challenging situation in the Africa and Americas regions shows the need for continued engagement and support In addition to providing the GCI score this report also provides a set of illustrative practices that give insight into the achievements of certain countries This is an updated version of the GCI 2017 report released on 6 July 2017 reflecting a corrected ranking of the GCI scores Please note that to ensure accuracy revisions of the report may be published in the future Please check the site http www itu int en ITU-D Cybersecurity Pages GCI-2017 aspx for the latest revision iv Table of Contents Foreword iii Executive Summary iv 1 Introduction 1 2 GCI Scope and Framework 2 1 Background 2 2 Reference model 2 3 Conceptual framework 3 3 3 4 3 Methodology 9 4 Key Findings 4 1 Heat Map of National Cybersecurity Commitments 4 2 GCI Groups 13 13 13 5 Global Outlook 5 1 Noteworthy figures 5 2 Comparing GCI with other indices 17 17 19 6 Regional Outlook 6 1 Africa 6 2 Americas 6 3 Arab States 6 4 Asia and the Pacific 6 5 Commonwealth of Independent States 6 6 Europe 25 26 28 30 32 34 36 7 Illustrative practices by pillar 7 1 Legal 7 1 1 Cybercrime legislation 7 1 2 Cybersecurity regulation 7 1 3 Cybersecurity training 7 2 Technical 7 2 1 National CERT CIRT CSIRT 7 2 2 Government CERT CIRT CSIRT 7 2 3 Sectoral CERT CIRT CSIRT 7 2 4 Cybersecurity standards implementation framework for organizations 7 2 5 Child online protection 7 3 Organizational 7 3 1 Strategy 7 3 2 Public consultation 7 3 3 Responsible agency 7 3 4 Cybersecurity metrics 7 4 Capacity building 7 4 1 Standardization bodies 7 4 2 Good practice 39 39 39 39 39 40 40 40 40 41 41 41 41 42 42 42 42 42 42 v 7 4 3 Cybersecurity research and development programmes 7 4 4 Public awareness campaigns 7 4 5 Cybersecurity professional training courses 7 4 6 National education programmes and academic curricula 7 4 7 Incentive mechanisms 7 4 8 Home-grown cybersecurity industry 7 5 Cooperation 7 5 1 Bilateral agreements 7 5 2 Multilateral agreements 7 5 3 Participation in international fora 7 5 4 Public -private partnerships 7 5 5 Interagency partnerships vi 43 43 43 43 43 44 44 44 44 44 45 45 8 Conclusion 47 Abbreviations 49 Annex 1 - ITU Member States Global Cybersecurity Commitment Score By Region 51 Annex 2 - GCI 2017 Score 59 List of Tables Figures and Boxes Tables Table 3 1 Numbers of responses received from all Members States regionally Table 5 1 Top ten most committed countries GCI normalized score Table 6 1 1 Top three ranked countries in Africa Table 6 2 1 Top three ranked countries in the Americas Table 6 3 1 Top three ranked countries in the Arab States Table 6 4 1 Top three ranked countries in Asia and the Pacific Table 6 5 1 Top three ranked countries in Commonwealth of Independent States Table 6 6 1 Top three ranked countries in Europe 10 17 26 28 30 32 34 36 Figures Figure 2 3 1 GCI pillars and sub-pillars Figure 2 3 2 GCA tree structure illustrating all pillars simplified Figure 2 3 3 GCI tree structure illustrating Legal pillar Figure 4 1 1 GCI Heat Map Figure 4 2 1 GCI Tiers Figure 5 1 1 Cybersecurity strategy and training commitments Figure 5 1 2 Computer emergency response teams and metrics Figure 5 1 3 Home-grown industry and international participation Figure 5 2 1 Global comparison GCI and IDI Figure 5 2 2 Comparison GCI and IDI in the Africa region Figure 5 2 3 Comparison GCI and IDI in the Americas region Figure 5 2 4 Comparison GCI and IDI in the Arab States Figure 5 2 5 Comparison GCI and IDI in the Asia and the Pacific region Figure 5 2 6 Comparison GCI and IDI in the Commonwealth of Independent States Figure 5 2 7 Comparison GCI and IDI in the Europe region Figure 6 1 Average pillar scores by region Figure 6 1 1 Top three ranked countries in Africa and global ranked of all countries in Africa Figure 6 1 2 Africa region scorecard Figure 6 2 1 Top three ranked countries and an average score of all the Americas Figure 6 2 2 Americas region scorecard Figure 6 3 1 Top three ranked countries and an average score of the Arab States Figure 6 3 2 Arab States scorecard Figure 6 4 1 Top three ranked countries and an average score of all Asia and the Pacific Figure 6 4 2 Asia and the Pacific Region Scorecard Figure 6 5 1 Top three ranked countries and an average score of all CIS Figure 6 5 2 CIS region scorecard Figure 6 6 1 Top three ranked countries and an average score of all Europe Figure 6 6 2 Europe region scorecard 5 6 7 13 14 18 18 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 vii Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 1 Introduction The information and communication technologies ICT networks devices and services are increasingly critical for day-to-day life In 2016 almost half the world used the Internet 3 5 billion users 1 and according to one estimate there will be over 12 billion machine-to-machine devices connected to the Internet by 20202 Yet just as in the real world the cyber world is exposed to a variety of security threats that can cause immense damage Statistics on threats to computer networks are sobering and reflect a shift from the relatively innocuous spam of yesteryear to threats that are more malicious A security company tracking incidents in 2016 found that malicious emails became a weapon of choice for a wide range of cyberattacks during the year used by everyone from state sponsored cyber espionage groups to mass-mailing ransomware gangs One-in-131 emails sent were malicious the highest rate in five years Ransomware continues to plague businesses and consumers with indiscriminate campaigns pushing out massive volumes of malicious emails In some cases organizations can be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of ransomware-laden emails they receive Attackers are demanding more and more from victims with the average ransom demand in 2016 rising to USD 1 077 up from USD 294 a year earlier3 The scale of cybercrime makes it critical for governments to have a robust cybersecurity ecosystem in place to reduce threats and enhance confidence in using electronic communications and services It is therefore clear that there is a direct cause-effect principle between the growth of ICTs and their illicit and malicious use To counter this effect cybersecurity is becoming more and more relevant in the minds of countries' decision makers and cybersecurity related doctrines have been established in almost all countries in the world However there is still an evident gap between countries in terms of awareness understanding knowledge and finally capacity to deploy the proper strategies capabilities and programmes to ensure a safe and appropriate use of ICTs as enablers for economic development In this context ITU together with international partners from private-public and private sector as well as academia has established the GCI with the key objective of building capacity at the national regional and international level through assessing the level of engagement of countries on cybersecurity and with the data gathered producing a list of good practices that can be used by countries in need 1 2 3 www itu int en ITU-D Statistics Pages stat default aspx www cisco com c en us solutions collateral service-provider visual-networking-index-vni vni-hyperconnectivity-wp html www symantec com 1 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 2 GCI Scope and Framework 2 1 Background The GCI is included under Resolution 130 Rev Busan 2014 on strengthening the role of ITU in building confidence and security in the use of ICT Specifically Member States are invited to support ITU initiatives on cybersecurity including the Global Cybersecurity Index GCI in order to promote government strategies and the sharing of information on efforts across industries and sectors A first iteration of the GCI was conducted in 2013-2014 in partnership with ABI Research1 and the final results have been published2 Following feedback received from various communities a second iteration of the GCI was planned and undertaken This new version was formulated around an extended participation from Member States experts and industry stakeholders as contributing partners namely World Bank and Red Team Cyber as new GCI partners joining the Australia Strategic Policy Institute FIRST Indiana University INTERPOL ITU-Arab Regional Cybersecurity Centre in Oman Korea Internet Security Agency NTRA Egypt The Potomac Institute of Policy Studies UNICRI University of Technology Jamaica and UNODC who all provided support with the provision of secondary data response activation statistical analysis qualitative appreciation amongst other The data collected via GCI 2017 for ITU-D Study Group 2 Question 3 SG2Q3 surveys have been analysed by the Rapporteur and co-Rapporteur for inclusion in the SG2Q3 final report GCI partners have been active in providing expertise and secondary data as appropriate while the UN office of ICT New York has also initiated collaborative work ITU is also working in a multi-stakeholder collaboration led by the World Bank to elaborate a toolkit on Best practice in Policy Legal enabling Framework and Capacity Building in Combatting Cybercrime ITU is providing support on the component on capacity building from a cybersecurity perspective based on GCI 2017 data An enhanced reference model was thereby devised Throughout the steps of this new version Member States were consulted using various vehicles including ITU-D Study Group 2 Question 3 2 where the overall project was submitted discussed and validated 2 2 Reference model The GCI is a composite index combining 25 indicators into one benchmark measure to monitor and compare the level of ITU Member States cybersecurity commitment with regard to the five pillars identified by the High-Level Experts Group and endorsed by the GCA These pillars form the five pillars of GCI The main objectives of the GCI are to measure o the type level and evolution over time of cybersecurity commitment in countries and relative to other countries o the progress in cybersecurity commitment of all countries from a global perspective o the progress in cybersecurity commitment from a regional perspective o the cybersecurity commitment divide i e the difference between countries in terms of their level of engagement in cybersecurity programmes and initiatives 1 2 https www abiresearch com http www itu int en ITU-D Cybersecurity Pages GCI-2014 aspx 3 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 The objective of the GCI as an initiative is to help countries identify areas for improvement in the field of cybersecurity as well as to motivate them to take action to improve their ranking thus helping raise the overall level of commitment to cybersecurity worldwide Through the information collected the GCI aims to illustrate the practices of other countries so that Member States can implement selected aspects suitable to their national environment with the added benefits of helping harmonize practices and fostering a global culture of cybersecurity 2 3 Conceptual framework The five pillars of the GCI are briefly explained below 4 1 Legal Measured based on the existence of legal institutions and frameworks dealing with cybersecurity and cybercrime 2 Technical Measured based on the existence of technical institutions and frameworks dealing with cybersecurity 3 Organizational Measured based on the existence of policy coordination institutions and strategies for cybersecurity development at the national level 4 Capacity Building Measured based on the existence of research and development education and training programmes certified professionals and public sector agencies fostering capacity building 5 Cooperation Measured based on the existence of partnerships cooperative frameworks and information sharing networks Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 Each pillar was then further divided in sub-pillars Figure 2 3 1 Figure 2 3 1 GCI pillars and sub-pillars The questionnaire was elaborated on the basis of these sub-pillars 3 The values for the 25 indicators were therefore constructed through 157 binary questions This was done in order to achieve the required level of granularity and ensure accuracy and quality on the answers 3 http www itu int en ITU-D Cybersecurity Documents QuestionnaireGuide-E pdf 5 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 Figure 2 3 2 below represents all the five pillars from GCA with their indicators Figure 2 3 2 GCA tree structure illustrating all pillars simplified 6 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 Figure 2 3 3 below illustrates the relationship between the GCA the pillars sub-pillars and questions expanded only for the legal pillar due to space considerations Figure 2 3 3 GCI tree structure illustrating Legal pillar 1 2 5 2 Critical Infrastructure 1 2 4 2 Private Sector 1 2 5 1 Public Sector 1 2 4 1 Public Sector 1 2 4 Certification S tandardization 1 2 3 2 Systems Networks 1 2 5 3 Private Sector 1 2 5 Implementation 1 2 6 2 Critical Infrastructure 1 2 6 3 Private Sector 1 2 3 Breach Notification 1 2 3 1 Data 1 2 6 1 Public Sector 1 2 2 System Network Protection 1 1 2 6 Mutual Assistance 1 1 2 5 Extradition 1 1 2 7 Limitation of Use 1 1 2 4 Real-time Collection 1 2 10 ISP Liability 1 3 1 Law Enforcement 1 Legal 1 1 Cybercrime Law 1 1 2 1 Data Preservation 1 2 9 Digital Signature E-ansaction 1 2 Cyber Regulation 1 1 3 Case Law 1 1 2 Procedural Law 1 1 2 2 Production Orders 1 2 6 Audit 1 2 8 Child Online Protection 1 2 1 Data Protection 1 1 2 3 Search and Seizure 1 2 7 Privacy Protection 1 3 Cyber Training 1 1 1 Substantive Law GCA 1 1 1 3 Interception 1 3 2 Judicial Legal Actors 1 3 3 Recurring Training 5 Cooperation 2 Organizational 1 1 1 2 Interference 1 1 1 1 Access 4 Capacity Building 3 Technical 7 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 3 Methodology The GCI includes 25 indicators and 157 questions The indicators used to calculate the GCI were selected on the basis of the following criteria o relevance to the five GCA pillars and in contributing towards the main GCI objectives and conceptual framework o data availability and quality o possibility of cross verification through secondary data The whole concept of a new iteration of the GCI is based on a cybersecurity development tree map and binary answer possibilities The tree map concept which is illustrated in Figures 2 3 2 and 2 3 3 is an example of different possible paths that might be taken by countries in order to enhance their cybersecurity commitment Each of the five pillars are associated with a specific colour The deeper the path taken indicating a more developed level of commitment the deeper the colour depicting it becomes The various levels of cybersecurity development among countries as well as the different cybersecurity needs reflected by a country's overall ICT development status were taken into consideration The concept is based on the assumption that the more developed cybersecurity is the more complex the solutions observed will be Therefore the further a country goes along the tree map by confirming the presence of pre-identified cyber solutions the more complex and sophisticated the cybersecurity commitment is within that country allowing it to obtain a higher score with the GCI The rationale behind using binary answer possibilities is the elimination of opinion-based evaluation and of any possible bias towards certain types of answers Moreover the simple binary concept will allow quicker and more complex evaluation as it will not require lengthy answers from countries This in turn is assumed to accelerate and streamline the process of providing answers and further evaluation The idea is that the respondent will only confirm the presence or lack of certain pre-identified cybersecurity solutions An online survey mechanism which was used for gathering answers and uploading all relevant materials enabled the extraction of good practices The key difference in methodology between GCI 2014 and GCI Version 2017 is the use of a binary system instead of a three-level system The binary system evaluates the existence or absence of a specific activity department or measure Unlike GCI Version 2014 it does not take 'partial' measures into consideration The facility for respondents to upload supporting documents and URLs is a way of providing more information to substantiate the binary response Furthermore a number of new questions have been added in each of the five pillars in order to refine the depth of research The GCI 2014 and GCI 2017 are not directly comparable due to a change in methodology While the 2014 index used a simple average methodology the 2017 index employs a weighting factor for each pillar The questionnaire made available through an online survey from January to September 2016 was administered to the 193 ITU Member States plus State of Palestine in the regions of Africa Americas Arab States Asia and the Pacific the Commonwealth of Independent States and Europe 134 countries responded to the online survey while 59 countries did not provide primary data 9 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 Table 3 1 Numbers of responses received from all Members States regionally Region Africa Americas Arab States Asia and the CIS Pacific Europe Global Responses 29 23 16 25 7 34 134 Non-responses 15 12 5 13 5 9 59 Total of participants 44 35 21 38 12 43 193 The data collection process was implemented as follows 1 A Letter of Invitation was sent by the ITU Secretariat to all Member States informing them on the initiative and requesting the identification of a country level GCI focal point with whom ITU could liaise and who would be responsible for collecting all relevant data for completing the online GCI questionnaire A guideline to the online questionnaire which provided explanations and examples for each question was attached to the letter 1 2 Primary data collection for countries who responded to the questionnaire o Verification of the responses received by the specific Member State to identify possible missing elements no or missing responses no or missing supporting documents no or missing links etc - For instance if a Member State answered No ITU researched to prove that they do not have any documents in the ITU database or online - If a Member State answered Yes ITU researched to verify that answers provided were correct and corresponded to the question o The focal point identified by the concerned Member State was contacted and provided with indications on how to improve the accuracy of the responses Where necessary ITU provided comments and guidance to improve the completed questionnaire o After the necessary rounds of iterations the pre-final questionnaire was sent back to the concerned Member State for final approval o Once formal approval was received the questionnaire was considered validated and used for the analysis scoring and ranking 3 Secondary data collection for countries that did not respond to the questionnaire o ITU elaborated an initial draft of the response to the questionnaire using publicly available data and online research o The draft was then sent to the concerned Member State for review o The reviewed response received the focal point identified by the concerned Member State was contacted and provided with indications on how to improve the accuracy of the responses Where necessary ITU provided comments and guidance to improve the completed questionnaire o After the necessary rounds of iterations the pre-final questionnaire was sent back to the concerned Member State for final approval 1 10 http www itu int en ITU-D Cybersecurity Documents QuestionnaireGuide-E pdf Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 o Once formal approval was received the questionnaire was considered validated and used for the analysis scoring and ranking For the ranking the approach taken was to use dense ranking whereby Member States that have an equal GCI score receive the same ranking number and the next country receives the immediately following ranking number thus reflecting a ranking of the GCI scores rather than the countries themselves The GCI 2017 methodology encompassed the use of a panel of experts identified according to their specific expertise on the subject who acted in their personal capacity in order to provide an expert view on the weighting to be used for the scoring 11 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 4 Key Findings This section presents the finding of the GCI 2017 Please note that to ensure accuracy revisions of the report may be published in the future Please check the site http www itu int en ITU-D Cybersecurity Pages GCI-2017 aspx for the latest revision 4 1 Heat Map of National Cybersecurity Commitments Out of the 193 Member States there is a huge range in cybersecurity commitments as the heat map below illustrates Level of commitment from Green highest to Red lowest Figure 4 1 1 GCI Heat Map 4 2 GCI Groups Member States were classified into three categories by their GCI score Figure 4 2 1 o Initiating stage refers to the 96 countries i e GCI score less than the 50th percentile that have started to make commitments in cybersecurity o Maturing stage refers to the 77 countries i e GCI score between the 50th and 89th percentile that have developed complex commitments and engage in cybersecurity programmes and initiatives o Leading stage refers to the 21 countries i e GCI score in the 90th percentile that demonstrate high commitment in all five pillars of the index 13 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 Figure 4 2 1 GCI Tiers Afghanistan Andorra Angola Antigua and Barbuda Armenia Bahamas Barbados Belize Benin Bhutan Bolivia Plurinational State of Bosnia Herzegovina Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Comoros Congo Cuba Democratic Republic of the Congo Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Fiji Gabon Gambia Grenada 14 INITIATING Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Honduras Iraq Jordan Kiribati Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Madagascar Malawi Maldives Mali Marshall Islands Mauritania Micronesia Monaco Mongolia Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Republic of Nicaragua Niger Palau Palestine State of Papua New Guinea Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Seychelles Sierra Leone Solomon Islands Somalia South Sudan Sudan Suriname Swaziland Syrian Arab Republic Tajikistan Timor-Leste Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Turkmenistan Tuvalu Uzbekistan Vanuatu Vatican Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 MATURING Albania Algeria Argentina Austria Azerbaijan Bahrain Bangladesh Belarus Belgium Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Cameroon Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Dem People's Rep of Korea Denmark Ecuador Germany Ghana Greece Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Islamic Republic of Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Kazakhstan Kenya Laos Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Mexico Moldova Montenegro Morocco Nigeria Pakistan Panama Paraguay Australia Canada Egypt Estonia Finland France Georgia Japan Korea Malaysia Mauritius Netherlands New Zealand Norway Oman Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar Romania Rwanda Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Slovakia Slovenia South Africa Sri Lanka Tanzania Thailand The Former Yugoslav Rep of Macedonia Tunisia Turkey Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates Uruguay Venezuela LEADING Russian Federation Singapore Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom United States 15 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 5 Global Outlook All of the six ITU regions are represented in the top ten commitment level in the GCI There are three from Asia and the Pacific two each from Europe and the Americas and one from Africa the Arab States and the Commonwealth of Independent States This suggests that being highly committed is not strictly tied to geographic location Table 5 1 Top ten most committed countries GCI normalized score GCI Score Legal Technical Organizational Capacity Building Cooperation Singapore 0 92 0 95 0 96 0 88 0 97 0 87 United States 0 91 1 0 96 0 92 1 0 73 Malaysia 0 89 0 87 0 96 0 77 1 0 87 Oman 0 87 0 98 0 82 0 85 0 95 0 75 Estonia 0 84 0 99 0 82 0 85 0 94 0 64 Mauritius 0 82 0 85 0 96 0 74 0 91 0 70 Australia 0 82 0 94 0 96 0 86 0 94 0 44 Georgia 0 81 0 91 0 77 0 82 0 90 0 70 France 0 81 0 94 0 96 0 60 1 0 61 Canada 0 81 0 94 0 93 0 71 0 82 0 70 Country As the GCI shows there is a wide gulf in cyber preparedness around the globe This gap exists between and within regions Further cybersecurity related commitments are often unequally distributed with countries performing well in some pillars and less so in others Cybersecurity is an ecosystem where laws organizations skills cooperation and technical implementation need to be in harmony to be most effective Additionally cybersecurity is not just a concern of the government but also needs commitment from the private sector and consumers Thus it is important to develop a cybersecurity culture where citizens are aware of the trade-off between risks and monitoring when using electronic networks 5 1 Noteworthy figures The GCI consists of 25 different indicators Some relate to precise commitments that help to concretize the status of specific cybersecurity activities throughout the world One of the strongest commitments is to outline a cybersecurity strategy describing how the country will prepare and respond to attacks against its digital networks Only 38% countries have a published cybersecurity strategy and only 11% have a dedicated standalone strategy Figure 5 1 1 left another 12% have a cybersecurity strategy under development More effort is needed in this critical area particularly since it conveys that the government considers digital risks high priority In the area of training efforts need to be enhanced particularly for those who are most likely going to legally handle cybersecurity crimes given that less than half the Member States 43% have capacity-building programmes for law enforcement and the judicial system Figure 5 1 1 right 17 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 Figure 5 1 1 Cybersecurity strategy and training commitments Despite half of the Member States not having a cybersecurity strategy 61% do have an emergency response team i e CIRT CSRIT and CERT with national responsibility Figure 5 1 2 left However just over a fifth 21% publish metrics on cybersecurity incidents Figure 5 1 2 right This makes it difficult in most countries to objectively assess incidents based on the evidence and determine if protection measures are working Figure 5 1 2 Computer emergency response teams and metrics Just less than a third of countries 32% replied affirmatively to the existence of a homegrown cybersecurity industry Figure 5 1 3 left More efforts need to be devoted to this area as a local industry will have knowledge of national circumstances and make the security ecosystem more sustainable The potential for global cooperation is heightened by participation in international cybersecurity events This is almost universal with 95% of countries replying affirmatively Figure 5 1 3 right 18 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 Figure 5 1 3 Home-grown industry and international participation 5 2 Comparing GCI with other indices A qualitative comparison has been performed to raise awareness on the importance of investing on cybersecurity as an integral component of any national ICT for development strategy This paragraph is not intended to provide thorough exhaustive statistical analysis but rather an indication on how cybersecurity can relate to existing national processes in order to emphasize the importance of investing and being committed Comparing GCI scores to notable ICT for Development Indices does not reveal an especially close relationship as experience shows that countries which score high in term of ICT for Development do not necessarily invest in cybersecurity with the same level of commitment and vice versa For example comparing the GCI with the ITU ICT for Development Index IDI shows that some countries are performing much better in the GCI than their level of ICT development would suggest The following figures show the relation between the GCI and IDI with each graph identifying the top three countries for each region 19 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 Figure 5 2 1 Global comparison GCI and IDI Figure 5 2 2 Comparison GCI and IDI in the Africa region 20 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 Figure 5 2 3 Comparison GCI and IDI in the Americas region Figure 5 2 4 Comparison GCI and IDI in the Arab States 21 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 Figure 5 2 5 Comparison GCI and IDI in the Asia and the Pacific region Figure 5 2 6 Comparison GCI and IDI in the Commonwealth of Independent States 22 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 Figure 5 2 7 Comparison GCI and IDI in the Europe region Europe region 2016 Estonia Norway 4 6 ICT Deveiopment Index 2016 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 6 Regional Outlook During the active data collection phase of the GCI 2017 exercise there was a varied response from countries in the ITU regions o Out of the 44 Member States in the Africa region 29 responded to the survey o Out of 35 Member States in the Americas region 23 responded to the survey o Out of 21 Member States in the Arab States region 17 including the State of Palestine responded to the survey o Out of 38 Member States in the Asia and the Pacific region 25 responded to the survey o Out of the 12 Member States in the Commonwealth of Independent States region 7 responded to the survey o Out of 43 Member States in the Europe region 34 responded to the survey Figure 6 1 illustrates the average GCI score for all countries in a particular region for the respective pillar Scores that fall below the 33rd percentile have a red background scores that are between the 33rd to 65th percentiles have a yellow background and scores that lie above the 65th percentile have a green background There is scope for improvement since most regions have an average score for the different pillars i e lying between 33rd and 65th percentiles The exception is Europe where average scores are high across all pillars The Africa region averages low scores for the organizational pillar while the Commonwealth of Independent States region averages a high score for the legal pillar The following sub-sections show the findings for each individual ITU region highlighting the results and findings for the three top-scoring countries in each region As well a regional scorecard summarizes the countries' level of commitment to every pillar and sub-pillars green for high yellow for medium and red for low Figure 6 1 Average pillar scores by region 25 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 6 1 Africa Table 6 1 1 Top three ranked countries in Africa Country GCI Score Legal Technical Organizational Capacity Building Cooperation Mauritius 0 83 0 85 0 96 0 74 0 91 0 7 Rwanda 0 6 0 6 0 71 0 79 0 66 0 28 Kenya 0 57 0 75 0 73 0 36 0 41 0 6 Mauritius is the top ranked country in the Africa region It scores particularly high in the legal and the technical areas The Botnet Tracking and Detection project allows Computer Emergency Response Team of Mauritius CERT-MU to proactively take measures to curtail threats on different networks within the country Capacity building is another area where Mauritius does well The government IT Security Unit has conducted 180 awareness sessions for some 2 000 civil servants in 32 government ministries and departments Rwanda ranked second in Africa scores high in the organizational pillar and has a standalone cybersecurity policy addressing both the public and private sector1 It is also committed to develop a stronger cybersecurity industry to ensure a resilient cyber space Kenya ranked third in the region provides a good example of cooperation through its National Kenya Computer Incident Response Team Coordination Centre National KECIRT CC 2 The CIRT coordinates at national regional and global levels with a range of actors Nationally this includes ISPs and the financial and educational sectors regionally it works with other CIRTs through the East African Communications Organization and internationally it liaises with ITU FIRST and bi-laterally with the United States and Japan CIRTs among others Figure 6 1 1 Top three ranked countries in Africa and global ranked of all countries in Africa 1 2 26 http www myict gov rw fileadmin Documents National_Cyber_Security_Policy Rwanda_Cyber_Security_Policy_01 pdf http www ke-cirt go ke index php members GCI COOPERATION Interagency partnerships Public-private partnerships International participation Multilateral agreements Bilateral agreements CAPACITY BUILDING Home-grown industry Incentive mechanisms Education programmes Professional training courses Public awareness campaigns R D programmes Cyberseucrity good practices Standardization bodies ORGANIZATIONAL MEASURES Cybersecurity metrics Responsible agency Strategy TECHNICAL MEASURES Child online protection Standards for professionals Standards for organizations Sectoral CERT CIRT CSIRT Government CERT CIRT CSIRT National CERT CIRT CSIRT LEGAL MEASURES Cybersecurity training Cybersecurity legislation Cybercriminal legislation Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 Figure 6 1 2 Africa region scorecard Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Congo Cote d'Ivoire Democratic Republic of the Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gabon Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Kenya Lesotho Liberia Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritius Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Rwanda Sao Tome and Principe Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone South Africa South Sudan Swaziland Tanzania Togo Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe 27 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 6 2 Americas Table 6 2 1 Top three ranked countries in the Americas GCI Score Legal Technical Organizational Capacity Building Cooperation United States 0 91 1 0 96 0 92 1 0 73 Canada 0 81 0 94 0 93 0 71 0 82 0 70 Mexico 0 66 0 91 0 89 0 48 0 68 0 34 Country The top three ranked countries in the Americas region are the members of the North American Free Trade Association NAFTA The United States of America has the highest scores for the legal and capacity building pillars One notable aspect of both capacity building and cooperation in the country is the initiatives to coordinate cybersecurity among all states To that end the National Governor's Association established the Resource Center for State Cybersecurity which offers best practices tools and guidelines 3 Canada ranks second in the region with its highest score in the legal pillar The country's Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act PIPEDA features several sections relating to cybersecurity4 It requires organizations to notify privacy authorities in the event of privacy breaches that could cause significant damage with penalties for those who fail to report them Mexico is third and some 16 points behind Canada illustrating the cybersecurity divide in the region Like the other top ranked countries in the region it scores best in the legal pillar with a full suite of cyber legislation covering criminality data protection data privacy and electronic transactions Figure 6 2 1 Top three ranked countries and an average score of all the Americas 3 4 28 https www nga org cms statecyber http laws-lois justice gc ca eng acts P-8 6 Guyana Haiti Paraguay Peru Chile Guate'nala Canada Belize Barbados Argentina Bolivia Brazil Honduras Jamaica Mexico Antigua and Barbuda Bahamas Panama Grenada Nicaragua Colombia Costa Rica Cuba Dorninica ElSalvador Ecuador Dominican Republic Suriname Saint Wncent and the Grenadine Uruguay Venezuela Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Trinidad andTobago United States of America Figure 6 2 2 Americas region scorecard Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 6 3 Arab States Table 6 3 1 Top three ranked countries in the Arab States Country GCI Score Legal Technical Organizational Capacity Building Cooperation Oman 0 87 0 98 0 82 0 85 0 95 0 75 Egypt 0 77 0 92 0 92 0 4 0 92 0 7 Qatar 0 67 0 83 0 82 0 65 0 78 0 33 Sultanate of Oman is the top ranked in the Arab States with the highest scores in the legal and capacity building pillars Oman has a robust organizational structure including a high-level cybersecurity strategy and master plan and comprehensive roadmap Egypt ranks second with a full range of cooperation initiatives It is a member of the UN Government Group of Experts GGE on cybersecurity5 has chaired the ITU Working Group for Child Online Protection6 was a founding member of AfricaCERT7 and has a number of bi-lateral and multilateral agreements on cybersecurity cooperation Qatar ranks third and has been building a cybersecurity culture through campaigns such as Safer Internet Day and has spread warnings about online threats such as fraud and Internet scams via print and social media The Qatar Cyber Crimes Investigation Center and Information Security Center support efforts to safeguard the public and crack down on those who use technology to carry out criminal activities Figure 6 3 1 Top three ranked countries and an average score of the Arab States 5 6 7 30 https www un org disarmament topics informationsecurity http www itu int en council cwg-cop Pages default aspx https www africacert org home Oman Qatar Morocco Iraq Mau ritania Algeria Bah ra Comoros Di ibouti Egypt Jordan Kuwait Su dan State of Palestine Yemen Tunisia United Arab Emirates Somalia Syrian Arab Republic Saudi Arabia Lebanon Libya Figure 6 3 2 Arab States scorecard Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 6 4 Asia and the Pacific Table 6 4 1 Top three ranked countries in Asia and the Pacific Country GCI Score Legal Technical Organizational Capacity Building Cooperation Singapore 0 92 0 95 0 96 0 88 0 97 0 87 Malaysia 0 89 0 87 0 96 0 77 1 0 87 Australia 0 82 0 94 0 96 0 86 0 94 0 44 Singapore is the top ranked country in the region The island state has a long history of cybersecurity initiatives It launched its first cybersecurity master plan back in 2005 The Cyber Security Agency of Singapore was created in 2015 as a dedicated entity to oversee cybersecurity and the country issued a comprehensive strategy in 20168 Malaysia is ranked second in the Asia and the Pacific region and scores a perfect 100 on capacity building due to a range of initiatives in that pillar Cybersecurity Malaysia the government entity responsible for information security in the country offers professional training via higher education institutions in Malaysia It maintains the Cyberguru website dedicated to professional security training9 Australia10 is third ranked in the region and home to AusCERT one of oldest CERTs in the region formed in 199311 The highest scoring pillar is technical where there is a certification programme for information security skills provided by the Council of Registered Ethical Security Testers CREST 12 Modelled after CREST the council offers assessment accreditation certification education and training in cyber and information security for individuals and corporate entities in both Australia and New Zealand Figure 6 4 1 Top three ranked countries and an average score of all Asia and the Pacific 8 9 10 11 12 32 https www csa gov sg news publications singapore-cybersecurity-strategy http www cyberguru my http thecommonwealth org member-countries https www auscert org au https www crestaustralia org Fiji Democratic Peopl Lao Bangladesh Bhutan Cambodia China India Indonesia Iran Japan Kiribati Malaysia Maldives Marshall Islands Micronesia Mongolia Myanmar Nauru Nepal New Zealand Pakistan Pdau Samoa Singapore Solomon Islands Sri Lanka Thailand Timor-Leste Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu Viet Nam Afghanistan Australia Philippines Brunei Darussalam Papua New Guine Republic of Korea 9 533212 9538212 in asm Emma 23 523 mo m33m3 nmmd mdnm q mmnwo mm 252 31 01mm 35503 mm 2 3% 9 _m GEE Uao mnio 4mm mim mmf n Umenc3 3313 D 02 2 55 am m3 Qma m o woman n Umecn1Ln moon IWU Eom maamm b oz nmaum mzm imizm Uaomamaamm 38 98 99 52 mc__ _u_2m mzm maa mmammamim 755 5 an mmammamim Samazmmoqd umlmn mso vc 2 86153 Umnsmarmvm 338mm 2 Um 36333 ODD umedoz mn Figure 6 4 2 Asia and the Paci c Region Scorecard Hobalebemecurhy ndex2017 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 6 5 Commonwealth of Independent States Table 6 5 1 Top three ranked countries in Commonwealth of Independent States GCI Score Legal Technical Organizational Capacity Building Cooperation Georgia 0 81 0 91 0 77 0 82 0 9 0 7 Russian Federation 0 78 0 82 0 67 0 85 0 91 0 7 Belarus 0 59 0 85 0 63 0 33 0 68 0 47 Country Georgia is top ranked in the CIS After large-scale cyber-attacks on the country in 2008 the government has strongly supported protection of the country's information systems13 The Information Security Law14 established a Cyber Security Bureau with a particular emphasis on protecting critical information systems in the military sphere The Russian Federation ranked second in the region scores best in capacity building Its commitments range from developing cybersecurity standards to R D and from public awareness to a home-grown cybersecurity industry An example of the latter is Kaspersky Labs founded in 1997 and whose software protects over 400 million users and some 270 000 organizations15 Belarus is the third ranked country where child protection initiatives include public and private partnerships Mobile operator MTS has implemented a project with the Ministry of Education to teach children about safe Internet practices that has so far reached some 6 000 children16 Figure 6 5 1 Top three ranked countries and an average score of all CIS 13 14 15 16 34 http www mfa gov ge MainNav ForeignPolicy NationalSecurityConcept aspx lang en-US https matsne gov ge en document view 1679424 https usa kaspersky com about http www mts by news 97338 Ukraine Turkmenistan Uzbekistan Tajikistan Russian Federation Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Georgia Ka za khsta Moldova 300-500 v C0000 000005- 0-1-0000 vaercriminal e vaersecuritv Ie vaersecuritvt LEGAL MEA 30 000 000 000 000 000 3-00 000000 0 50000000 0 0 000000 000000 000000 000000 2-000-V0 000000 000000 National Government Sectoral CERTJCII Standardsfor orea omf Child online or TECHNICAL ME 00000 00000 000 0 0 900000 0-1005-2- 000000 $00-$00 Strate Resoonsible vaersecuritv ORGANIZATIONAL 000' - 000000 0- 005-0 000-300 000000 0- 05-0 000000 000000 00005-0 Standardizatior vaerseucritv 200d orogra Public awareness r Professional trainin Education DFORF Incentive mecr Home-grown iI CAPACITY BU 000 000 000 000 000 000 0000000 2-00000 100-1000 000000 1-00000 000000 Bilateral aeret Multilateral aeri International oart Public-orivate oar Interagencv Dart COOPERA 03-0 00000 0000000 -I- 0 0 -I- 0 Gt Figure 6 5 2 CIS region scorecard Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 6 6 Europe Table 6 6 1 Top three ranked countries in Europe GCI Score Legal Technical Organizational Capacity Building Cooperation Estonia 0 84 0 99 0 82 0 85 0 94 0 64 France 0 81 0 94 0 96 0 6 1 0 61 Norway 0 78 0 96 0 89 0 64 80 8 0 57 Country Estonia is the highest-ranking nation in the Europe region Like Georgia Estonia enhanced its cybersecurity commitment after a 2007 attack This included the introduction of an organizational structure that can respond quickly to attacks as well as a legal act that requires all vital services to maintain a minimal level of operation if they are cut off from the Internet17 The country also hosts the headquarters of the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence18 France is the second highest ranked in the Europe region scoring a perfect 100 in capacity building There is widespread cybersecurity training available in the country and the National Agency for Information System Security ANSSI in French publishes a list of dozens of universities that provide accredited cybersecurity degrees recognized19 Norway is ranked third in Europe with its highest score in the legal pillar Apart from laws dealing with cybersecurity Norway has also conducted research on its cybersecurity culture including surveying citizens about the degree to which they will accept monitoring of their online activities 20 Figure 6 6 1 Top three ranked countries and an average score of all Europe 17 18 19 20 36 http www nextgov com cybersecurity 2015 01 heres-what-us-could-learn-estonia-about-cybersecurity 103959 https ccdcoe org https www ssi gouv fr particulier formations formation-et-cybersecurite-en-france https norsis no wp-content uploads 2016 09 The-Norwegian-Cybersecurity-culture-web pdf Serbia Slovenia Spain Malta San Marino Greece Israel Italy Latvia Luxem bourg Btonia France Germany Denmark Cyprus Czech Republic Albania Andorra Austria Belgium Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Finland Hu ngary Iceland Ireland Liechtenstein Lithua nia Monaco Montenegro Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingd om The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Oybercriminal legislation Oybersecurity legislation Oybersecuritytraining LEGAL MEASURE National Government CERTECIRTICEIRT Sectoral CERTICIRTKCEIHT Standardsfor organizations Standardsfor professionals Child online protection TECHNICAL MEASURE Strategy Responsible aency Cybersecurity metrics OMAN EATIONAL MEASURE Standardization bodies Cyberseucrity good practices R310 programmes Public awareness campaigns Professional training courses Education programmes Incentive mechanisms Home-grown industry BUILDING Bilateral greements Multilateral greements International participation Public-private partnerships Intermency partnerships COOPERATION CI Figure 6 6 2 Europe region scorecard Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 7 Illustrative practices by pillar This chapter identifies noteworthy and thought-provoking practices in cybersecurity across the various GCI pillars Examples are drawn from a number of countries and provide an insight on the cybersecurity commitment taken in their focus areas 7 1 Legal Examples for this pillar illustrate practices in national cybercrime legislation regarding unauthorized access data and system interference or interception and misuse of computer systems 7 1 1 Cybercrime legislation Colombia became one of the first countries in the world when in 2009 it enacted a law specifically targeting cyberspace Law 1273 entitled By means of which the Penal Code is amended a new legal right is created- called 'protection of information and data'- and systems that use information and communication technologies are fully preserved among other provisions 1 calls for a prison sentence or large fines for anyone convicted of information systems or telecommunication network crimes The law covers areas such as illegally accessing personal information intercepting data destroying data or using malicious software Georgia established cybercrime legislation in line with the principles and rules of the Budapest Convention both in terms of substantive and procedural aspects Illegal access to information systems data and system interference and misuse of devices are criminalized by the Georgia criminal code The Personal Data Protection Act was enacted by Parliament in 2011 and is intended to ensure protection of human rights and freedoms including the right to privacy in the course of personal data processing 2 7 1 2 Cybersecurity regulation Sultanate of Oman established the eGovernance Framework a set of standards best practices and process management systems to enhance the delivery of government services in alignment with the mission of e oman Sultanate of Oman Digital Oman Strategy and eGovernment The framework spells out the rules and procedures that ensure that government IT projects and systems are sustainable and in compliance with the Information Technology Authority ITA strategies and objectives It provides assurance about the value of IT projects and framework for the management of IT-related risks It helps in putting controls to minimize risks and better delivery of IT initiatives3 7 1 3 Cybersecurity training Mauritius makes available training for law enforcement and judiciary which has been conducted under the GLACY Project since 2013 and is still ongoing CERT-MU also carried out cybersecurity trainings on digital forensic investigator professional and network forensic packet analysis for law enforcement officers Training on information 1 2 3 Government of Colombia Law 1273 of 2009 Por medio de la cual se modifica el Codigo Penal se crea un nuevo bien juridico tutelado - denominado de la proteccion de la informacion y de los datos - y se preservan integralmente los sistemas que utilicen las tecnologias de la informacion y las comunicaciones entre otras disposiciones http www mintic gov co portal 604 w3-article-3705 html https personaldata ge en legislation national-legislation https matsne gov ge ka document view 16426 impose translateEn http www ita gov om ITAPortal Government Government_Projects aspx NID 76 39 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 security standards and best practices is given to the technical officers of the IT Security Unit ITSU of the Ministry of Technology Communication and Innovation4 The New Zealand NZ Police is introducing a 3-tiered training program for specialist cyber staff investigators and then frontline staff This is outlined in NZ Police's Prevention First National Cybercrime Strategy 2014-2017 5 NZ Police also provides training to the judiciary and prosecutors 7 2 Technical Examples for this pillar illustrate practices in areas such as existence of technical institutions child online protection and industry standards and certification 7 2 1 National CERT CIRT CSIRT Egypt provides computer emergency response team EG-CERT support to several entities in the ICT sector the financial sector as well as the government sector in order to help them tackle cybersecurity related threats EG-CERT is expanding and is currently upgrading its laboratories in the four key operational departments Additional laboratories are being planned for mobile cybersecurity and industrial control systems cybersecurity6 Brazil has three computer emergency response teams with different functions namely the national CERT a government CSIRT and a sector specific SCIRT The Brazil Federal Police participates in the I-24 7 global police communications system developed by Interpol to connect law enforcement officers including cybercrimes There is also a complementary Standard No 17 IN01 DSIC GSIPR that establishes guidelines for the certification and accreditation for information and communication security professionals of the direct and indirect Federal Public Administration 7 2 2 Government CERT CIRT CSIRT Luxembourg created a computer emergency response team GOVCERT LU in 2011 to help protect government computer systems and data as well as specific infrastructures and is engaged at both national and international level under the name of NCERT LU7 GOVCERT LU is also a critical player in the event of a large cyber-attack affecting country's ICT assets 7 2 3 Sectoral CERT CIRT CSIRT Sri Lanka created the Financial Sector Computer Security Incident Response Team FINCSIRT in 2014 with responsibility for receiving reviewing processing and responding to computer security alerts and incidents affecting banks and other licensed financial institutions in the country8 FINCSIRT is a joint initiative of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka and the Sri Lanka computer emergency response team and is steered and funded by the banking sector Related to FINCSIRT is LankaClear the country's certification authority owned by the Central Bank and commercial banks9 4 5 6 7 8 9 40 http www coe int en web cybercrime news - asset_publisher S73WWxscOuZ5 content glacy-support-to-mauritius- judicial-training-courses-on-cybercrime-delivered http www dpmc govt nz sites all files publications nz-cyber-security-cybercrime-plan-december-2015 pdf page 10 http www egcert org https www govcert lu en ncert html http www fincsirt lk http www lankaclear com about index php Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 7 2 4 Cybersecurity standards implementation framework for organizations Malaysia created the Information Security Certification Body ISCB a department of Cybersecurity Malaysia which manages information security certification10 The certification services are consistent with international standards and guidelines and include among others the Malaysian Common Criteria Evaluation and Certification MyCC which certifies security functions of ICT products based on the ISO IEC 15408 international standard11 Hungary national regulation lays out the framework for information security training for state and local government officials12 The National University for Public Service NKE is charged with training and establishing a certification system13 Certificates issued include information security risk assessment and testing of electronic information systems 7 2 5 Child online protection Singapore's Internet Content Providers ICPs and Internet Access Service Providers IASPs are licensable under the Broadcasting Act and they are required to comply with the Internet Code of Practice to protect children online Since 2012 all service providers have been legally obligated to offer filtering services with Internet subscriptions and to make this known to consumers when they subscribe or renew The Info-communications Media Development Authority also symbolically blocks 100 pornographic extremist or hate websites 7 3 Organizational Examples for this pillar illustrate practices where governments are organized by having a cybersecurity strategy a coordinating agency and compilation of indicators for tracking cybercrime 7 3 1 Strategy United Kingdom issued in 2016 its second five years National Cyber Security Strategy14 The strategy issued by the Cabinet Office aims to make the country one of the safest places in the world to carry out online business and doubles investment in cybersecurity compared to the first plan Russian Federation officially adopted its National Security Strategy in 2000 and National Security Concept of the Russian Federation as well as Concept of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation in 2013 It established an Information Security Doctrine of the Russian Federation in 2000 and each government entity in the Russian Federation performs an annual audit of its own networks and systems in line with the doctrine and the areas identified in the various strategies adopted 10 11 12 13 14 http www cybersecurity my en our_services iscb main detail 2327 index html http www iso org iso catalogue_detail htm csnumber 50341 http njt hu cgi_bin njt_doc cgi docid 164331 250717 http en uni-nke hu https www gov uk government uploads system uploads attachment_data file 567242 national_cyber_security_ strategy_2016 pdf 41 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 7 3 2 Public consultation Canada conducted a three-month public consultation on updating its cybersecurity strategy asking security professionals and citizens for inputs and views The consultation was done to help identify gaps and opportunities bring forward new ideas to shape Canada's renewed approach to cybersecurity and capitalize on the advantages of new technology and the digital economy15 7 3 3 Responsible agency Iceland created the Cyber Security Council appointed by the Minister of the Interior that is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the National Cyber Security Strategy In addition a cyber security forum has been created as a collaborative venue for representatives of public bodies who sit on the Cyber Security Council and of private entities 7 3 4 Cybersecurity metrics Netherlands uses metrics annually in order to measure cybersecurity development at a national level summarized in the Cyber Security Assessment Netherlands report16 The National Cyber Security Centre NCSC compiles disclosure reports security advisories and incidents using a registration system The metrics allow trends to be observed and acted on 7 4 Capacity building Examples of practices for capacity building include the aspects of developing the technical and human resources for fighting cybercrime This includes raising awareness about cybersecurity among the public the existence of cybersecurity standards and standards bodies best practices guides education initiatives and research and development 7 4 1 Standardization bodies Romania created the National Standardization Organization17 to produce relevant national standards on processes tools and technologies for software products and systems in the area of security in information technology It also tests the standardization integrity of encryption algorithms authentication services and algorithms for confidential services in compliance with accepted international standards18 7 4 2 Good practice Canada created the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization IIROC that is the national self-regulatory organization overseeing investment dealers and their trading activity in the country's debt and equity markets IIROC published a cybersecurity best practices guide for its members19 15 16 17 18 19 42 http www itworldcanada com article breaking-news-ottawa-announces-public-consultation-on-cyber-security- strategy 385740#ixzz4dm1QjsTu https www ncsc nl english current-topics Cyber Security Assessment Netherlands cyber-security-assessment- netherlands-2016 html http www asro ro http www asro ro CTmementoSite html#BM208 http www iiroc ca industry Documents CybersecurityBestPracticesGuide_en pdf Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 7 4 3 Cybersecurity research and development programmes Germany signed an agreement in 2009 on cooperation in IT security research between the Federal Ministry of Education and Research BMBF and the Federal Ministry of the Interior BMI The IT Security Research programme covers research and development in new information security technologies The BMBF has been supporting three research centres since 2011 that bring together leading university and non-university establishments in cybersecurity 20 Kenya Education Network KENET is the National Research and Education Network NREN of Kenya KENET is the computer emergency response team CERT for the academic community and is licensed by the Communications Authority of Kenya CA as a not-for-profit operator serving the education and research institutions They most notably provide affordable cost-effective and low-congestion Internet bandwidth services to member institution campuses in Kenya 7 4 4 Public awareness campaigns Latvia has published a series of articles on its national CERT portal about free-ofcharge security solutions including anti-viruses firewalls NoScript etc 21 Twice a year the national CERT organizes a campaign where people can bring their computers for a check-up to see if they are infected and it also distributes commercial anti-virus installations during the campaigns that are made available free-of-charge for one year 7 4 5 Cybersecurity professional training courses Bulgaria established the International Cyber Investigation Training Academy in 2009 which is a non-governmental organization22 The academy aims to improve the qualification of specialists working in the field of cybersecurity It has trained over 1 300 people from both the public and private sectors 7 4 6 National education programmes and academic curricula Germany has several universities and institutes providing degrees and certificates in information security23 The Federal Ministry of Education and Research funds the KASTEL competence centre that offers training leading to a certificate equivalent to a specialized master degree in IT security24 The Technical University of Darmstadt has been offering a Master of Science Degree in IT security since 201025 7 4 7 Incentive mechanisms Korea Internet Security Agency KISA is committed to establishing a network foundation for Internet users and Internet companies by improving competitiveness of Internet services and reliability of Internet information and knowledge KISA supports start-ups to commercialize their business models and enhance competitive edge in the field of security technology through programmes that aim to nurture start-ups in the Internet-of-things security and Fintech industry They also established the one-stop service 20 21 22 23 24 25 https www bmbf de en cybersecurity-research-to-boost-germany-s-competitiveness-1418 html https www esidross lv category bezmaksas-risinajumi page 2 http e-crimeacademy com https www bmbf de en cybersecurity-research-to-boost-germany-s-competitiveness-1418 html http www kastel kit edu https www tu-darmstadt de studieren abschluesse master it-sicherheit-msc en jsp 43 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 to support start-ups to gain ground not only in the domestic market but also the global market to expand their business models 7 4 8 Home-grown cybersecurity industry Ireland has the largest proportion of the Information and Communication sector of its economy compared to all other countries in Europe and is leveraging that advantage to grow its cybersecurity industry The country is drawing on existing incentives and attractions with the aim of being a cybersecurity capital26 These incentives include a favourable business environment and low taxes a talented pool of highly skilled and multilingual workers and a good base for access to European markets27 7 5 Cooperation This pillar considers collaborative efforts across national and international domains and between the public and private sector 7 5 1 Bilateral agreements Finland is an active member of many organizations such as the Council of Europe CoE the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe OSCE and the United Nations UN Finland has also joined the NATO Partnership for Peace and is engaged in cooperation with the organization in for example crisis management There is also local partnership with Finnish company Codenomicon which later was acquired by Synopsys to develop the national IDS system and automatic incident reporting service with FICORA28 7 5 2 Multilateral agreements Denmark Finland Iceland Norway and Sweden collaborate through the Nordic National CERT Collaboration This includes technical cooperation and cybersecurity exercises to assess and strengthen cyber preparedness examine incident response processes and enhance information sharing in the region29 7 5 3 Participation in international fora Participation in international cybersecurity events workshops and training is the one indicator where virtually all countries score high on the GCI Therefore it is more revealing to describe one of the most significant initiatives in this regard The Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams FIRST 30 was founded in 1990 Its members are security and incident response teams from the public private and academic sectors It organizes an annual conference technical colloquia and training workshops 26 27 28 29 30 44 https www siliconrepublic com companies cybersecurity-hub-ireland http www idaireland com how-we-help resources infographics ida-cyber-security IDA_CYBER_SECURITY pdf http formin finland fi public default aspx nodeid 49303 contentlan 2 culture fi-FI https www synopsys com services html https www msb se en Tools News Nordic-cyber-security-exercise-was-conducted-in-Linkoping www FIRST org Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 7 5 4 Public -private partnerships The United Kingdom is working with local company Netcraft on cyber security initiatives 31 This includes combatting phishing and malware hosted in the United Kingdom as well as phishing targeting the government32 The partnership helped stop 34 550 potential attacks on government departments in the last six months of 2016 or 200 incidents a day 7 5 5 Interagency partnerships The United States of America started its first cross-government security information sharing agreement in 2015 The Multilateral Information Sharing Agreement MISA binds government agencies from defence health justice intelligence community and energy to work collaboratively to enhance cybersecurity information sharing with an emphasis on information exchanges at machine speed33 South Africa established the national cybersecurity hub to serve as a central point for collaboration between industry government and civil society on all cybersecurity incidents The cybersecurity hub is mandated by the National Cybersecurity Policy Framework NCPF that was passed by Cabinet in 2012 The hub enhances interaction and consultations as well as promoting a coordinated approach regarding engagements with the private sector and civil society34 31 32 33 34 https news netcraft com archives 2016 11 01 the-chancellor-of-the-exchequer-sets-out-plans-for-the-uk- government-to-work-with-netcraft html https www ncsc gov uk blog-post active-cyber-defence-tackling-cyber-attacks-uk https www ise gov blog kshemendra-paul coordinating-cybersecurity-programs https www cybersecurityhub gov za 45 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 8 Conclusion Cybersecurity is an increasingly important part of our life today and the degree of interconnectivity of networks implies that anything and everything can be exposed and everything from national critical infrastructure to our basic human rights can be compromised Governments are therefore urged to consider policies that support continued growth in technology sophistication access and security and as a crucial first step to adopt a national cybersecurity strategy The GCI 2017 edition measured the commitment of the ITU Member States to cybersecurity and highlighted a number of illustrative practices from around the world As a logical continuation of the first iteration of the GCI issued in 2014 this version has motivated countries to improve their work related to cybersecurity raised awareness in countries for the need to start bilateral multilateral and international cooperation and increased the visibility of what countries are doing to improve cybersecurity However the research also revealed that while increased Internet access and more mature technological development is correlated with improvement in cybersecurity at the global level this is not necessarily true for countries with developing economies and lower levels of technological development The data collection shows that developing countries lack well-trained cybersecurity experts as well as a thorough appreciation and the necessary education on cybersecurity issues for law enforcement and continued challenges in the judiciary and legislative branches There is a need for the developed world to help train local experts in cybersecurity and more cooperation should be initiated between developed and developing countries to assist them in cybersecurity development For the Global Cybersecurity Index to have an impact on raising awareness on this crucial emerging concern over time continuity of the GCI effort is essential ITU therefore welcomes all Member States and industry stakeholders to actively participate in future efforts to enhance the current reference model As well the success of future iterations of the GCI largely depends on the engagement of Member States and the quality of their responses to the questionnaire and ITU calls on all Member States to take part in the next GCI survey ITU would like to thank all Member States for their valuable support for the conduct of the GCI survey and the publication of this report as well as future ones Please note that to ensure accuracy revisions of the report may be published in the future Please check the site http www itu int en ITU-D Cybersecurity Pages GCI-2017 aspx for the latest revision 47 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 Abbreviations CERT Computer Emergency Response Team CIRT Computer Incident Response Team CIIP Critical Information Infrastructure Protection CIS Commonwealth of Independent States CREST Council of Registered Ethical Security Testers CSIRT Computer Security Incident Response Team COP Child Online Protection FIRST Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams GCA Global Cybersecurity Agenda GOVCERT Governmental Computer Emergency Response Team GCI Global Cybersecurity Index ICT Information and Communication Technology ITU International Telecommunication Union ISP Internet Service Provider NCS National Cybersecurity Strategy UN United Nations R D Research and Development NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization NAFTA North American Free Trade Association PIPEDA Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act ANSSI National Agency for Information System Security ISCB Information Security Certification Body MyCC Malaysian Common Criteria Evaluation and Certification MTPS Malaysia Trustmark for Private Sector NCSC The National Cyber Security Centre BMBF Federal Ministry of Education and Research ISACA Information Systems Audit and Control Association ICP Internet Content Provider IASPs Internet Access Service Provider NCSC Nation Cyber Security Centre MSIP Ministry of Science ICT and Future Planning 49 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 50 IDI ICT Development Index GDP Gross Domestic Product FINCSIRT Financial Sector Computer Security Incident Response Team KISA Korea Internet and Security Agency IIROC The Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada CERT-MU Computer Emergency Response Team of Mauritius National KE-CIRT CC National Kenya Computer Incident Response Team Coordination Centre AfricaCERT Computer Emergency Response Team of Africa AusCERT Computer Emergency Response Team of Australia GOVCERT LU Government Computer Emergency Response Team of Luxembourg NCERT LU National Computer Emergency Response Team of Luxembourg OCERT Oman Computer Emergency Response Team APCERT Asia and the Pacific Computer Emergency Response Team Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 Annex 1 - ITU Member States Global Cybersecurity Commitment Score By Region AFRICA Region Score Global Rank Mauritius 0 830 6 Rwanda 0 602 36 Kenya 0 574 45 Nigeria 0 569 46 Uganda 0 536 50 South Africa 0 502 58 Botswana 0 430 69 Cote d'Ivoire 0 416 74 Cameroon 0 413 75 Ghana 0 326 87 Tanzania 0 317 88 Senegal 0 314 89 Zambia 0 292 91 Ethiopia 0 267 99 Togo 0 218 107 Burkina Faso 0 208 108 Mozambique 0 206 109 Zimbabwe 0 192 113 Seychelles 0 184 115 Niger 0 170 120 Madagascar 0 168 121 Liberia 0 149 124 Sierra Leone 0 145 126 Gabon 0 139 128 Gambia 0 136 130 Burundi 0 120 135 Lesotho 0 094 143 Guinea 0 090 144 51 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 52 AFRICA Region Score Global Rank Malawi 0 084 145 Angola 0 078 146 Eritrea 0 076 147 Chad 0 072 148 Benin 0 069 149 South Sudan 0 067 150 Namibia 0 066 151 Mali 0 060 152 Cape Verde 0 058 153 Swaziland 0 041 160 Congo 0 040 161 Democratic Republic of the Congo 0 040 161 Sao Tome and Principe 0 040 161 Guinea-Bissau 0 034 162 Central African Republic 0 007 164 Equatorial Guinea 0 000 165 AMERICAS Region Score Global Rank United States of America 0 919 2 Canada 0 818 9 Mexico 0 660 28 Uruguay 0 647 29 Brazil 0 593 38 Colombia 0 569 46 Panama 0 485 62 Argentina 0 482 63 Ecuador 0 466 66 Peru 0 374 79 Venezuela 0 372 80 Chile 0 367 81 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 AMERICAS Region Score Global Rank Jamaica 0 339 85 Costa Rica 0 336 86 Paraguay 0 326 87 Barbados 0 273 95 Guyana 0 269 98 El Salvador 0 208 108 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0 189 114 Belize 0 182 116 Antigua and Barbuda 0 179 117 Dominican Republic 0 162 122 Suriname 0 155 132 Nicaragua 0 146 125 Bahamas 0 137 129 Bolivia 0 122 134 Grenada 0 115 137 Guatemala 0 114 138 Trinidad and Tobago 0 098 141 Saint Kitts and Nevis 0 066 151 Cuba 0 058 153 Saint Lucia 0 053 156 Honduras 0 048 157 Haiti 0 040 161 Dominica 0 010 163 ARAB STATES Region Score Global Rank Oman 0 871 4 Egypt 0 772 14 Qatar 0 676 25 Tunisia 0 591 40 Saudi Arabia 0 569 46 53 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 54 ARAB STATES Region Score Global Rank United Arab Emirates 0 566 47 Morocco 0 541 49 Bahrain 0 467 65 Algeria 0 432 68 Jordan 0 277 93 Sudan 0 271 96 Syrian Arab Republic 0 237 102 State of Palestine 0 228 104 Libya 0 224 105 Lebanon 0 172 119 Mauritania 0 146 125 Kuwait 0 104 139 Djibouti 0 099 140 Iraq 0 043 159 Comoros 0 040 161 Somalia 0 034 162 Yemen 0 007 164 COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDANT STATESCIS Region Score Global Rank Georgia 0 819 8 Russian Federation 0 788 10 Belarus 0 592 39 Azerbaijan 0 559 48 Ukraine 0 501 59 Moldova 0 418 73 Kazakhstan 0 352 83 Tajikistan 0 292 91 Uzbekistan 0 277 93 Kyrgyzstan 0 270 97 Armenia 0 196 111 Turkmenistan 0 133 132 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 ASIA AND THE PACIFIC Region Score Global Rank Singapore 0 925 1 Malaysia 0 893 3 Australia 0 824 7 Japan 0 786 11 Republic of Korea 0 782 13 New Zealand 0 718 19 Thailand 0 684 20 India 0 683 23 China 0 624 32 Philippines 0 594 37 Democratic People's Republic of Korea 0 532 52 Brunei Darussalam 0 524 53 Bangladesh 0 524 53 Iran 0 494 60 Pakistan 0 447 67 Indonesia 0 424 70 Sri Lanka 0 419 72 Lao 0 392 77 Tonga 0 292 91 Cambodia 0 283 92 Nepal 0 275 94 Myanmar 0 263 100 Viet Nam 0 245 101 Afghanistan 0 245 101 Mongolia 0 228 104 Fiji 0 222 106 Bhutan 0 199 110 Nauru 0 140 127 Vanuatu 0 134 131 Kiribati 0 123 133 Solomon Islands 0 095 142 55 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 56 ASIA AND THE PACIFIC Region Score Global Rank Papua New Guinea 0 067 150 Maldives 0 056 155 Palau 0 053 156 Samoa 0 048 157 Marshall Islands 0 048 157 Micronesia 0 044 158 Timor-Leste 0 034 162 Tuvalu 0 034 162 EUROPE Region Score Global Rank Estonia 0 846 5 France 0 819 8 Norway 0 786 11 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 0 783 12 Netherlands 0 760 15 Finland 0 741 16 Sweden 0 733 17 Switzerland 0 727 18 Spain 0 718 19 Israel 0 691 20 Latvia 0 688 21 Germany 0 679 24 Ireland 0 675 26 Belgium 0 671 27 Austria 0 639 30 Italy 0 626 31 Poland 0 622 33 Denmark 0 617 34 Czech Republic 0 609 35 Luxembourg 0 602 36 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 EUROPE Region Score Global Rank Croatia 0 590 41 Romania 0 585 42 Turkey 0 581 43 Bulgaria 0 579 44 Hungary 0 534 51 The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 0 517 54 Portugal 0 508 55 Lithuania 0 504 56 Cyprus 0 487 60 Greece 0 475 63 Montenegro 0 422 70 Malta 0 399 75 Iceland 0 384 77 Slovakia 0 362 81 Slovenia 0 343 83 Albania 0 314 88 Serbia 0 311 89 Monaco 0 236 102 Liechtenstein 0 194 111 San Marino 0 174 117 Bosnia and Herzegovina 0 116 135 Andorra 0 057 153 Vatican 0 040 160 57 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 Annex 2 - GCI 2017 Score Member State Score Global Rank Singapore 0 925 1 United States of America 0 919 2 Malaysia 0 893 3 Oman 0 871 4 Estonia 0 846 5 Mauritius 0 830 6 Australia 0 824 7 Georgia 0 819 8 France 0 819 8 Canada 0 818 9 Russian Federation 0 788 10 Japan 0 786 11 Norway 0 786 11 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 0 783 12 Republic of Korea 0 782 13 Egypt 0 772 14 Netherlands 0 760 15 Finland 0 741 16 Sweden 0 733 17 Switzerland 0 727 18 Spain 0 718 19 New Zealand 0 718 19 Israel 0 691 20 Latvia 0 688 21 Thailand 0 684 22 India 0 683 23 Germany 0 679 24 Qatar 0 676 25 Ireland 0 675 26 59 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 60 Member State Score Global Rank Belgium 0 671 27 Mexico 0 660 28 Uruguay 0 647 29 Austria 0 639 30 Italy 0 626 31 China 0 624 32 Poland 0 622 33 Denmark 0 617 34 Czech Republic 0 609 35 Rwanda 0 602 36 Luxembourg 0 602 36 Philippines 0 594 37 Brazil 0 593 38 Belarus 0 592 39 Tunisia 0 591 40 Croatia 0 590 41 Romania 0 585 42 Turkey 0 581 43 Bulgaria 0 579 44 Kenya 0 574 45 Colombia 0 569 46 Saudi Arabia 0 569 46 Nigeria 0 569 46 United Arab Emirates 0 566 47 Azerbaijan 0 559 48 Morocco 0 541 49 Uganda 0 536 50 Hungary 0 534 51 Democratic People's Republic of Korea 0 532 52 Brunei Darussalam 0 524 53 Bangladesh 0 524 53 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 Member State Score Global Rank The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 0 517 54 Portugal 0 508 55 Lithuania 0 504 56 South Africa 0 502 57 Ukraine 0 501 58 Iran 0 494 59 Cyprus 0 487 60 Panama 0 485 61 Argentina 0 482 62 Greece 0 475 63 Bahrain 0 467 64 Ecuador 0 466 65 Pakistan 0 447 66 Algeria 0 432 67 Botswana 0 430 68 Indonesia 0 424 69 Montenegro 0 422 70 Sri Lanka 0 419 71 Moldova 0 418 72 Cote d'Ivoire 0 416 73 Cameroon 0 413 74 Malta 0 399 75 Lao 0 392 76 Iceland 0 384 77 Peru 0 374 78 Venezuela 0 372 79 Chile 0 367 80 Slovakia 0 362 81 Kazakhstan 0 352 82 Slovenia 0 343 83 Jamaica 0 339 84 61 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 62 Member State Score Global Rank Costa Rica 0 336 85 Ghana 0 326 86 Paraguay 0 326 86 Tanzania 0 317 87 Senegal 0 314 88 Albania 0 314 88 Serbia 0 311 89 Zambia 0 292 90 Tajikistan 0 292 90 Tonga 0 292 90 Cambodia 0 283 91 Uzbekistan 0 277 92 Jordan 0 277 92 Nepal 0 275 93 Barbados 0 273 94 Sudan 0 271 95 Kyrgyzstan 0 270 96 Guyana 0 269 97 Ethiopia 0 267 98 Myanmar 0 263 99 Viet Nam 0 245 100 Afghanistan 0 245 100 Syrian Arab Republic 0 237 101 Monaco 0 236 102 Mongolia 0 228 103 State of Palestine 0 228 103 Libya 0 224 104 Fiji 0 222 105 Togo 0 218 106 Burkina Faso 0 208 107 El Salvador 0 208 107 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 Member State Score Global Rank Mozambique 0 206 108 Bhutan 0 199 109 Armenia 0 196 110 Liechtenstein 0 194 111 Zimbabwe 0 192 112 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0 189 113 Seychelles 0 184 114 Belize 0 182 115 Antigua and Barbuda 0 179 116 San Marino 0 174 117 Lebanon 0 172 118 Niger 0 170 119 Madagascar 0 168 120 Dominican Republic 0 162 121 Suriname 0 155 122 Liberia 0 149 123 Mauritania 0 146 124 Nicaragua 0 146 124 Sierra Leone 0 145 125 Nauru 0 140 126 Gabon 0 139 127 Bahamas 0 137 128 Gambia 0 136 129 Vanuatu 0 134 130 Turkmenistan 0 133 131 Kiribati 0 123 132 Bolivia 0 122 133 Burundi 0 120 134 Bosnia and Herzegovina 0 116 135 Grenada 0 115 136 Guatemala 0 114 137 63 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 64 Member State Score Global Rank Kuwait 0 104 138 Djibouti 0 099 139 Trinidad and Tobago 0 098 140 Solomon Islands 0 095 141 Lesotho 0 094 142 Guinea 0 090 143 Malawi 0 084 144 Angola 0 078 145 Eritrea 0 076 146 Chad 0 072 147 Benin 0 069 148 South Sudan 0 067 149 Papua New Guinea 0 067 149 Saint Kitts and Nevis 0 066 150 Namibia 0 066 150 Mali 0 060 151 Cape Verde 0 058 152 Cuba 0 058 152 Andorra 0 057 153 Maldives 0 056 154 Saint Lucia 0 053 155 Palau 0 053 155 Samoa 0 048 156 Honduras 0 048 156 Marshall Islands 0 048 156 Micronesia 0 044 157 Iraq 0 043 158 Swaziland 0 041 159 Sao Tome and Principe 0 040 160 Haiti 0 040 160 Democratic Republic of the Congo 0 040 160 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017 Member State Score Global Rank Congo 0 040 160 Vatican 0 040 160 Comoros 0 040 160 Tuvalu 0 034 161 Timor-Leste 0 034 161 Somalia 0 034 161 Guinea-Bissau 0 034 161 Dominica 0 010 162 Yemen 0 007 163 Central African Republic 0 007 163 Equatorial Guinea 0 000 164 65 International Telecommunication Union Place des Nations CH-1211 Geneva 20 Switzerland www itu int ISBN 978-92-61-25071-3 9 789261 250713 Printed in Switzerland Geneva 2017 - Revision Date 6 July 2017 Photo credits Shutterstock                     National Security Archive    Suite 701  Gelman Library  The George Washington University    2130 H Street  NW  Washington  D C  20037    Phone  202 994‐7000  Fax  202 994‐7005  nsarchiv@gwu edu