Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorDavid D. Clark.en_US
dc.contributor.authorTestart Pacheco, Cecilia Andreaen_US
dc.contributor.otherTechnology and Policy Program.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-14T15:54:11Z
dc.date.available2016-10-14T15:54:11Z
dc.date.copyright2016en_US
dc.date.issued2016en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/104820
dc.descriptionThesis: S.M., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 2016.en_US
dc.descriptionThesis: S.M. in Technology and Policy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, School of Engineering, Institute for Data, Systems, and Society, Technology and Policy Program, 2016.en_US
dc.descriptionCataloged from PDF version of thesis.en_US
dc.descriptionIncludes bibliographical references (pages 145-153).en_US
dc.description.abstractThe decentralized architecture of the Internet, which has been key to its development and worldwide deployment, is making it challenging to secure Internet user experience. Many organizations claim to be playing a role in improving Internet security. If anything, the space of security-related institutions seems on first inspection to be over-populated, yet poor security persists. This work proposes a framework to understand the role different institutions play in cyber security. The analysis gives insights into the broad institutional ecosystem of public, private and international actors, and the varied nature of these institutions, their interests, incentives, and contributions to cyber security from hardware, software, protocols, standards and regulation. Based on natural language clustering algorithms, this framework classifies institutions along five dimensions: the aspect of cyber security the institution covers (e.g. network security, cybercrime), the industry and activity sector of the institution (e.g. telecommunications, software and service providers), whether it is part of a specific jurisdiction (e.g. US, Europe), specific institution's characteristics such as its working mode (e.g. forum, information sharing) or primary focus (e.g. economic development, consumer trust), and the governance type (for-profit, not-for-profit, government or international organization). We developed a dataset of approximately 120 institutions that claim a role with respect to cyber security, and using the framework, we identify areas of competing and overlapping institutional interest, relevant areas out of scope of current institutions and dysfunctionalities that hinder overall security improvement.en_US
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityby Cecilia Andrea Testart Pacheco.en_US
dc.format.extent153 pagesen_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherMassachusetts Institute of Technologyen_US
dc.rightsM.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission.en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582en_US
dc.subjectElectrical Engineering and Computer Science.en_US
dc.subjectInstitute for Data, Systems, and Society.en_US
dc.subjectEngineering Systems Division.en_US
dc.subjectTechnology and Policy Program.en_US
dc.titleUnderstanding the institutional landscape of cyber securityen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.description.degreeS.M.en_US
dc.description.degreeS.M. in Technology and Policyen_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Engineering Systems Division
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Institute for Data, Systems, and Society
dc.contributor.departmentTechnology and Policy Program
dc.identifier.oclc958145120en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record