Improving Interdisciplinary Communication With Standardized Cyber Security Terminology: A Literature Review <s> D. GENERAL <s> Computer system security relies on different aspects of a computer system such as security policies, security mechanisms, threat analysis, and countermeasures. This paper provides an ontological approach to capturing and utilizing the fundamental attributes of those key components to determine the effects of vulnerabilities on a system's security. Our ontology for vulnerability management (OVM) has been populated with all vulnerabilities in NVD (see http://nvd.nist.gov/scap.cfm) with additional inference rules and knowledge discovery mechanisms so that it may provide a promising pathway to make security automation program (NIST Version 1.0, 2007) more effective and reliable. <s> BIB001 </s> Improving Interdisciplinary Communication With Standardized Cyber Security Terminology: A Literature Review <s> D. GENERAL <s> With the advancement of computer and information technology, cyber crime is now becoming one of the most significant challenges facing law enforcement organizations. Cyber crimes are generally referred as criminal activities that use computers or networks. An understanding of the characteristics and nature of cyber crimes is important in helping research communities find ways to effectively prevent them. Most existing research focuses more on attacks and attack models, including either actual attacks or imaginary/possible attacks over all layers of networks or computers, but there has been less work carried out on a comprehensive survey of cyber crimes. This paper provides a survey of cyber crimes that have actually occurred. First, cyber crimes in the digital world are compared with crimes in the physical world. Then, cyber crimes are categorized according to the roles of computers or networks. Furthermore, we also notice that some cyber crimes are actually traditionally non-cyber crimes that are facilitated by computers or networks. It is surprising that there are so many recurrent cyber crimes. More efforts are needed to protect people from cyber crimes. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. ::: ::: (This paper provides a survey of cyber crimes that have actually occurred. First, cyber crimes in the digital world are compared with crimes in the physical world. Then, cyber crimes are categorized according to the roles of computers or networks.) <s> BIB002 </s> Improving Interdisciplinary Communication With Standardized Cyber Security Terminology: A Literature Review <s> D. GENERAL <s> What are the real trends in cybercrime? Recent media coverage has been rife with stories of large-scale data breaches, hacks and online financial crime. Information technology (IT) security firms such as Norton Symantec and Kaspersky Labs publish yearly reports that generally show the security of cyberspace to be poor and often getting worse. This paper argues that the level of security in cyberspace is actually far better than the picture described by media accounts and IT security reports. Currently, numbers on the occurrence of cybercrime are almost always depicted in either absolute (1,000 attacks per year) or as year-over-year percentage change terms (50 percent more attacks in 2014 than in 2013). To get an accurate picture of the security of cyberspace, cybercrime statistics need to be expressed as a proportion of the growing size of the Internet (similar to the routine practice of expressing crime as a proportion of a population, i.e., 15 murders per 1,000 people per year). To substantiate this argument, data was collected on the size of the Internet, with a focus on users, points of interaction and volume of online activity. Data was then collected on the vectors of cyber attack, the occurrence of cyber attacks and the cost of cybercrime. Normalizing these crime statistics around various measures of the growing size of cyberspace, a clear picture emerges: the absolute numbers always paint a worse scenario of the security of cyberspace than the normalized numbers. In particular, the absolute numbers tend to lead to one of three misrepresentations: first, the absolute numbers say things are getting worse, while the normalized numbers show that the situation is improving; second, both numbers show that things are improving, but the normalized numbers show that things are getting better at a faster rate; and third, both numbers say that things are getting worse, but the normalized numbers indicate that the situation is deteriorating more slowly than the absolute numbers. Overall, global cyberspace is actually far safer than commonly thought. <s> BIB003
The ''General'' category contains all papers with issues which pervade the entire realm of cyber security, as well as descriptions of the field in general, and characterizations of cyberspace and humans' interactions with it. Zhang et al. (2012) give a primer on, empirically, what actual crimes exist in cyber space. They categorize the crimes and call for action on existing problems such as cyber terrorism, phishing, and others BIB002 .  give a helpful introduction to Ontology; specifically, contrasting the various meanings the word takes on in information science with social sciences.  . In short, Busse et al. provide a strong argument for crossdiscipline communication and standardization of vocabulary terms. Ju An et al. (2010) put forth a cyber security vulnerability ontology for comprehensive use, giving examples and references BIB001 . They are among many authors who propose information science-type ontologies, but do not necessarily scope the use of the ontologies, demonstrate their use, or make their ontologies publicly accessible. Jardine (2015) gives an interesting perspective on the state of cyber-crime. He finds that most vulnerabilities are decreasing when normalized, and most attacks are increasing whether normalized or not, but are increasing more slowly over time and may soon be seen to be decreasing (essentially predicting a concave-down trend in attacks). In short, the picture of cyber-crime is not as bad as the absolute numbers make it seem when compared to the growth of cyberspace BIB003 . However, the data used may be imperfect and the trends are only analyzed from 2008-2014. His recommendations include: focus on the user rather than the system (i.e. put more effort into educating and empowering the user and continue putting the same effort into the technology of the system); use open-source code like SSL where possible to find vulnerabilities more quickly; create stricter rules for reasonable disclosure timeframes of zero-days by governments; develop international agreements on web-based attacks; create more cyber-crime insurance or other ways of spreading costs out; small-medium-sized companies need to invest in IT security and training as much as large companies; and cyber security companies should start to collect and represent their data in normalized terms. Michael Chertoff, former Secretary of Homeland Security, in Chertoff et al. (2015) gives a primer on the dark web, the intentionally hidden part of the deep web, unindexed by search engines and impossible to reach with normal browsers. A traditional search engine sees about 0.03 percent of the web -the other 99.97% is the deep web. The authors assert that the global community needs to consider the deep web's impact when discussing Internet governance. A huge amount of crime (and a huge diversity of it) is supported in the deep web, and new ways to map and monitor it are needed. They nevertheless caution that the deep web's existence is good, in some ways, for everybody  . Common shortcomings of papers in this category are a lack of ontological understanding and scoping of the problems of cyber security, as well as indicators of a lack of a defined cyber security vocabulary across disciplines. These papers all conclude that the field needs more interdisciplinary cooperation, and that better characterization of cyber-crime and novel approaches to combating it, not necessarily technically, are imperative. Lack of consistent vocabulary is not in itself problematic -Busse et al. go into detail about the differences in the meaning of the word ''ontology'' between computer science, philosophy, and psychology -but the importance of such a paper is not to be understated  . To solve this problem in communication, the solution is itself communication. Standardizing vocabulary offers one outlet for such communication. Explaining differences in terms is another. Still another is creating businesses out of university research. To summarize all four categories, it is evident from our literature review that there is a long-standing disconnect between traditional technological research in cyber security and the public and private sectors' nontechnical dealings with cyber security. This problem is likely a combined issue resulting from neither technical researchers nor management in business or government reaching out to communicate to the other parties. However, there is also a communication problem between researchers in the same category. Fundamentally, communication among researchers and between research and other sectors of society stands out as the largest general issue for cyber security when the field is broadly analyzed as we have done.