Homeland Security - US Critical Infrastructure
Critical infrastructure is the backbone of the country’s economy, fitness, and safety. Critical infrastructure should be secure at all times so that it can be able to combat and rapidly recover from any occurring dangers (Heckmann, Comes & Nickel, 2015). Protective as well as coordinative efforts are needed to strengthen as well as maintain secure, functional as well as resilient critical infrastructure which incorporates resources, networks as well as systems that are needed to enhance the buoyancy of the public, national security, protection and wellness (Starr, Newfrock & Delurey, 2003). This endeavor is a shared accountability among state, local, county, federal, ethnic, private and revitalized and public owners and all machinists of critical infrastructure. Nationally, the homeland security agency is involved in the provision of strategic leadership both to the private and public based associates, elevation of national unity and harmonizing the efforts of federal government to encourage the security and dependence and flexibility of the state’s critical infrastructure (Heckmann, Comes & Nickel, 2015).
Guarding the country’s infrastructure against cyber-attack is the primary responsibility of the national, federal, state administration as well as the private sector (Heckmann, Comes & Nickel, 2015). Even the dynamic processes can be heavily be influenced by one primary governmental action. While it is expected that a more rigid and safe cyberspace will develop via the evolutionary process the United States government should adopt instant actions to drive the change rate. With a number of government control measures, the nation can equally address the rising sophistication of cyber-related threats and impairments to public and private info sharing. The American society and economy rely on the country’s vital infrastructure. The significance of these services and the increasing cyber threat has been recognized for the last two decades by the national administration by attempting to prioritize different measures to be secure from the threats (Heckmann, Comes & Nickel, 2015). However, regardless of this recognition and enormous attempts to address the issue, cybersecurity is still one of the indefinable goals.
The primary rationale behind the lack of development in regard to critical infrastructure is based on the growing sophisticated cyber threats and the incapability to develop effective sharing and collaboration mechanisms (Stergiopoulos et al., 2016). Even with the increased risk, attaining a safer cyberspace is conceivable since America has the resources and the competence needed for the success. Cyberspace is a result of human beings innovation and thus humans still own the capability to develop a more safe future by connecting the instructions and experiences acquired in the earlier operations evaluate them and implement ways to eliminate each. Achieving an evolutional process will mainly take vigilance, continuous evaluations, collaboration, resources and time (Stergiopoulos et al., 2016). Acknowledging the state’s rising reliance on technology as well as the rising security risks within the cyberspace will be essential in settling for more effective mitigating forces. The existing national strategy is mainly aimed at guarding the country’s critical infrastructure so that the public, economy, and individuals can be protected as well. In addition, the approach additionally outlined the significance of collaboration and partnership amid the private and public sectors as the cooperative strategy is the foundation of success (Stergiopoulos et al., 2016).
With every individual’s life being digitally linked in ways that were accounted not to be achievable in the last few years, critical infrastructure has become more enrolled with cumulative computerization (Hokstad, Utne & Vatn, 2012). Fueled by the general benefits of performance, cost and efficiency this connection additional generates a growing appreciated mark mainly for those with the intentions to destroy the economy, security as monetary stability of America. In grabbing the opportunity, international governments, radical organizations, and crime based groups are utilizing more resources in the development of more equipped weapons that mainly exploit unidentified susceptibilities (Stergiopoulos et al., 2016).
It is unfortunate that the development that has been achieved to this end does not substantially mitigate, discourage or even prevent the progress of the most equipped cyber risks. Since the country’s critical infrastructure is still exposed to vulnerabilities it is necessary for the federal administration to present more efforts to heighten the treatment of this issue (Hokstad, Utne & Vatn, 2012). In mitigating the threats the American government should offer monetary incentives in order to inspire programs that will promote the determination and treatment of little susceptibilities. The existing security classification should be evaluated in relation to cyber security as well as prioritizing disclosure to the associates involved in the mitigation of issues as well as exploiting the risks. The highest primary risks should be determined and also offer the finance to determine and mitigate all the risks. One of the alternatives mainly incorporates the development of scorecards for those involved in purchases (Hokstad, Utne & Vatn, 2012). Those that play part in the acquisition of information innovative solutions throughout the industry in order to decrease the utilization of products.
In addition to reviewing the general security standards, time updates should be offered to the most critical infrastructure based on the reports that had been provided based on identifying and working based on the proposed solutions (Hokstad, Utne & Vatn, 2012). Most organizations mainly fail and are hesitant to collaborate in information sharing since they are more focused on guarding their images. However. The general solution in regard to achieving safety and security regarding the American critical infrastructure several collaborative defenses should be acquired. In that, the collaboration among different sectors must be exploited and knowledge applied by the relevant parties to improve the status (Stergiopoulos et al., 2016). Unless education and familiarity efforts are provided to the most organization in regard to the significance of collaboration in creating safety. Unless the organizations are persuaded that their sharing is confidential then it remains apparent that the reluctance will continue.
Reporting and sharing should be made compulsory while still guarding the confidentiality. In dealing with terrorism threats the national administration must participate in a more in-depth grounded collaboration with the private setting (López, Setola & Wolthusen, 2012). In guarding the state’s critical infrastructure, the accountability that involves setting objectives is mainly directed to the government but the general application of strategies to lower the susceptibility of the privatized and company’s resources relies mainly on the actions and knowledge held by the sector (López, Setola & Wolthusen, 2012). Despite the fact that private corporations adequately understand this demands and threats it is clear that they lack economic programs to support the reduction of the vulnerability. For most the general expense of reducing the costs outweighs the associated welfares of decreased threats from terrorism threats and other disasters (López, Setola & Wolthusen, 2012).
There are several strategies and steps that can be applied in mitigating the risks and make the nation stronger and more irrepressible (Heckmann, Comes & Nickel, 2015). To begin with, the private and public sectors should focus on capitalizing in the physical as well as cyber threats management arrangement and items. Also, the employees should be educated enough in regard to what critical infrastructure entails and how flexibility can be acquired. In that most of the threats can be mitigated and combated but the lack of knowledge hinders the potential of the sectors (Heckmann, Comes & Nickel, 2015). Equipping them with adequate knowledge will also trigger critical thoughts that will not only result in innovation but also the development of more beneficial and realistic solutions. On the other hand, the continuity of operations should be thoroughly planned to ensure that any disruption does not make an organization vulnerable to attacks. The trend of not sharing information in regard to threats as well as undesirable events should be fully reported. This is to create awareness and also share the general status of the experienced threat (Heckmann, Comes & Nickel, 2015).
Despite the fact that close to 85 percent of the critical infrastructure in America is owned by the private sector, actually, it is that the industrial force on its own is not sufficient to support the required investment for protecting (López, Setola & Wolthusen, 2012). Collaboration among companies has to be triggered since the threats related to critical infrastructure are growing as highly codependent while the technological, social and economic operations in regard to globalization heighten. Similar to the past policy developers groups that focused on the adoption of immediate measures the existing ones should focus on a market that is omnipresent (López, Setola & Wolthusen, 2012).
To sum up, despite the fact that mitigating critical infrastructure threats, susceptibility and achieving efficiency are generated in collaboration they are never evaluated as one. The economic market normally acquires enhanced efficiency since the parties are involved in consistent planning and fight for high earnings and vulnerability can only be determined after thorough examination of the forces that lead to failure. The attacks should not, therefore, be ignored since it is the responsibility of all parties to collaborate for efficiency to be achieved. Information sharing should be encouraged, more rigid policies created, reports and employees training in the regard offered without failure.
References
Starr, R., Newfrock, J., & Delurey, M. (2003). Enterprise resilience: managing risk in the networked economy. Strategy and Business, 30, 70-79.
Heckmann, I., Comes, T., & Nickel, S. (2015). A critical review on supply chain risk–Definition, measure and modeling. Omega, 52, 119-132.
Stergiopoulos, G., Vasilellis, S., Lykou, G., Kotzanikolaou, P., & Gritzalis, D. (2016, March). Critical Infrastructure Protection tools: Classification and comparison. In Proc. of the 10th International Conference on Critical Infrastructure Protection.
Hokstad, P., Utne, I. B., & Vatn, J. (2012). Risk and Interdependencies in Critical Infrastructures [recurso electrónico]: A Guideline for Analysis. Inglaterra: Springer London.
López, J., Setola, R., & Wolthusen, S. D. (2012). Critical infrastructure protection: Information infrastructure models, analysis, and defense. Berlin: Springer.
