Skip to content

GCRI · Cybersecurity and Digital Resilience

Reviewed models and scenarios

Model descriptions for Cybersecurity and Digital Resilience are published here once reviewed, with their assumptions, evidence and validation. They describe models; they are not live simulations.

01Workspace

The workspace for reviewed models and scenarios.

Build workspace

Cybersecurity · Reviewed models · Run R-0690 · Example interface, not a record

Run in progressGCRI · Cybersecurity and Digital Resilience

Runs

same inputs, versioned

R-6303Cybersecurityv9.40.48Running
R-9012Softwarev4.10.76Drift
R-4212Communicationsv8.00.79Passed
R-9490Network sciencev3.40.71Drift

Model card

Method
Cybersecurity and cryptography
Inputs
SIEM alerts, Asset inventory
Validation
held-out period, skill reported
Label
MODELLED

Run log

  1. 00:00:15InfoIngest SIEM alerts
  2. 00:03:12InfoSchema and licence checks passed
  3. 00:07:40WarnGap filled by interpolation, flagged
  4. 00:12:03DoneCalibration complete
  5. 00:20:55GateIndependent test queued
Build workspace.Illustrative interface; not live data.

Cybersecurity and Digital Resilience · Build workspace. Build workspace: example names and illustrative values, not a record.

02What is shown

Released, referenced and rights-cleared.

  • Time and space reference for every view.
  • Sources and licence.
  • Uncertainty and known limits.
  • Version and date of release.
03Model classes

The kinds of model cyber work relies on.

Model classOpen examplesQuestion it answersValidation
Attack-path analysisMITRE ATT&CK-based modellingHow adversaries reach critical assetsRed-team exercises
Accumulation scenariosCatastrophe-style cyber scenariosCorrelated losses across organisationsPast large incidents
Dependency network modelsProvider dependency graphsConcentration and cascadeOutage records
Vulnerability prioritisationCVSS with exploitation data such as KEVWhich vulnerabilities to fix firstExploitation records
04Process

How the process runs.

Process explorer · Process

Reviewed models and scenarios: Hazard, exposure, vulnerability

10 steps4 stages

Process

Reviewed models and scenarios: Hazard, exposure, vulnerability

In IPCC AR6 Working Group II, climate risk results from interactions between hazards and a system's exposure and vulnerability, and responses can add risk.

  1. 01 Drivers

    1. 01HazardDataset · Security operations centreThe potential occurrence of a natural or human-induced physical event or trend that may harm people, property, services or ecosystems.
    2. 02ExposureDataset · Security operations centreThe presence of people, livelihoods, species, ecosystems, infrastructure or assets in places and settings that could be adversely affected.
    3. 03SensitivityDataset · Security operations centreThe degree to which a system or species is affected, either adversely or beneficially, by climate variability or change.
    4. 04Capacity to cope and adaptDataset · Security operations centreThe ability of systems, institutions, humans and other organisms to adjust to damage, take opportunities or respond to consequences.
  2. 02 Assessment

    1. 05Risk from responsesComponent · Security operations centreRisks from climate responses arise when responses miss their objectives, or from trade-offs or negative side effects.
    2. 06VulnerabilityComponent · Security operations centreThe propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected. It includes sensitivity to harm and lack of capacity to cope and adapt.
    3. 07RiskModel · Cybersecurity and Digital ResilienceRisk results from dynamic interactions between hazards and the system's exposure and vulnerability. Each may be uncertain and change.
  3. 03 Response

    1. 08Risk management and responseStep · Security operations centreRisk management is plans, actions, strategies or policies that reduce the likelihood or size of adverse consequences.
    2. 09Residual riskRecord · Security operations centreThe climate impact risk that remains after adaptation and mitigation efforts. Adaptation can redistribute risk between areas and groups.
  4. 04 Decision

    1. 10Decision by the responsible partyDecision · Security operations centreThe framing names no single decision maker. Decisions on responses rest with the responsible party under its own rules.

Outline of an external standard or method, from its public sources. It describes what the framework says, not a record of any run. It does not show that Nexus or any partner performs, certifies or approves a step. A gate is a step of the method, never a Nexus approval.

05Status

Releases appear as they are reviewed.

Analysis runs in Foundry; reviewed releases are listed here.

06Sources

Where this page's references lead.

The bodies and documents this page is read against. Status and editions change; each link goes to the issuing body.

07Questions

Questions and answers.

Can I request a map or model?
Write to Contact with what you need and why.
ReportsContribute

Contribute evidence from this page.

Reports is the Consortium's quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.

GCRICybersecurity and Digital ResilienceStrategic SystemsScenario and Stress-Test
Cybersecurity and Digital Resilience

Bring a method, a dataset or a question.

Information and enquiries are open today. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.