Wef risk responsibility_hyperconnectedworld_report_2014

Insight Report

Risk and Responsibility in a
Hyperconnected World

In collaboration with McKinsey & Company
January 2014

Contents

Executive Summary

2

Executive Summary

5

Introduction

Many leaders in business, civil society and government realize that for the world’s
economy to fully derive the value inherent in technological innovation, a robust,
coordinated system of global cyber resilience is essential to effectively mitigate the
risk of cyberattacks. This view is beginning to permeate discussions among senior
leaders in the private and public sectors, and across different industries, as
concerns related to cyber resilience shift from awareness to action. The critical
questions today are: what needs to be done, and how can it be achieved?

Chapter 1. Developing a Clear Set
of Action Areas
7

Institutional Readiness

9

Public and International Policy

10 Community Responses
10 Systemic Responses
Chapter 2. Findings:
Understanding
Cyber Risks and Response
Readiness
11 For most companies across

sectors and regions, cyber

resilience is a strategic risk
15 Executives believe they are

losing ground to attackers
15 Large companies lack the facts

and processes to make effective

decisions about cyber resilience
18

Concerns about cyberattacks
are starting to have measurable
negative business implications in
some areas

18 Substantial actions are required

from all players in the cyber

resilience ecosystem
Chapter 3. Future Scenarios
27 Scenario One: Muddling into the
Future
27 Scenario Two: Backlash

Decelerates Digitization
27 Scenario Three: Cyber Resilience

Accelerates Digitization
27 Applying the Scenarios
Chapter 4. Conclusions and
Roadmap for Collaborative Action

2

Risk and Responsibility in a Hyperconnected World

Risk and Responsibility in a Hyperconnected World, a joint effort between the
World Economic Forum and McKinsey & Company, assesses the necessary
action areas, and examines the impact of cyberattacks and response readiness.
The report sets these against three alternative scenarios in which economic value
from technological innovations is realized or lost depending on models of cyber
resilience. It draws on knowledge and opinions derived from a series of interviews,
workshops and dialogues with global executives and thought leaders to estimate
the potential value to be created through 2020 by technological innovations. It
examines the value that could be put at risk if the adoption of such innovations is
delayed because more frequent, intense cyberattacks are not met with more
robust cyber resilience. Finally, the report draws conclusions from the analysis and
research, and offers a 14-point roadmap for collaboration.
Chapter 1. Developing a Clear Set of Action Areas presents a unified agenda
for key action areas that global leaders across the spectrum of private and public
sectors and civil society can collectively explore to increase cyber resilience. Based
on the interviews, workshops and dialogues with senior global executives and
thought leaders, this chapter is intended to serve as an ongoing, evolving resource
to be continually developed and improved over time.
Discussions to date have produced a series of action areas for leaders to consider,
organized as required solutions.
Chapter 2. Findings: Understanding Cyber Risks and Response Readiness
examines at key findings from the interviews and workshops, with a particular
focus on institutional readiness.
Pervasive digitization, open and interconnected technology environments, and
sophisticated attackers, among other drivers, mean that the risk from major cyber
events could materially slow the pace of technological innovation over the coming
decade. Addressing the problem will require collaboration across all participants in
the “cyber resilience ecosystem”. But many questions remain on direction and
responsibilities. In contrast, a much clearer picture is emerging of the actions that
institutions should take to protect themselves. They should act now to enhance
capabilities while a broader model for resiliency develops. Finally, given the
strategic decisions required, chief executive officers (CEOs), government ministers
and other key stakeholders from civil society must engage directly with one
another to put the right policies and plans in place.
Findings from the research include:
- Risks of cyberattacks are starting to have a business impact. Controls put in
place to protect information assets have at least a “moderate” impact on
front-line employee productivity for nearly 90% of institutions. Moreover,
security concerns are already making companies delay implementation of
cloud and mobile technology capabilities. And while direct cyber resilience
spend represents only a small share of total enterprise technology expenditure,
some chief information officers (CIOs) and chief information security officers

(CISOs) estimate that indirect or unaccounted security
requirements drive as much as 20-30% of overall
technology spending, crowding other projects that could
create business value.
-

Current trends could result in a backlash against
digitization, with huge economic impact. Major technology
trends like massive analytics, cloud computing and big
data could create between US$ 9.6 trillion and US$ 21.6
trillion in value for the global economy. If attacker
sophistication outpaces defender capabilities – resulting
in more destructive attacks –a wave of new regulations
and corporate policies could slow innovation, with an
aggregate economic impact of around US$ 3 trillion.

-

Large institutions lack the facts and processes to make
and implement effective decisions about cyber resilience.
Overall, a large majority of firms have only nascent or
developing cyber risk management capabilities. Most
large institutions do not systematically understand which
information assets need to be protected, who are their
attackers, what is their risk appetite or which is the most
effective set of defence mechanisms. Companies that
spend more on cyber resilience do not necessarily
manage cyber resilience risks in a more mature way
– many are simply throwing money at the problem.

-

-

Scenario Three: Cyber Resilience Accelerates Digitization.
In this scenario, proactive action from the public and
private sectors limits the proliferation of attack tools, builds
institutional capabilities and stimulates innovation. A vital
cyber resilience ecosystem serves to facilitate and
connect company operations. Technological innovation is
enabled, accelerating digitization and creating between
US$ 9.6 trillion and US$ 21.6 trillion in value over the
remainder of this decade.

More collaboration required, but key questions remain.
Almost all CIOs and CISOs say they cannot “do it alone”.
They believe a broader cyber resilience ecosystem must
be put in place that spans not only the enterprise users of
technology, but also technology providers, regulators, law
enforcement and other related institutions. However,
views vary widely on the responsibilities and effectiveness
of several possible public-sector actions.

Chapter 4: Conclusions and Roadmap for Collaborative
Action proposes a framework for collaboration and suggests
a path forward. Acknowledging the interdependence of the
public and private sectors in today’s hyperconnected milieu,
the Forum’s Partnership for Cyber Resilience, launched in
2012, has developed a framework to help chief executives
and other leaders to build effective cyber risk management
platforms. The tool offers a rough composite score to locate
an organization on the five stages of maturity. By assessing
their positions on the maturity scale, companies can make
the necessary plans and take the necessary action to
enhance their cyber resilience. A core Forum team and its
partners will enable and advise participants in their approach
to cyber risk management. The team also will be a
storehouse for insights garnered from participants that can
be used to build up the framework for broader sharing.

Chapter 3. Future Scenarios presents three alternative
settings for 2020, and is based on the opinions and thoughts
gleaned from the interviews and extensive workshop
sessions. The scenarios estimate the conceivable value
created from technological innovations that could be affected
by a changing cyber resilience environment:
-

Scenario One: Muddling into the Future. In this baseline
scenario, attackers retain an advantage over defenders
who continue to respond to threats reactively, albeit
successfully. The level of threat increases incrementally,
and more sophisticated attack tools consistently leave
defenders behind attackers. Adoption of innovative
technologies slows. In this scenario, as much as US$ 1.02
trillion in value from technological innovation is left
unrealized over the next five to seven years.

-

Scenario Two: Backlash Decelerates Digitization. In this
scenario, the frequency of attacks significantly escalates,
and international cooperation to combat the proliferation
of attack tools proves elusive. Government cyber
resilience regulations become more directive, disturbing
adoption of innovative technologies. As much as US$ 3
trillion in potential value creation from these technologies
remains unrealized.

3

TABLE 1: FOUR CATEGORIES

1 Institutional readiness

Governance
Prioritize information assets based on business risks and integrate cyber resilience into
enterprise-wide risk management
Program development
Differentiate protection based on importance of assets. Develop deep integration of
security into technology environment. Deploy active defenses to uncover attacks
proactively. Continuous testing to improve incident response and enlist front-line
personnel
Network development
Coordinate better with partners, vendors, and other counterparts to effectively mitigate
network risk

2 Public and
international policy

National cyber strategy
Establish a comprehensive, transparent national cyber strategy that integrates
procedures across all policy domains
End-to-end criminal justice system
Ensure that law enforcement and the state have a comprehensive and ﬂexible legal
code and capabilities to take action
Domestic policy and incentives
Establish private, public, and civil dialogue to develop suitable policy and
market mechanisms
Foreign policy
Establish a national cyber strategy. Identify institutions and critical capabilities and
harmonize policies through multi-stakeholder collaboration
Public goods
Encourage multi-stakeholder collaboration to invest in capabilities, capacity and
resources for the public good

3 Community

Research
Invest in research to better understand the cyber landscape and threats
Information sharing
Work to promote better information sharing by further developing collaboration tools
and resources
Shared resources for capability building
Foster partnerships between governments, universities, and the private sector to
develop capabilities and capacity

4 Systemic

Risk markets
Explore and invest to develop risk markets and value risks from
cyber events
Embedded security
Work to better integrate security into current technology systems and tools

4


Introduction
Digital technology touches virtually every aspect of
daily life today. Social interaction, healthcare activity,
political engagement or economic decision-making
– digital connectivity permeates it all, and the
dependence on this connectivity is growing swiftly.
Greater reliance on a networked resource naturally
makes us more interdependent on one another. As
the new, shared digital space evolves, the collective
imperative is to develop a common set of
expectations to address systemic risks, and to
define not only the roles but also the responsibilities
of all participants in the cyber ecosystem. The
obligations will encompass several key issues –
from privacy norms to Internet governance policy –
but the collective ability to manage cyber risks in
this shared digital environment is fundamental. It
forms the crux of cyber resilience.
But as the nature of cyber threats is evolving, so should the
approach to cyber resilience. Three observations help to put
this in context :
1. Cyber resilience is not an isolated issue. Cyber
resilience is part of a much broader transformation across
society driven by information and communication
technologies. The term “digital hyperconnectivity” refers to
the increasing or exponential rate at which people, processes
and things are connecting to the Internet. This results in some
key shifts :
- The impact of technology shifts from improving efficiency
to enabling transformation of business operations and
institutions.
- The structure of systems changes fundamentally, away
from hierarchies towards networks.
- Disintermediation offers huge social and economic gains,
but presents new governance and assurance challenges.
2. Cyber resilience is not a single issue. When referring to
cyber resilience or cybersecurity, it is easy to assume that a
single topic or issue is meant. However, these terms refer to a
set of issues that are as varied as they are distinct. One
Internet may connect people, but the challenges are several.
In the “real” world, retail fraud, organized crime, invasions of
personal privacy, diplomacy, warfare, intellectual property
and copyright violations, terrorism and activism happen in
very different ways, and different governance mechanisms
(such as institutions, treaties, regulations and market
mechanisms) have evolved to deal with each of them.
Of course, part of the challenge of the “virtual” world is that

these mechanisms in their current form are not reliable.
Designed in a pre-digital world, they move too slowly and
ignore the digital age’s interdependencies. Indeed, in many
cases, even the underlying values and concepts cannot be
depended upon – the digital era has re-constituted ideas
such as privacy, ownership and security. The common notion
of security implies isolation, the protection of a defined
perimeter or an objective defined by the prevention of an
event. This notion of security seems quaint in a world where it
is impossible to draw a clean ring around the network of one
country or one company, and where large organizations can
be the target of 10,000 cyberattacks per day.
3. Cyber resilience is a socio-economic issue. Most
critically, the realization is growing that cyber resilience is also
a socio-economic issue, although it has been more
commonly recognized as a technical and political issue.
From the digitally enabled car to smart cities, from energy
infrastructure to air travel, from cashless banking to on-thespot market prices for farmers in developing economies,
humankind is witnessing an explosion of innovation in
technology. This groundswell of creativity is not centred solely
in Silicon Valley, but is occurring across industries
everywhere. The phenomenon has massive potential to
generate economic value. And many of its gains in recent
years have derived directly from digital global connectivity.
Discussions of cyber risks tend to focus on doomsday
scenarios or a feared “cybergeddon”. However, an equivalent
concern perhaps should be the lost opportunities from a
significant backlash or fragmentation of the current digital
ecosystem. A backlash could result from a single major
event, or through gradual erosion. Governments, businesses
or individuals could cause it. Fragmentation could occur
intentionally, as loss of trust leads to explicitly isolationist
policies. Or it could occur semi-intentionally, as governments
adopt increasingly protectionist stances on digitally enabled
services. Or it could occur unintentionally, as uncoordinated
policy developments in different jurisdictions result in a
disparate set of requirements to operate globally.
Risk and Responsibility in a Hyperconnected World examines
the link between responses to cyber resilience concerns and
the creation of real economic value. If cyber resilience is a
potential risk to growth and competitiveness, it is also an
enabler. Countries and companies that invest in and develop
cyber capabilities to instil trust in customers, citizens and
investors will have a c ompetitive edge in this digital era. This
report also outlines the key action areas for leaders across
private, public and civil society to drive collective cyber
capabilities and resilience.


5

From a broad data set we built future scenarios,
estimated impact and developed potential actions

Fact base
Interviews with industry leaders
Conducted 250+ interviews with
industry leaders across
– 7+ sectors (e.g., FS1, healthcare)
– 3 regions (Americas, EMEA2, and
Asia), and
– 5+ roles (e.g., CISOs, CIOs, CTOs,
CROs, VPs)
• Captured responses of industry
leaders (subset of above) to
questionnaire assessing risks and
implications of cybersecurity
•

Cyber risk maturity survey
(CRMS)
• Compared cyber resilience of 100+
large firms (primarily >$5B market
cap) with best-practices across
– Multiple sectors (primarily FS
and healthcare)
– 3 regions (Americans, EMEA,
Asia), and

Experience from client
engagements
• Developed business-focused cyber
resilience strategies, operating
models, vendor strategies and
conducted realistic cyber-event
simulations to improve responses to
real attacks with the world’s largest
firms and institutions

1Financial
2Europe,

6

Services
Middle East and Asia


Deliverables for Davos 2014

Cyber resilience
drivers
• Leveraged fact base
from interviews, CRMS,
and experience to
develop, prioritize, and
synthesize list of 20+
drivers that impact
cyber resilience

Alternative future
scenarios
• Derived 3 alternative
future scenarios based
on realistic varied
outcomes of synthesized
cyber resilience drivers

Estimated global economic
impact
• Estimated impact of cyber resilience
to adoption of significant business
and technology innovations in 3
alternative future scenarios
– List of key business and
technology innovations and
their value
– Impact to adoption of business
and technology innovations
estimated through interviews
with industry leaders

•

Potential actions
Developed a set of coordinated
actions for private- and
public-sector stakeholders to
improve cyber resilience across
four areas
– Institutional readiness
– Information sharing
– Critical infrastructure
– Policy development

Chapter 1. Developing a Clear
Set of Action Areas
As the risk of cyberattacks is becoming more prevalent, the
cost of the attacks – to companies, public institutions, the
global economy and society at large – is also growing. This is
the clear message that emerged from research assembled
over the past year. To foster technology innovation, and
continue to reap value from it, a robust cyber
resilience ecosystem is required across sectors and
institutions. To deter malevolent attackers, companies will
have to abandon their current fragmented cyber resilience
defences built around reactive “audit” and “compliance”
models. Today’s increasingly digital age needs a step-change
in cyberattack response – cyber resilience models that are
characterized by a business-driven, risk-management
approach.

-

The Partnership for Cyber Resilience, launched at the World
Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2012 in Davos-Klosters,
identified three vital areas of robust cyber resilience:
information-sharing, critical infrastructure protection, and
policy development. During the past year, the group’s
dialogue set a context for these vital areas within a broader
readiness framework aimed at building collaboration and
coordination. Institutional readiness and the potential action
to improve it, form the first of four pillars of this broader
structure. The others include public and international policy,
community action and systemic action.

Program/network development

The latest work, which included interviews, workshops and
surveys, has shown that a range of high-value responses
exists upon which to build a vigorous cyber resilience
capability at the institutional level. This group of institutional
readiness responses comprises governance issues, program
development and network expansions for private-sector
institutions. On the one hand, these responses address an
immediate need of executives for specific steps to shore up
their companies’ current cyber resilience capabilities and
establish critical benchmarks. On the other, the responses
can form the core of a cyber resilience model that, over time,
can foster companies’ collaboration with partners in public
and international policy, as well as community and systemic
responses. Strengthening the core is an essential first step to
developing effective responses on a broader scale.

1. Institutional Readiness
Governance
- Prioritize information assets based on business risks.
Most institutions lack sufficient insight into the precise
information assets they need protected and how to assign

priorities to those assets. Going forward, cyber resilience
teams need to work with business leaders to better
understand business risks (for example, what it means to
lose proprietary information about a new manufacturing
process) across the entire value chain and to set
appropriate priorities to the underlying information assets.
Develop deep integration of security into the
technology environment to drive scalability. Almost
every part of the broader technology environment has an
impact on an institution’s ability to protect itself, from
application development practices to policies for replacing
out-dated hardware. Institutions must move from “bolting
security on” to training their entire staff to incorporate
security from the start into technology projects.

- Provide differentiated protection based on the
importance of assets. As the axiom states, “To protect
everything is to protect nothing.” By implementing
differentiated controls, such as encryption and more
rigorous passwords, institutions can focus time and
resources on protecting information assets that matter the
most.
- Deploy active defences to uncover attacks
proactively. Massive amounts of information are available
about potential attacks – both from external intelligence
sources and from an institution’s own technology
environment. Increasingly, companies will need to develop
capabilities to aggregate and analyse relevant information,
and use it to appropriately tune defence systems such as
firewalls.
- Test continuously to improve incident response. An
inadequate response to a breach – not only from the
technology team, but also from those in marketing, public
affairs or customer services – can be as damaging as the
breach itself because of the adverse reaction it can elicit
from clients, partners, government regulators and others.
Taking a page from the military, institutions should run
cross-functional “cyberwar games” to improve their ability
to respond effectively in real time.
- Help personnel to understand the value of
information assets. Users are often the biggest
vulnerability for an institution. They click on links they
should not, select insecure passwords and send sensitive
files by e-mail to broad distribution lists. Institutions need
to segment users, and help each group to understand the
business risks of the information assets they touch every
day.


7

Figure 1: Potential Actions to Improve Institutional Readiness

What actions that your institution could take would have the most impact in reducing the risk
associated with cyberattacks?
(%)
No/Limited impact

Moderate Impact

Significant Impact

% of responses
1 Prioritize information assets and related risks
in a way that helps engage business leaders

26

2 Provide differentiated protection of most
important assets

4

3 Develop deep integration of security into the
technology environment to drive scalability

2 13

4 Deploy active defences to be proactive in
uncovering attacks early

4

Avg. selfassessment grade
57

22

C-

17

48

C

26

47

22

Game changer

C

38

55

C

20

5 Improve incident response and testing
4
6 Enlist front-line personnel to address
vulnerabilities beyond the technology
7 Leverage existing business processes and
governance mechanisms, with strong linkages
to other risk/control functions

4

6

31

12

53

48

39

37

49

C+

12

C-

6

C-

Source: Interviews of chief information security officers and other executives, World Economic Forum and McKinsey & Company

- Integrate cyber resistance into enterprise-wide risk
management and governance processes. Cyber
resilience is an enterprise risk, and must be managed like
one. Assessments of risks from cyberattack must be i
ntegrated with other risk analysis and presented at
relevant management and board discussions. Cyber
resilience implications must be integrated into the broad
set of enterprise governance functions such as human
resources, vendor management and regulatory
compliance.

8


The importance of these actions was highlighted in interviews
with chief information security officers (CISOs) and other
executives. Across the board, executives gave their
institutions poor average marks for executing these critical
responses (see Figure 1). As a group, these institutional
readiness actions can also serve as benchmarks and form a
core of expanded cyber resilience collaboration with the
public sector and communities.

2. Public and International Policy
The public sector has a responsibility to act to address the
growing cyber threat. As such, cyber resilience should be
made part of relevant policies or systems such as a national
cyber strategy, an end-to-end criminal justice system,
domestic and foreign policy, and laws for the public good.
National strategy. Lack of national coordination can lead to
redundant policy and legislation, thereby hindering economic
growth and development. The Research produced certain
recommendations:
- Each nation connected to the Internet should have a
comprehensive and transparent national cyber strategy
that is integrated and harmonized with the strategies and
procedures across all domestic and international policy.
- As each body and organization has a role, it is crucial that
the strategies developed incorporate the private and civil
sectors, as well as leverage economic and security
issues, among other tools, to drive the adoption of
initiatives. The focus on incentives driven by the
government and independent providers should be
enhanced.
- Finally, a competent institution is needed to be
responsible for the successful implementation and rollout
of the national strategy. An identifiable, responsible
institution will offer transparency to stakeholders in the
process. Not having a resource to consult often leads to
challenges of ownership, function and action, the
research highlighted.
End-to-end criminal justice system. “Institutions can take
all the actions they want on their own. However, if there is no
law-enforcement mechanism to pursue and prosecute
perpetrators, then our actions are meaningless,” a chief
information officer (CIO) observes in an interview. Indeed, law
enforcement needs to have the capability and resources to
investigate cybercrimes and to have an appropriate,
comprehensive and agile legal code to support its
investigative and prosecutorial activities. Cyber resilience is a
complex matter that may not be entirely clear to everybody in
the criminal justice system. As such, it is critical that legal
advocates, either through further education or other training,
understand the cyber resilience ecosystem well enough to
carry out due process.

Institutions can take all the actions they
want on their own. However, if there is no
law-enforcement mechanism to pursue
and prosecute perpetrators, then our
actions are meaningless.
Chief information officer of a financial services organisation

Domestic policy. No clear consensus emerged in the
Forum-McKinsey workshops and dialogues on the nature of
public-sector action needed domestically. Based on the
background and regulatory history of the participants, it
seemed that different sectors had different views on the most
beneficial action. As such, two key points are identified:
- Private, public and civil dialogue is needed to develop
a coherent mix of policy and market mechanisms for
use in the cyber ecosystem. Not taking a
multistakeholder approach risks eliciting a mix of
responses that could be weighted unevenly in one area,
resulting in limited success.
- A rapidly changing cyber resilience landscape
requires all government mechanisms to support the
efforts of law enforcement and to be appropriately
agile. It was emphasized during a December 2013
roundtable discussion of partners in Washington DC that
a major impediment to potential public-sector actions
would be a rigid set of codes that did not allow changes
to a highly dynamic sector.
Foreign policy. “Cyberattacks have the potential to change
the nature of warfare and international relations, almost past
the level of the Cold War,” says the CIO of a European
aerospace and defence company. It is clear that cyber events
are changing the nature of interstate relations. As such,
countries should establish a national cyber doctrine to
define and express their positions on the use of cyber
resilience tools and weapons for national purposes.
The workshops and dialogues showed that today different
organizations are sharing information and cooperating on
cyber actions. Communication, formal and informal, is
essential among those investigating, prosecuting and
enforcing laws on cybercrime. Making the process
transparent can help to cut the confusion and lag in tracking
and prosecution. In addition, each level of government is
responsible for identifying competent authorities and for
creating interoperability among national entities and
sovereign legal codes. For businesses to continue to expand,
better harmonization of national policies will be needed.
All these requirements reiterate the need for a
multistakeholder approach to address cyber risks. A primary
concern voiced by several institutions is the often-stark
differences in requirements for different nations. This
challenge can drastically affect the growth of international
and local businesses.
Public good. For the public good, all stakeholders need to
ensure that they contribute to and maintain an evolving and
robust incident-response capability. This ranges from
established programs for information-sharing and incident
response such as CERT (Computer Emergency Readiness
Team) to information training and development of human
resources. Such a dynamic space demands an ever-evolving
set of capabilities to match the changing pace of the threat.
Maintenance includes possible funding for cyber resilience
research and greater investment in cyber resilience technical
education in order to foster a more cyber-aware workforce.


9

3. Community Responses
In cyber resilience components where public and private
interests intersect, it is vital for the community to agree and
act as one. This is particularly important for infrastructure,
which often accommodates many interests. The community
can cooperate on actions such as: research, informationsharing, knowledge transfer, self-governance, sharing
resources for capability building, and mutual aid.
Research. Cyber resilience or cybersecurity is still a fairly
nascent topic, and requires further investment from interested
parties to be fully understood and developed. As such, it is
important to encourage public- and private-sector efforts to
better understand the impact of cyber resilience on
enterprises, nations and macroeconomics. This common
language development would be helpful in setting priorities
and focusing government policies on cyber resilience. Many
advancements in this space occurred outside formal
institutions. As such, it will be important to create an
atmosphere in which counter-attack (“white-hat hacker”)
research is not only encouraged but also supported
financially.
Shared resource for capability building. Foster
partnerships among governments, universities and the
private sector to develop skills in this area.
Information-sharing. As one of the core areas of focus
identified by the Partnership for Cyber Resilience in 2012, key
recommendations surfaced regarding sharing of information:
- Where legally feasible, institutions need to find
mechanisms for information-sharing already in existence,
either formally or informally.
- Towards that end, it will be critical to improve the quality of
the ISACs/CERTs/CIERTs and other information-sharing
venues to provide the best variety of options.
- The success of such programs requires the promotion of
an interoperable, extensible and automated system for
sharing information.

4. Systemic Responses
A series of actions can greatly improve the quality of
conversation on cyber resilience and accelerate coordination.
Although thinking on this issue continues to evolve, two areas
offer promise in building maturity in the ecosystem:
- Risk markets. Making use of a developed cyber risk
insurance market to trade and monetize the risk from
cyber events.
- Embedded security. Exploring options to embed
security parameters earlier into the lifecycle of products,
and even into contemporary means of communication,
such as the Internet.
Against this backdrop of high-value responses, it is worth
noting that another range of actions is likely to deliver low or
uncertain value in fostering cyber resilience. For example,
while governments may be in a position to disrupt supply
chains for attack vectors, such a move by private-sector
institutions would seem to be uncertain or counter-productive
because of the collateral fallout. For their part, regulators may
10


be able to engage in counter-attacks and service disruptions,
but they should be cautious about allowing Internet service
providers to engage in similar efforts because of possible
reprisals on the overall infrastructure or bystander
organizations.

Chapter 2. Findings:
Understanding Cyber Risks
and Response Readiness
Cyber resilience is becoming a critical business and social
issue. As more and more business value and personal
information rapidly migrates to digital form, the risks from
cyberattacks grow ever more daunting. On the front line are
public and private institutions that rely on cyber resilience
systems and controls to protect intellectual property,
information assets and business continuity. Supporting them
are regulators who develop the policies to facilitate and
defend technology, law enforcement agencies, and industry
associations that work to share information and improve
institutional security.
Defying all of them are cyberattackers, with a wide range of
motives and sophisticated tools to access or disrupt cyber
services. Criminals pursue financial gain through online fraud
or theft of identity. State-sponsored actors engage in online
espionage and sabotage. Competitors steal intellectual
property or interrupt business to grab advantage. Online
“hactivists” pierce firewalls to disturb functions or make
political statements. Often, insiders help the external
attackers or initiate their own attacks, worsening the odds for
institutions.
Eliminating threats from sophisticated malevolent players is
impossible. Other factors also complicate the response.
Open and interconnected technology environments make
historic “protect the perimeter” strategies insufficient and, in
many cases, counter-productive. As mentioned earlier, much
of the damage is caused by inadequate response to the
breach, rather than the breach itself. Moreover, mitigating the
impact of attacks and ruptures often implies complicated
trade-offs between risk reduction and business impact.
Large institutions struggle with cyber resilience decisions
because quantifying risks and its alleviation is difficult, and
getting executive engagement on trade-offs is practically
impossible.
Cyber resilience is the successful mitigation of the strategic
and economic impacts of cyberattacks, and is based on
cybersecurity capabilities. This chapter assesses the options
for participants in the security ecosystem to increase cyber
resilience. These findings are gleaned from the workshops
held over 2013 and the interviews with more than 200
industry leaders in seven sectors across the Americas,

Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and Asia.2 The
workshops and interviews focused on three topics:
practitioner views on the importance of cyber risks; the
impact of attacks on businesses, the effect of cyber risks on
investment in research and development (R&D) and efforts to
mitigate risk; and potential mitigating actions. The interviews
were augmented with survey data that compared cyber
resilience capability in large firms with best practices across
multiple sectors and regions. Some critical findings from the
research include:
1. For most companies across sectors and regions,
cyber resilience is a strategic risk
The workshop and interview sessions found that European
companies are slightly more concerned than their American
counterparts about cyber resilience. The research also
indicated that as awareness has grown, chief information
officers (CIOs) and chief technology officers (CTOs) are just as
concerned as chief Information security officer (CISOs).
Practitioners believe cyberattacks are a greater risk than
other types of technology risks. Some executives found
internal threats to be as big a risk as external attacks (see
Figure 2).
Financial institutions are particularly sensitive — about 80% of
them believe cyber resilience is a “strategic risk”, compared
with roughly half of other institutions. “The issue is coming
earlier in the conversation,” says the chief executive officer
(CEO) of a high-tech vendor. “Before, we may not have
covered it until the end of the meeting; now it is the first or
second thing companies are asking us about.” (See Figure 3.)
The nature of the threat is heavily dependent on sector.
“Product” companies, such as those in high technology, are
most concerned about industrial espionage. “Services”
companies focus on the loss and release of personally
identifiable information and service disruption. Concern also
exists over interference with business operations over time.
For product companies, the leaking of proprietary knowledge
about production processes may be more damaging than
leaks of product specifications, given the pervasiveness of
“tear down” techniques and legal protection for product
designs.


11

Figure 2: Cyberattacks Are More of a Risk

Interview question: What type of technology risks are most likely to have a strategic and negative
impact on your business?
% of respondents who rated response 1-2 on scale of 5
Most frequent response

Responses by sector

Aggregate
responses
1 Malicious attack, instigated
by someone external to
your institution

37

2 Malicious attack, instigated
by someone internal to
your institution
3 Disaster (e.g. fire,
flood, earthquake)

4 Poorly designed
application code

5 Inadequate quality in
technology operations

Banking

39

28

9

15

41

5

11

16

High-tech

36

26

8

12

Healthcare

30

9

36

20

15

9

Insurance

15

20

29

0

14

21

Respondents from High-tech and insurance sectors are more
concerned about inadequate quality in technology operations
Source: Industry leader interviews; team analysis, World Economic Forum and McKinsey & Company

12


Figure 3: Overwhelming Majority of Financial Institutions
Consider Cybersecurity to be a Strategy Risk

Interview question: How would you describe your level of concern about intentional internal or external
threats to the confidentiality, integrity & availability of your company’s data and information systems?
% of respondents

Aggregate
responses
1 The risks of cyberattacks are
over-blown. Our institution has
the issue well in hand

1

Banking

Healthcare

0

2 Cyberattacks are a normal risk
of doing business. It is one
business risk among many
that we must manage

30

3 The risk of cyberattack is a
significant issue that could have
major strategic implications over
the next 5 years
4 The risk of cyberattack is an
existential one for us. It could
turn out our lights sometime in
the next 5 years

Responses by sector

7

20

58

10

0

45

80

0

High-tech

0

33

45

9

Insurance

50

47

13

50

0

Majority of respondents from banks (20-30% more than other
sectors) view cyberattacks as having major strategic implications
Source: Industry leader interviews; team analysis, World Economic Forum and McKinsey & Company


13

Thinking about Risks
On June 11-12, 2013, over 100 participants gathered at the
World Economic Forum’s headquarters in Geneva to discuss
strategic risks.
As part of the programme, the Partnership for Cyber
Resilience hosted two breakout sessions on:
- Macroeconomic trends in the cyber ecosystem
- Potential solution sets for individual institutions and
systemically
As sample set of macroeconomic drivers and trends were
established as part of the scenario develop process and
included:
- Motivations, such as level of distrust, interstate tensions,
corporate IP theft and deterrents to cyber crime
- Mechanisms, including the democratization of technology
and the balance between offensive and defensive
technology
- Mitigations, such as the sophistications of institutions,
interstate cooperation and sophistication of users
The group also began to explore potential solution sets
aligned against the three priority areas that were
recommended during the previous year:
- Information sharing
- Critical infrastructure
- Policy development
The community used this opportunity to begin to consider
components of a potential next generation cyber operating
model.

Jeff Moss, Vice-President and Chief Security Officer, ICANN

Guha Ramasubramanian, Head, Business Development, Wipro

Rod Beckstrom, Chief Security Advisor, Samsung

14


Michael Fertik, CEO and Founder, Reputation.com

2. Executives believe they are losing ground
to attackers
Equally worrisome, a large majority of participants in the
interviews and workshops believe that attackers will continue
to increase their lead over defenders. About 69% of
interviewees say that the sophistication or pace of attackers
will increase quicker than the ability of institutions to defend.
“[The attackers] need to get lucky once and have the ability to
evolve so rapidly,” says an executive in the pharmaceuticals
sector. “Our large company just isn’t agile enough to match
[their] pace.” Of particular concern is the dissemination of
sophisticated hacking and attack programs. To date, state
entities have managed to control attack programs aimed at
disrupting their victims’ operations and activities. But
executives worry that such programs will make their way to a
wider variety of attackers with more destructive intent. Says
the CISO of a hospital network: “It is the ultra silent spyware
and sophisticated attackers that have been the real threat to
us. We just don’t have the resources to counter what is next.”
(See Figure 4.)

3. Large companies lack the facts and
processes to make effective decisions about
cyber resilience
A survey conducted in parallel to augment the interviews
points to gaps across sectors in current risk management
capabilities. Of the 100 companies whose cyber risk
management processes were examined, 90% had “nascent”
or “developing” risk management capabilities. Only 21% were
rated “mature” or better on four or more of the eight practice
areas studied. (See Figure 5.)
Institutions can be segmented based on the sophistication of
their risk management capabilities and the scale of their
cyber resilience expenditure. Spending and enterprise
maturity are not correlated, however. “Unprotected”
companies spend little and spend it poorly. Others punch
above their weight by spending little but doing a better job of
risk management. Still others, the “well-protected”, spend
vigorously and have relatively good capabilities for extracting
value from their investment. Finally, some seem to throw
resources at the problem, spending a great deal without
much risk management sophistication. (See Figure 6.)

Figure 4: Majority of executives believe attackers will increase lead ver defenders.
o
Interview question: How do you believe the relative level of sophistication will evolve for your institution
compared to potential attackers over the course of the next 5 years?
% of respondents

Aggregate
responses
1 We will increase our
sophistication more
quickly than the attacks,
making us safer

6

2 We will continue to
maintain parity with
attackers – the level of
risk will remain the same

8

Banking

Healthcare

0

3 The sophistication or pace of
attackers will increase somewhat more quickly than our own
– risk will increase somewhat
4 The sophistication or pace of
attackers will increase much
more quickly than our own –
risk will increase dramatically

Responses by sector

0

13

71

14

Insurance

13

0

14

69

17

High-tech

82

18

14

0

50

25

71

14

Relatively high proportion of respondents from healthcare sector
believe that sophistication or pace of attack will increase
Source: Industry leader interviews; team analysis, World Economic Forum and McKinsey Company

15

Figure 5: Majority of firms have nascent or developing
cyber risk management capabilities

Distribution of overall cyber risk management maturity scores [1-4]
% of firms
45

Only 21% of respondents
were rated “mature” or
better on 4 or more of
the 8 practice areas
– Only 5% rated “mature”
or better overall
– No organizations at top
overall rating of “robust”
• Only one respondent was
“mature” or better in every
practice area
• 34% of respondents were
“nascent” or “developing”
in at least 4 of 8 areas
•

34

16
5
0
2
1

1

2.0 – 2.5

2.5 – 3.0
2

3.0 – 3.95

3.95

3

4

Nascent
Best effort based evaluation and mitigation of
cyber risks
• No defined single point of accountability nor a
clearly defined escalation path to top management

3

•

2

Developing
Mostly qualitative framework for evaluating and
mitigating cyber risks
• Overall consistent governance model and known
single point of accountability in each BU with a
defined reporting line to top management
•

Source: McKinsey Cyber Risk Maturity Survey (CRMS)

16


Mature
Quantitative approach for evaluating and
qualitative approach for mitigating cyber risks
• Defined cybersecurity governance model with a
single point of accountability within a BU that owns
the risks and decision-making
•

4

Robust
Robust quantitative approach for evaluating and
mitigating cyber risks
• Clearly identified individuals accountable for
cybersecurity of each asset
•

Figure 6: Cybersecurity Maturity

Cybersecurity maturity

Most capability
Median = 3%

3.5
Punching above
their weight

Well protected or
highly concerned?

3.0

2.5
Median = 2.4
2.0

1.5
Throwing resources
at the problem

The unprotected
1.0
1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Least capability

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

IT security spend as a proportion of total IT spend, %

Source: McKinsey Cyber Risk Maturity Survey (CRMS)


17

The workshops and other research found that banking is
slightly more mature than other sectors in cyber resilience
capabilities. The largest companies across sectors also are
slightly more mature than smaller ones. Variations within a
sector and a size band are much larger than variations
between sectors and between size bands. Even the largest
firms have substantial room for improvement. For example,
while financial services organizations tend to be more mature
than other sectors, senior non-technical executives still
struggle to incorporate cyber risk management into
enterprise risk management discussions, and often are
unable to make informed decisions because of lack of data.

4. Concerns about cyberattacks are starting to
have measurable negative business
implications in some areas
Speed, mobility and collaboration are the hallmarks of the
successful company in the digital age. But as cyberattacks
proliferate, executives have to devote more attention to
protecting vulnerable operations, often by imposing controls
that create friction in critical functions. So far, cyberattacks
appear to have had only a limited impact on RD plans,
except at high-tech firms. Only about 25% of surveyed
executives in banking and healthcare, and 17% in insurance,
say that they would have to change the nature of their RD
investments to retain their value in the face of cyberattacks
even if their underlying intellectual property is stolen. In the
high-tech sector, fully half say they would have to change the
nature of their RD efforts over time.
Concern is apparent, however, about cyberattacks slowing
value capture from cloud computing, mobile technologies
and some healthcare technologies. About 78% of companies
surveyed say security concerns delayed adoption of public
cloud computing by a year or more, and 43% note that such
concerns delayed enterprise mobility capabilities by a year or
more. “We have started to experiment with mobile devices,”
says the chief security officer (CSO) of a financial institution.

Solution building with public and private institutions
On December 12th, 2013, the initiative hosted 30
representatives of the public and private sector to
discuss and finalize a set of areas of action at the US
Department of Homeland Security. As part of the
discussion, the group discussed four main buckets:
– Institutional actions
– International and public policy
– Community
– Systemic
Participants outlined specific recommendations within
each of the categories including:

18


“However, the delay has been mainly because there are too
many potential threats.” In healthcare, concerns about cyber
resilience are not delaying the adoption of most technologies,
though large hospital networks report that security issues
have led to postponing the introduction of connected medical
devices by up to a year. “Most devices have no security
applications on them at all,” says another hospital’s CISO.
“Anyone can just get in and manipulate whatever they want.”
Cyber resilience controls are having a significant impact on
front-line productivity. About half of companies overall said
that controls had at least a moderate impact on end-use
productivity. Half of the high-tech executives cited existing
controls as “a major pain point” for users and as limiting the
ability of employees to collaborate. (See Figure 7.)
Actual spending on cyber resilience may also be much higher
than most executives assume, the research indicates.
“Indirect” spending on information technology (IT) security to
adjust to new risks and provide ongoing responses to cyber
risks may be a significant cost driver for IT organizations.
Direct IT security spending ranged from 2% to 10% of total IT
spend in the companies researched. But chief Internet
strategy officers estimated incremental activity driven by
security requirements at between 2% and 25% of total IT
spend.
In general, insurance and healthcare executives believe they
spend too little on cybersecurity. Banking and high-tech
executives say their spending on cybersecurity is about right.
(See Figure 8.)

5. Substantial actions are required from all
players in the cyber resilience ecosystem
It is broadly agreed that to reduce the overall level of threat
from cyberattacks the biggest impact would come from a
combination of efforts involving policy-makers, industry
associations such as the Financial Services Informationsharing Analysis Center and individual institutions.
(See Figure 9.)

–

–

–

–

The need for all institutions to improve their
institutional capabilities through an agreed upon set
of next generation operating model principles,
A need for public sector organizations to work to
harmonize action and policy both within their
institutions but also globally,
The importance of a common global language when
discussing cyber risks and for collective actions for
the public good,
and, the need to explore potential systemic changes
to the way risks are mitigated and accounted for in
the global marketplace.
These amongst other conversations served as the
basis for the framework for collaborative actions.

Figure 7: Impact of Cybersecurity Controls on Front-line Productivity

Interview question: How much impact do controls related to cybersecurity (e.g. document encryption,
limitations placed on use of mobile devices) have on front-line productivity?
% of respondents

Aggregate
responses

Responses by sector
Banking

Healthcare

High-tech

Insurance

1 No impact
37

37

41

17

38

2 Moderate impact
51

3 It is a major pain point for our
users and limits the ability of
our people to collaborate

12

47

16

53

6

33

62

50

0

Respondents from high-tech sector greatly differed from the respondents from all the other sectors.
They were relatively more concerned about the adverse effect on productivity due to controls


19

Figure 8: Spending on Cybersecurity

Interview question: What is your perspective on how much your company spends on cybersecurity,
given current level of maturity?
% of respondents

Aggregate
responses

Responses by sector
Banking

Healthcare

High-tech

Insurance

1 Significantly too little
38

31

56

17

38

2 About right
46

56

33

67

25

3 Significantly too much
0

4 Not sure – it’s impossible
to say

0

16

Respondents from healthcare sectors indicate
that they spend too little on cybersecurity

0

13

0

11


17

38

Respondents from banking and high-tech sectors
indicate that they spend about right on cybersecurity


20

0

Figure 9: Combination of Efforts Would Be Most Useful

Interview question: Who could have the most impact in reducing overall level of threat associated with
cyberattacks in your sector?
% of respondents

Aggregate
responses

Responses by sector
Banking

Healthcare

High-tech

Insurance

1 Law enforcement
11

14

0

0

0

2 Regulators and policy-makers
23

3 Industry and cross-industry
associations and standards
groups
4 Individual companies and
institutions

21

32

14

36

16

21

25

71

0

13

25

25

0

38

5 Technology vendors
18

Respondents from insurance sector
indicated that individual companies and
institutions may have the highest impact

7

14

50

25

Respondents from high-tech sector and from
largest corporations ($50B market cap)
across industries indicated that technology
vendors may have highest impact



21

But considerable disagreement exists about how such a
consensus could take shape. Relationships between private
and public institutions are unformed in many cases.
Consensus is limited across industries, and across the private
and public sectors. Insurance executives indicate that
individual companies and institutions may have the strongest
impact in fending off cyber risks. Respondents from the
high-tech sector and from the largest corporations – those
with a market cap of more than US$50 billion – indicate that
technology vendors may be in a position to have the
strongest impact.
Similarly, the perception of regulation varies widely,
depending on sector. Consensus is lacking on which publicsector actions would be most beneficial. Executives worry
that broad agreement regulations can lock in outdated
techniques, and that regulators lack the skills and capabilities
to provide effective input. Financial-services technology
executives say that regulation is actively harmful because it
forces a focus on the wrong things. Yet a large proportion of
respondents from the healthcare and insurance sectors view
regulations as helpful in managing cyber resilience.
Healthcare technology executives say regulation is not ideal
but remains valuable because it compels senior management
to commit attention and resources to security issues.
“Institutionally, we can take all the actions we want but the
threat will only be reduced when governments and law

22


enforcement agencies are able to take action,” says the CISO
of a pharmaceutical company. (See Figure 10.)
Traditional approaches also appear increasingly ineffective. In
most cases businesses rely mainly on passive measures,
typically addressing issues only after they have arisen.
Business partners are not sufficiently involved, and policing
and application of cyber resilience lack consistent rigour.
Responses are often backward looking, require specialized
talent that is costly and hard to find, and rely mostly on
technology solutions, even though sophisticated agents often
attack the weakest link: customers and employees.
Still, the research finds near universal agreement among
CSOs, CTOs and CISOs that a step-change improvement is
needed in their own capabilities to protect their businesses
from increasingly sophisticated cyber threats, enable
productivity and innovation, and maintain a competitive cost
position. Says the CISO of a global bank: “You have some at
the top and some that are clueless, but the bulk are in the
middle and they are behind” (i.e. below the median). Adds the
cyber resilience chief of a national law enforcement agency:
“Some businesses have really improved their position, but
more need to take [cyber resilience] as a business issue
overall and really need to improve their resilience.”

Figure 10: Impact of Cyber Resilience

Interview question: What impact does government regulation have on your ability to manage
cybersecurity related risks?
% of respondents

Aggregate
responses

Responses by sector
Banking

Healthcare

High-tech

Insurance

1 No/Limited impact
12

2 On balance it encourages
us to be more secure in a
helpful way

32

3 It requires a lot of time and
effort, but does not really
make us more secure

4 It makes us less secure by
requiring actions that do
not make sense or taking
resources away from
higher priority actions

13

27

19

40

16

0

45

44

25

0

9

63

36

45

18

18

37

0

Large proportion of respondents from healthcare and insurance
sectors view regulations as helpful in managing cybersecurity


23

Scenarios testing at the Annual Meeting
of the New Champions
During the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting of New
Champions 2013 in Dalian, People’s Republic of China,
senior business leaders and executives convened at a private
session to explore current and future potential drivers and
trends that will define the cyber ecosystem. They also took a
look at how each of the drivers would come together to form
four potential scenarios by 2020:
- Scenario A: Cyber threats increase, but sophistication of
institutions does not. Businesses continue to reach the
way they have in the past and the attack vendors continue
to group together and increase in their relative
sophistication.
- Scenario B: Fears about cyber security slow down
cooperation and trust. Sophisticated attack vectors are
disseminated to a wider range of actors with some
harboring truly destructive intent. This ripples into
implications for consumer purchasing habits, limiting
business strategies and severely inhibiting government
regulations
-

Scenario C: Technology and security become enablers
to growth. Governments come together in the face of an
ever increasing threat to facilitate the dramatic uplift in
institutional capability and international cooperation.

-

Participants of the Partnership for Cyber Resilience session

Scenario D: After destructive attacks, public-private
cooperation is improved, but consumer trust is eroded. A
series of highly visible, destructive attacks shake the
bedrock of consumer purchasing habits, forcing
businesses to shift the way the act.

Participants discussed the implications of each of the
scenarios. Some of the themes that emerged included:
- A push for new and innovative solutions from third party
vendors to help combat newer and more sophisticated
threats
- A need to reformulate business strategy to consider
changes ranging from countries in which companies feel
comfortable operating in to the way they connected with
consumers
- A need for greater regional and international cooperation
- between nations to align regulations as well as prosecute
criminals
- Opportunities will emerge for new businesses in insurance
or risk markets to help businesses mitigate the potential
downside from cyber risks

Christopher Mondini, Vice-President, Stakeholder Engagement, North
America Global Business Engagement, ICANN
Scott David, Executive Director, Law, Technology and Arts Group,
University of Washington
Peter Schwartz, Senior Vice-President, Global Government Relations,
Salesforce

Christophe Nicolas, Senior Vice-President, Kudelski Group

24


Figure 11: Two Primary Drivers in Defining Future Scenarios
Drivers identified through interviews
Growth of attack surfaces
Ease of use of attack technologies
• Proliferation of attack tools
• Sophistication of attackers and attack tools
• Increased use of digital technologies
• Availability of economic opportunities in
developed and developing world
• Sophistication of defense professionals
and “white-hat hackers”
• Ease of use of defense tools
• Sophistication of defense tools
• Pace of defense technology innovation
• State intervention in internet governance
• International cooperation in fighting cybercrime
• Ability of government to enforce cybercrime laws
• Facilitation of public-private, private-private
information and technology sharing
• Government’s ability to protect critical infrastructure
• Acceptance of cyber as a tool/object of
international affairs
• Sophistication of government policies
and regulations
• Investment in education of end-users (awareness)
• Consumer fear and confidence in governments
and private institutions

Prioritized drivers

•
•

Growth of attack surfaces
Ease of use of attack
technologies
• Proliferation of attack tools
• Sophistication of attackers
and attack tools
•
•

Ease of use of defense tools
Pace of defense
technology innovation
• International cooperation
in fighting cybercrime
• Ability of government to
enforce cybercrime laws
• Facilitation of public-private,
private-private information
and technology sharing

A Pace of increase in
intensity of threat

•
•

B Pace of increase in
quality of response
• Private institution
response
• Public sector response

Source: Team analysis, World Economic Forum and McKinsey Company


25

Figure 12: Alternative Future Scenarios for 2020

Minimal increase

Pace of
increase
in intensity
of threat

Description
1 Muddling into the future

Pace of increase in quality
of response
Private
institutions

Public
sector

Attack tools proliferate leading
to widespread and highly public
attacks, governments react by
enforcing tighter controls

3 Cyber resilience
accelerates digitization

Step change

Attackers retain an advantage
over defenders who continue
to respond to threats reactively,
albeit successfully

2 Backlash decelerates
digitization

Moderate increase

Defensive capabilities dramatically
improve significantly reducing fears
of major cybersecurity events

Chapter 3. Future Scenarios
Source: McKinsey Company

The range of factors shaping the cyber resilience environment
is vast, as the workshop sessions found. An analysis of
possible outcomes must take into account a considerable
degree of uncertainty. That said, scenario planning provides
various potential ways in which the environment could
develop.
On the future landscape of cyber resilience, the various
dialogues identified dozens of shaping elements. These
included such different drivers as the proliferation of attack
tools, investment in educating end-users, international
cooperation in fighting cybercrime, and the availability of
economic opportunities in the developed and developing
world. From this assortment, priority areas were distilled, and
two essential drivers were defined of the future cyber
resilience environment: pace of increase in the intensity of the
cyber threat; and pace of increase in the quality of response
from private institutions and the public sector. (See Figure 11.)
A secure, robust cyber resilience environment spanning the
public and private sectors would enable business and
technology innovations, such as cloud computing and mobile
Internet, to create between US$ 9.6 trillion and US$ 21.6
trillion in economic value between now and the end of this
26


decade. But if that secure environment fails to materialize
because rapidly increasing cyberattacks are met with less
rapidly increasing defence capabilities, a backlash against
digitization could leave as much as US$ 3.06 trillion of that
value unrealized. Judging from the interviews and workshops,
the executives believe that society is headed towards such a
scenario, and that many components of that outcome are
already beginning to materialize.
From this base and other extensive workshop sessions, three
alternative future scenarios for 2020 have been created. The
scenarios put cyber threats in sharper relief and form an
economic value model that could be either achieved or
threatened by an evolving cyber resilience ecosystem (see
Figure 12). The three scenarios are:
-
-

-

Scenario One: Muddling into the future
Scenario Two: Backlash against digitization, prompted by
proliferating cyberattacks
Scenario Three: Accelerated digitization thanks to robust
cyber resilience

Scenario One: Muddling into the
Future
In this baseline scenario, attackers retain an advantage over
defenders who continue to respond to threats reactively,
albeit successfully. The level of threat rises incrementally, and
a greater sophistication of attack tools consistently leaves
defenders trailing. Institutions implement more stringent
controls, but government intervention remains fragmented.
No powerful international bodies emerge to coordinate the
fight against cyber threats through the sharing of information
and knowledge on attacker locations, intentions and
strategies. Few cross-industry associations are effective in
facilitating such exchanges.
At the operating level in this scenario, most business
decisions likely are made without factoring in cyber resilience.
Leaders continue to lack a clear grasp of the magnitude and
nature of cyber threats. Senior business executives and
company boards rarely engage with CISOs to consider the
implications of business decisions on cyber resilience.
Fragmented security solutions create operational
inefficiencies such as slower transaction times. On the one
hand, the potential advancement of new cyber defence
technologies could hold out the opportunity for improved
future security. On the other hand, fears of cyber resilience
risks stemming from new business and technology
innovations likely significantly delays adoption of those
technologies, perhaps slowing global economic growth.

Scenario Two: Backlash Decelerates
Digitization
In this second scenario, the frequency and severity of attacks
is significantly increased, and international cooperation in
combating the proliferation of attack tools and knowledge
eludes efforts to bolster defences. More attacks aim to
destabilize services (such as national payment networks)
provided by private- and public-sector institutions.
Government cyber resilience regulations become increasingly
directive, forcing strict industry- and country-specific
compliance to complex new mandates. Governments raise
barriers to cross-border flows of information and technology.
Defence takes the form of siloed initiatives and limited
information-sharing. Consumers become increasingly
cautious, curtailing use of mobile technologies for banking
and other services.
Company operations under this scenario feel more exposed
and restricted. As attacks escalate, cyber resilience teams
increasingly deploy systems with inherent vulnerabilities, thus
playing “catch-up” with attackers. Responses are hampered
by a lack of institutional knowledge-sharing. Stringent
security measures limit enterprise productivity and hinder
innovation. Fears of cyber risks significantly delay the
adoption of new business and technology innovations. Over
time, the higher barriers to cross-border movement of
information and technology hamper the efficiency of world
trade and corporate resource allocation.

Scenario Three: Cyber Resilience
Accelerates Digitization
In this third scenario, proactive public- and private-sector
action limits the proliferation of attack tools, builds institutional
capabilities, and stimulates innovation and economic
efficiency. Formalized national cyber resilience legislation is

paired with international collaboration to investigate and
prosecute cyberattacks. International government
coordination strengthens trust among individual institutions,
allowing the establishment of stronger standards, greater
cross-border collaboration and information exchange.
International bodies emerge to coordinate the battle against
cyber threats, leading to a more integrated global defence.
Institutional capabilities grow, information exchange
increases, and the adoption of innovative technologies
accelerates.
This scenario offers a vital cyber resilience ecosystem that
enables and connects company operations. Senior
executives and company boards tap into expanding
collaboration between public and private entities. Cyber
resilience becomes more important on the C-suite agenda,
and executives actively engage with CISOs on the
implications of business decisions on cyber resilience, such
as entry into new markets or outsourcing agreements. More
sophisticated cyber resilience practices and technologies
allow institutions to contain emerging threats. Enhanced
defences against cyber breaches permit companies to
connect more effectively with customers. Companies and
consumers adopt innovations more quickly and freely.
Information moves more easily across borders, enhancing
the efficiency of trade and resource allocation.

Applying the Scenarios
The output of the research and extensive partner workshops
builds upon the work of the McKinsey Global Institute (see
box) and other earlier efforts. It applies the three scenarios,
estimating for each the economic value to be realized or lost
as cyber resilience readiness affects adoption of business
and technology innovations. Overall, it is estimated that these
technologies represent between US$ 9.6 trillion and US$
21.6 trillion in potential value creation by 2020. Yet even in the
baseline scenario, in which the intensity and pace of
cyberattacks increase only incrementally, the executives
interviewed expect significant delays in implementing many of
the most valuable business and technology innovations. (See
Figure 13.)
In 2012 the McKinsey Global Institute set out to identify the
technologies that over the next decade would truly matter to
business leaders as they planned strategies, and to policymakers as they tried to understand how technology would
shape the global economy and society. The research
focused on the speed, scope and economic value at stake
from a dozen economically disruptive technologies — among
them, cloud technology, the mobile Internet, and the
networks of low-cost sensors and data collection and
monitoring, commonly referred to as the “Internet of Things.”
MGI Disruptive Technologies report 2012
Calculated across the full range of some of these innovations,
the risk of delays to adoption due to cyber threats could carry
a high price tag for the global economy. In the scenario in
which private and public institutions “muddle” into the future,
the shortfall in estimated value created by 2020 could reach
as high as US$ 1 trillion. And in the scenario where the
private- and public-sector response to cyberattacks prompts
a backlash against digitization, the impact on the global
economy could amount to as much as US$ 3.06 trillion in
unrealized value creation, or 14% of the total potential value
creation of those technologies. (See Figure 14.)


27

Figure 13: Potential Impact of Cybersecurity Risks to Global Economy

Impacted by cybersecurity risks

Business
technology
innovations

Description

Cloud technology

Use of computer hardware and software
resources delivered over a network or
the internet, often as a service

Internet of things

Mobile internet

Networks of low-cost sensors and
actuators for data collection, monitoring
decision-making, and process optimization
Increasingly inexpensive and capable
mobile computing devices and
internet connectivity

Rapid entry into
new markets1

Technologically enabled entrance into
new geographies

Automation of
knowledge work

Social networks, commerce, shared
workspaces, media and file sharing,
crowd-sourcing, social gaming

Estimated delay
by interviewees
Months

2,700

1,020

1,550

1,330

11.4

3,720

2,150

1,600

3,750

5.1

4.7

2,880

170

Intelligent software systems that can perform
knowledge work tasks involving unstructured
commands and subtle judgements

Social technologies

Estimated value
created by 2020
USD Billion

3.8

220
50
2,500

750

720 3,220

2.9

2.6

1,100
350

Buying and selling of goods and
services over the Internet

270
510
240

Autonomous nearautonomous vehicles

Vehicles that can navigate and operate
with reduced or no human intervention

120

Next-generation
genomics

Fast, low-cost gene sequencing,
advanced big data analytics, and
synthetic biology (“writing” DNA)

Advanced robotics

Increasingly capable robots with enhanced
senses, dexterity, and intelligence used
to automate tasks or augment humans

E-commerce1

2.2

1.7

1,020 1,140
420

1.3

960
540
1,020

Devices or systems that store energy for
later use, including batteries

140
330
190

Materials designed to have superior
characteristics (e.g., strength, weight,
conductivity) or functionality
Exploration and recovery techniques
that make extraction of unconventional
oil and gas economical

Renewable energy

Generation of electricity from renewable
sources with reduced harmful
climate impact

60
280
220
100

0

90

Advanced oil and gas
exploration recovery

2,700

50

Additive manufacturing techniques to
create objects by printing layers of
material based on digital models

1,680

Energy storage

3D printing

Advanced materials

380
330

300
210

170
70

0

0

0

0

0

Total value: $9,630–21,630B
1Estimated

does not include consumer surplus

Source: MGI disruptive technologies, social economy Internet Matters reports, UNCTAD direct investment, IMF global GDP, McKinsey
Economic Analytics Platform, Industry leader interviews (100+)
28


Figure 14: Framework for Collaborative Action

Impacted by cybersecurity risks

Impact of alternative future scenarios

$ Billion
Est. value created by 2020
Business technology
innovation total
Cloud technology
Internet of things

Muddling

Backlash

9,630-21,630

(410)–(1,020)

(1,230)–(3,060) Full value
captured

(130)–(470)4

(390)–(1,410)4

-

(90)–(210)

(270)–(630)

-

(70)–(150)

(210)–(450)

-

(10)

(20)–(40)

-

(80)–(100)

(240)–(310)

-

(20)–(30)

(70)–(100)

-

(10)

(20)–(40)

-

(20)

(10)–(70)

-

(10)

(20)–(40)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1902

-

-

-

2102

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,7002

1,020

2,1502

1,600

Mobile internet

1,330

Rapid entry into
new markets

170

501

Automation of
knowledge work
Social technologies
E-commerce
Autonomous nearautonomous vehicles
Next-generation
genomics
Advanced robotics
Energy storage

2,500
750
270

2401
120

1,0202
420 5402
1,020
50
140

Advanced materials

90

Renewable energy

7202

3503

3D printing

Advanced oil and gas
exploration recovery

1,5502

60
100

1,6802
3302

2202
702

Cyber resilience

1Estimate

does not include consumer surplus; based on IMF: April 2013 WEO data MGI Internet Matters report; May 2011
on MGI Disruptive Technologies projections for 2025 assuming linear ramp-up from mid-2013 to 2025 and scaling back to 2020
on MGI Social Economy projections for mid-2012, extrapolated to 2020 based on 10-year average world GDP growth rate 2.6%
480% of impact for cloud is due to delayed adoption of public cloud
2Based
3Based

Source: MGI disruptive technologies, social economy Internet Matters reports, UNCTAD direct investment, IMF global GDP, McKinsey
Economic Analytics Platform, Industry leader interviews (100+)


29

Example. Consider cloud computing. In a best-case
scenario, in which a solid cyber resilience ecosystem
accelerates digitization, the private and public sectors see
greater use of public cloud technologies, with enhanced
security capabilities for non-critical workloads. Better use of
private clouds handles critical workloads. Both public and
private clouds continue to offer similar features. Enhanced
security for private clouds comes at minimal performance
penalty, and at a more noticeable performance penalty for
public clouds. Under this case, cloud computing has the
potential to create US$ 3.72 trillion in value by 2020.
In the baseline “muddling into the future” scenario, however, a
different norm governs cloud computing’s activity and
economic potential. Use of public cloud technologies for
non-critical workloads grows, as does use of private clouds
for critical workloads. But fear of data breaches hampers use
of public clouds for critical workloads. Delayed adoption of
cloud computing means that between US$ 130 billion and
US$ 470 billion of potential economic value remains
unrealized.

30


Similarly, in the second scenario in which stepped-up
cyberattacks, security gaps and a resulting rise in regulations
create a backlash against digitization, public clouds are
underutilized due to fears of vulnerabilities and higher costs
from compliance with stricter policies on third- party access
to data and systems. Achieving the full value potential of
cloud computing is postponed by three years, and falls short
by as much as US$ 1.4 trillion.
In coming years, annual spending on cyber resilience is likely
to rise, from US$ 69 billion in 2013 to US$ 123 billion annually
in 2020. But the extent of the increase and the return on
investment will vary. In the best-case scenario, spending
swells 13%, to US$ 139 billion annually, as public and private
sectors lift defensive capabilities. In the worst-case scenario,
in which US$ 3 trillion of potential economic value is
unrealized, global spending nonetheless climbs 28% above
the baseline scenario, to US$ 157 billion annually, as attacks
step up and governments force compliance with increasingly
complex regulations.

Chapter 4. Conclusions and
Roadmap for Collaborative
Action
The Forum’s Partnership for Cyber Resilience, launched in
2012, recognizes the interdependence of public- and privatesector organizations in today’s global, hyperconnected
environment. Companies participating in this community-led
initiative understand the importance of integrating cyber risk
management into their day-to-day operations and of sharing
information on threats and vulnerabilities.
As part of its multistakeholder dialogue across regions and
sectors, the partnership also accepts that no static, universal
set of actions can address the rapidly evolving environment of
cyber risks. The community-led partnership has developed
guidelines and principles for companies to build effective
cyber risk management programmes. Included in the initiative
is a framework tool for chief executive officers and other
leaders to pilot internal reviews of their organizations’ cyber
resilience capabilities. The tool offers a rough composite
score to locate the organization on the five stages of a
“hyperconnection readiness curve”. (See Figure 15.)
Against this curve leaders can aspire to select from a range of
high-value responses to build a robust cyber resilience
capability, and benchmark their institutions against best
practice. The framework also can prompt discussion about
the necessary steps to climb the maturity scale, the attributes
against which to set goals, and the actions required to spur
cooperation in building a stronger cyber resilience
ecosystem. Finally, the framework can serve as a
collaborative tool, providing a resource for member
organizations through links to existing best practices and
specialized organizations such as Interpol and Europol. The
maturity-curve framework is a critical starting point for
companies to position themselves on the scale of cyber
resilience readiness, and the actions they can take to
improve.

The next phase is to transform the static framework into a
community-driven, self-sustaining online conversation. In this
way, partners can facilitate the collection and synthesis of
cyber resilience expertise across industries, sectors and
regions.
With a core World Economic Forum team and its partners in
an enabling role, the initiative engages participants by first
locating their organizations on the cyber resilience readiness
curve. The five stages of readiness range from “unaware”
(companies that see cyber risk either as irrelevant or not part
of their risk management processes) to “fully networked”
(industry leaders in managing cyber risk). Organizations are
advised on the precise steps necessary to move from one
level to the next towards a vibrant networked approach to
cyber risk management.
As strengths and weaknesses are identified, partners are
encouraged to share their insights with one another and to
actively adapt, improve and build out this framework so that it
is broadly applicable and useful, regardless of sector or
region. Simultaneously, the core team will proactively solicit
input from partners who might have insights into specific
sectoral cyber risk issues and remedies. The team will serve
as a repository for those insights, which can then be used to
flesh out the framework in a structured way for broader
sharing. The idea is to create a continuous online feedback
loop of ever-expanding knowledge to build the framework
into a more precise barometer of an organization’s cyberreadiness and to expand the range of constructive actions
that public and private organizations can take to address
gaps. Concurrently, a number of tools focus on specific
components of the framework. The community is urged to
link to these resources rather than create a new set of action
items.
The Partnership for Cyber Resilience core team will organize
regional meetings, project meetings and working group calls
to launch and continue this community conversation, and
provide the online tools for engagement to partners.


31

Figure 15: Roadmap for Collaborative Action

Pillars

Maturity levels

Stage 1
1

Stage 2

Institutional readiness
Governance
• Program development
• Network development
•

Maturity levels: attributes
and recommendations

2

Public and international policy
• End-to-end criminal justice system
• Domestic policy and incentives
• Foreign policy
• Public goods
•

3

Community
Research
• Information sharing
• Knowledge transfer
• Community self-governance
• Shared resources for capability building
• Mutual aid
•

4

Systemic
Risk markets
• Embedded security
•

32


Stage 3

Stage 4

Stage 5

Potential recommendations

Maturity curve from current
Principles and Guidelines

Governance
Prioritize information assets based on business risks
• Integrate cyber resilience into enterprise-wide risk management and governance processes and responsibilities
• Led in practice and policy from top leadership
•

Provide differentiated protection based on importance of assets
Governance
• Develop deep integration of security into technology environment to drive scalability
• Prioritize information assets based on business risks
• Deploy active defenses to uncover attacks proactively
• Integrate cyber resilience into enterprise-wide risk management and governance processes and responsibilities
•
• Continuous testing to improve incident response
Led in practice and policy from top leadership
• Enlist front-line personnel – helping them understand value of information assets
• Provide differentiated protection based on importance of assets
• Develop deep integration of security into technology environment to drive scalability
• Have a comprehensive and transparent national cyber strategy which Is integrated with the strategies and procedures all policy domains
• Deploy active defenses to uncover attacks proactively
• Strategies should incorporate
• Continuous testing to improveprivate and civil sectors and should incorporate economic and security issues
incident response
• Establish a competent institution for the national strategy implementation and rollout
• Enlist front-line personnel – helping them understand value of information assets
•

Law enforcement has the
National cyber strategy capability and resources to investigate cyber crimes
•
• The state has an appropriate, comprehensive, and agile legal code forIs integrated with the strategies and procedures all policy domains
Have a comprehensive and transparent national cyber strategy which investigating and prosecuting cyber crimes
• Legal advocates understand the cybersecurity ecosystem well enough to carry out due process
• Strategies should incorporate private and civil sectors and should incorporate economic and security issues
•

Establish a policy and institution for the national strategy implementation and rollout
Domestic competent incentives
Private, public, and civil dialogue to develop appropriate coherent mix of policy and market mechanisms
•
• Governmental mechanisms support and enforcement’s efforts and is appropriately agile
Law enforcement has the capability law resources to investigate cyber crimes
•
•

•
•
•

The statepolicy appropriate, comprehensive, and agile legal code for investigating and prosecuting cyber crimes
Foreign has an
Legal advocates understand the cybersecurity ecosystem well enough to carry out due process
Establish a national cyber doctrine

Identify persons at the incentives
Domestic policy and local, state and national level responsible for cybersecurity
Establish formaland civil dialogue to develop appropriate coherent mix of policy and market mechanisms
Private, public, and informal channels of communication between law enforcement entities
Create interoperability amongst national enforcement’s efforts and is appropriately
Governmental mechanisms support law level entities responsible for cybersecurity agile
• Work to harmonize national and international policies surrounding the prosecution of cybercrime
• Foreign policy
Establish a multi-stakeholder approach towards governance on this issue
• Establish a national cyber doctrine
Public persons at the local, state and national level responsible for cybersecurity
• Identify good
•
• Ensuring evolving and robust channels of communication between law enforcement entities
Establish formal and informal incident response capability
• Increase investments in cybersecurity technical education
• Create interoperability amongst national level entities responsible for cybersecurity
• Fund
• Work a cybersecurity research agenda
to harmonize national and international policies surrounding the prosecution of cybercrime
• Provide “safe harbor” protection for limited sharing of information among and between companies and government
• Establish a multi-stakeholder approach towards governance on this issue
•
•
•
•
•

Public good
Research
Ensuring evolving and robust incident response capability
Increase education and cybersecurity technical education
Increase investments in awareness
• Fund a cybersecurityon enterprise and macroeconomic impact of cybersecurity to prioritize and focus policies
• Encourage research research agenda
• Create “safe harbor” protection for limited sharing is information
• Providean atmosphere in which white-hat research of encouragedamong and between companies and government
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Shared resource for capability building
Foster partnerships between governments and universities and private sector for skills development
Research
Increase education and awareness
Information sharing
Encourage research on enterprise find mechanisms for legal information sharing makes sense focus policies
Where legally feasible, institutions and macroeconomic impact of cybersecurity to prioritize and
Create an atmospherethewhich white-hat researchand other information sharing venues
Improve the quality of in ISACs/ CERTS/ CIERTs is encouraged
Promoteresource for capability building
Shared an interoperable, extensible and automated system for sharing
Provide common protocols to inform of information regarding cyber events
Foster partnerships between governments and universities and private sector for skills development

Information sharing
Risk markets
Where legally feasible, institutions find mechanisms for legal information sharing makes sense
Expand the quality of the ISACs/ CERTS/ CIERTs and other information sharing venues
Improve reach and breadth of cybersecurity insurance markets
• Promote an interoperable, extensible and automated system for sharing
Embedded security
• Provide common protocols to inform of information regarding cyber events
• Explore ways to create a more secure internet, e.g: The new HTTP 2.0 standard has built in security via encrypted data transfer.
•
•
•

•
•

Or by allowing ISPs to block computers that are participating in Botnets or are otherwise corrupted
Develop a methodology for quantifying the impact of cyber
Risk markets
Expand reach and breadth of cybersecurity insurance markets

Embedded security
Explore ways to create a more secure internet, e.g: The new HTTP 2.0 standard has built in security via encrypted data transfer.
Or by allowing ISPs to block computers that are participating in Botnets or are otherwise corrupted
• Develop a methodology for quantifying the impact of cyber
•


33

ICT Industry Team
Alan Marcus
Senior Director
ICT Industries
alan.marcus@weforum.org
Derek O’Halloran
Head of IT Industry
derek.ohalloran@weforum.org
Elena Kvochko
Manager, IT Industry
Partnership for Cyber Resilience
elena.kvochko@weforum.org
Roshan Vora
Project Manager
Risk and Responsibility in a
Hyperconnected World
roshan.vora@weforum.org
cyberresilience@weforum.org

34



35

Acknowledgements
We would like to sincerely thank our partners
for their valuable insights, thought-leadership,
contribution to this report and the overall support
of the Partnership for Cyber Resilience initiative

Rob Wainwright

Director,
Government
Relations

CA
Technologies

Director

Europol

Mustaque Ahamad Professor,
Computer
Science

ICANN

CEO

Aon GRIP
Solutions

Head, Cyber
Security

Bloomberg

Ray Stanton

Executive VicePresident

BT Global
Services

Mark Hughes

CEO

BT Security

Kirstjen Nielsen

Member

Catastrophic Risk
Global Agenda
Council, World
Economic Forum

Xiaodong Lee

CEO

China Internet
Network
Information
Center

Adam Golodner

Director, Global
Security and
Tech Policy

Cisco

Voelker Hinrich

Managing
Director

Deutsche Bank

Mark Clancy

Managing
Director,
Technology Risk
Management

DTCC

Georgia Institute
of Technology

Jeff Moss

Stephen Cross
Simon Gibson

Working Group
Claude Boudrias

Additional Contributors

Vice-President
and Chief
Security Officer

Christophe Nicolas Senior VicePresident, Head
of Kudlelski
Security

Kudelski Group

Haden Land

Lockheed
Martin

Vice-President,
Engineering

Belisario Contreras Program
Manager, Cyber
Security

Organization of
American States

JP Rangaswami

Chief Scientist

Salesforce

Rod Beckstrom

Chief Security
Advisor

Lindsey Held

Murat Sonmez

Samsung Group

Heli Tiirmaa-Klaar Head of
Cyber Policy
Coordination

European
External Action
Service

Vice-President,
Global
Government
Relations

SAP

Udo Helmbrecht

Executive
Director

European
Network
Information
Security Agency

Executive VicePresident, Global
Field Operations

Tibco Software

Tom Robson

Europol Cyber
Crime Center

Europol

Philip Verveer

Dmitriy
Ustyuzhanin

Chief Information
Security Officer

Vimpelcom

Senior Counselor, Federal
Office of the
Communications
Chairman
Commission

Julian Sevillano

Global Head,
Enterprise Risk
Management

Visa

Greg Schaffer


FIS

Matthew Fleming

Fellow

Georgetown
University

Jonathan Zittrain

Professor,
Internet Law

Harvard
University

Guha
Head, Business
Ramasubramanian Development

Wipro

Anne-Marie
Zielstra

TNO

36

Director,
International
Relations, Cyber
Resilience


Art Gilliland

John Suffolk

Senior Vice
HP
President and
General Manager,
Enterprise
Security Products
Senior ViceHuawei
President, Head
of Cyber Security

Patrick Jones

Senior Director,
Global
Stakeholder
Engagement

ICANN

Noboru Nakatani

Director

Interpol

Timur Tsoriev

Vice-President,
Government
and Strategic
Relations

Kaspersky Lab

Kevin Mahaffey

CTO
Senior Attorney
Chief Operating
Officer
Head of Cyber
Defence
Head of Asia
Partner
CEO and
Founder
Senior VicePresident
CEO and
Founder
Fellow,
Governance
Studies

The Brookings
Institution

Robert Rose


Thomson Reuters

Vincenzo Iozzo

Principal Security
Engineer

Trail of Bits

Tim Crosland

Head of Cyber
Prevention and
Information Law

UK Cabinet
Office

Eduardo Cabrera

Incident
Response
Integration

US Secret
Service

Yuecel Karabulut

Cloud
VMWare
Infrastructure and
Platform Product
Security Leader

Ken Hall

Head, VicePresident,
Head of Cyber
Consulting

McKinsey
Company

Techonomy
Media

Allan Friedman

Senior Partner

Salesforce

David Kirkpatrick

David Chinn

Reputation.com

Peter Schwartz

McKinsey
Company

Pricewaterhouse
Coopers

Michael Fertik

Senior Partner

Palantir

Richard Horne

Allen Weinberg

North Atlantic
Treaty
Organization

Kevin Lee

McKinsey
Company

Mozilla

Anil Süleyman

Lead Advisor,
Partner

Microsoft

Jay Sullivan

James Kaplan

Lookout Mobile
Security

Cristin Goodwin

Project Advisors

Over 500 executives, experts and policy makers
participated in the workshops, industry leader
surveys and partners activities throughout 2013.
We are deeply indebted to all of those who have
provided their input and expertise across many
sectors and regions globally.

Wipro


37

Wef risk responsibility_hyperconnectedworld_report_2014

The World Economic Forum
is an independent international
organization committed to
improving the state of the world
by engaging business, political,
academic and other leaders of
society to shape global, regional
and industry agendas.
Incorporated as a not-for-profit
foundation in 1971 and
headquartered in Geneva,
Switzerland, the Forum is
tied to no political, partisan
or national interests.

World Economic Forum
91-93 route de la Capite
CH-1223 Cologny/Geneva
Switzerland
Tel.: +41 (0) 22 869 1212
Fax: +41 (0) 22 786 2744
contact@weforum.org
www.weforum.org

Wef risk responsibility_hyperconnectedworld_report_2014

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Wef risk responsibility_hyperconnectedworld_report_2014 (20)

More from Silvia Cardona (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Wef risk responsibility_hyperconnectedworld_report_2014