The term "cyber resilience by design" is growing in popularity. Here, by cyber resilience we refer to the ability of the system to resist, minimize and mitigate a degradation caused by a successful cyber-attack on a system or network of computing and communicating devices. Some use the term "by design" when arguing that systems must be designed and implemented in a provable mission assurance fashion, with the system's intrinsic properties ensuring that a cyber-adversary is unable to cause a meaningful degradation. Others recommend that a system should include a built-in autonomous intelligent agent responsible for thinking and acting towards continuous observation, detection, minimization and remediation of a cyber degradation. In all cases, the qualifier "by design" indicates that the source of resilience is somehow inherent in the structure and operation of the system. But what, then, is the other resilience, not by design? Clearly, there has to be another type of resilience, otherwise what's the purpose of the qualifier "by design"? Indeed, while mentioned less frequently, there exists an alternative form of resilience called "resilience by intervention." In this article we explore differences and mutual reliance of resilience by design and resilience by intervention.
翻译:“ 设计成的网络抗御能力”一词越来越受欢迎。 这里, 通过网络抗御能力, 我们指的是系统抵抗、 最小化和减轻系统对计算机和通信设备系统或网络的成功网络攻击导致的退化的能力。 一些人在争论系统必须以可变任务保证的方式设计和实施时使用“ 设计” 一词, 该系统的内在特性确保网络反转器不能造成有意义的退化。 其他人建议系统应该包括一个内置的自主智能代理器, 负责对网络退化进行思维和持续观察、检测、最小化和补救。 在任何情况下, “ 设计” 修饰词都表明, 系统的结构和运行在某种程度上具有抗御能力的来源。 但是, 那么, 另一种抗御能力是什么, 不是设计呢? 显然, 必须有另一种类型的抗御能力, 否则“ 设计” 修饰器的目的是什么? 事实上, 虽然没有那么经常提到, 有一种叫作“ 干预的抗御力” 的替代形式。 在本文中, 我们探索设计上的差异, 和通过干预的抗御力的相互依赖性。