Conjunto de Dados do Relatório de Cibersegurança 2016
Metadata & use
Identificador | https://doi.org/10.60966/ths5uudn |
---|---|
Licença | Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial–NoDerivs 3.0 IGO |
Relação | |
Citação |
Inter-American Development Bank;Organization of American States, 2015, 2016 Cybersecurity Report Data Set, IDB Open Data, https://doi.org/10.60966/ths5uudn |
Issued date | 2015-12-14 |
Modified date | 2025-04-11 |
Tags/Palavras-Chave | Caribbean · Cyber Defense · Cyber Strategy · Cybercrime · Cybersecurity · Digital Redundancy · E-Government · Incident Response · Latin America · Legal Frameworks · National Critical Infrastructure · Online Trust · Privacy · Resilience |
Idioma | English |
Cobertura Temporal | 2015-2015 |
Cobertura Geográfica |
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Grenada
Guatemala
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Saint Lucia
St Kitts and Nevis
St Vincent and Grenadines
Suriname
Trinidad and Tobago
Uruguay
Venezuela
|
Cobertura Regional | América Latina e Caribe |
Publicador |
Inter-American Development Bank
|
Autor |
Inter-American Development Bank
Organization of American States
|
Tipo de Coleta de Dados | Dados de Inquéritos |
Tipo Estatístico | Panel Data |
Estrutura dos Dados | Structured Data |
Notas dos Dados |
The data was analyzed using the 49 CMM indicators which are divided into five dimensions: i) National Cybersecurity Policy and Strategy (Policy and Strategy); ii) Cyber Culture and Society (Culture and Society); iii) Cybersecurity Education, Training and Skills (Education); iv) Legal and Regulatory Frameworks (Legal Frameworks); and v) Standards, Organizations and Technologies (Technologies). Each dimension has multiple factors which contribute towards a more mature state of cybersecurity capacity. Each factor then has several levels of indicators that describe a state of maturity (Startup, Formative, Established, Strategic and Dynamic). The different levels of maturity listed prompt the respondent to select the level that is most applicable to the experience of cybersecurity in the country. The results of the analysis were then sent to each country for validation. For more details please review the “Appendix: Detailed Methodological Framework” included in the 2016 Cybersecurity Report. |