Finally, there is no concept that would bring


together providers and users of security services directly. It would therefore be even more important to create an electronic B2B platform solution that brings together all parties: as many businesses as possible, security authorities and cyber security companies. This could be achieved by an electronic platform that would also allow information to be exchanged between all parties – in real time. Such a ‘Cyber-Threat-Platform’ would then receive alerts on potential threats directly from cyber security companies. The users of the platform, and thus the receivers of such alerts, would then be companies of the private sector as well. Unlike in the past, industry and company size would be irrelevant. Government agencies should also be connected


to such a platform. They as well could contribute insights or relevant information on security issues. In this context, however, it would be important for these institutions not to have full access to company data, as the impression of government monitoring could arise, which would, in turn, deter the participation of some companies. It is also important to note that companies reporting an attack on their IT to the platform should be allowed to remain anonymous in order to avoid reputational damage. Nevertheless, it needs to be transparent for all users which companies are connected to the platform. A ‘Cyber-Threat-Platform’ of this type would


obviously have a number of legal implications – for example, for cyber security companies involved. They usually compete with each other. Some kind of co- operation agreement would therefore be required, regulating the respective rights and obligations of the co-operation. It would also be necessary to establish clear conditions for the companies’ participation. These would need to include minimum requirements


for technical IT standards in the companies as well as specifi c codes of conduct for the platform in order not to endanger the users’ reputation and integrity. Corresponding platform solutions are by no means


new. Comparable approaches already exist – both on a national and international level. So far, however, they have been limited to clearly defi ned groups of participants. There are two basic types of platforms. On the one hand, there is the group of Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs) which are more technically-oriented. These include, for example, the Malware Information Sharing Platform (MISP), which is co-fi nanced by the EU Commission. Here, participants exchange information on malware, imminent IT attacks, and possible defensive actions. There are other ISACs, also cross-border, specifi cally created for certain vertical sectors. The second type of platforms focus on networking.


They intend, for instance, to bring cyber security companies together with companies that want to protect their IT infrastructure. In Germany there is the Alliance for Cyber Security with more than 3,600 participants and


the Initiative Wirtschaftsschutz


(‘Initiative for Economic Protection’), for whom cyber security is only one of several aspects. Comparable network platforms also exist in some federal states. All these experiences would certainly be useful when developing the ‘Cyber-Threat-Platform’, so that a technical implementation would be feasible relatively quickly. Such a solution would help to strengthen the industry’s competence with regard to cyber security, to identify threats more quickly and to address them comprehensively. Klaus Brisch is Partner and Global Head of Technology at DWF, with expertise in data protection and privacy law, IT-compliance, cyber security, additive manufacturing and cross-industry innovation.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74