Cyber Resilience: by Design or by Intervention?
It addresses a conceptual problem for cybersecurity researchers and practitioners, but it is incremental as it clarifies existing terminology rather than introducing new methods.
The paper tackles the distinction between 'cyber resilience by design' and 'resilience by intervention' in systems, exploring their differences and mutual reliance without presenting specific results or numbers.
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.