Next Article in Journal
Soil Deformation after Water Drop Impact—A Review of the Measurement Methods
Previous Article in Journal
The Concept of a Quantum Edge Simulator: Edge Computing and Sensing in the Quantum Era
Previous Article in Special Issue
FAWPA: A FAW Attack Protection Algorithm Based on the Behavior of Blockchain Miners
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sensors
Volume 23
Issue 1
10.3390/s23010120
sensors-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The Need for Cybersecurity in Industrial Revolution and Smart Cities

by
Antonio Clim
*,
Andrei Toma
,
Răzvan Daniel Zota
and
Radu Constantinescu
The Department of Economic Informatics and Cybernetics, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 010552 Bucharest, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sensors 2023, 23(1), 120; https://doi.org/10.3390/s23010120
Submission received: 13 October 2022 / Revised: 18 December 2022 / Accepted: 19 December 2022 / Published: 23 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue AI-Enabled Industrial Internet and Its Security, Privacy and Trust Challenge)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Cities have grown in development and sophistication throughout human history. Smart cities are the current incarnation of this process, with increased complexity and social importance. This complexity has come to involve significant digital components and has thus come to raise the associated cybersecurity concerns. Major security relevant events can cascade into the connected systems making up a smart city, causing significant disruption of function and economic damage. The present paper aims to survey the landscape of scientific publication related to cybersecurity-related issues in relation to smart cities. Relevant papers were selected based on the number of citations and the quality of the publishing journal as a proxy indicator for scientific relevance. Cybersecurity will be shown to be reflected in the selected literature as an extremely relevant concern in the operation of smart cities. Generally, cybersecurity is implemented in actual cities through the concerted application of both mature existing technologies and emerging new approaches.

1. Introduction

Generally, a ‘smart city’ is one that integrates sophisticated technology to automate service provision [1]. This is, however, largely limited to varying extents by the resource availability of the city, level of available technology, and acceptance of the city dwellers of such change. There is hence no global standard definition of a smart city. It is, rather, a concept that defines the integration of existing industrial processes with advanced technology for better data collection and communication to achieve efficiency.
Different and often complementary points of view on a smart city include the efficient, green, technologically advanced, sustainable, and socially inclusive city [2]. However, smart cities can differ greatly from each other, due to variable characteristics, such as economic factors, infrastructure, or governance. Broadly speaking, the main elements of a smart city include: infrastructure and other utilities, traffic management and transportation, buildings and advanced technology used for communication within a city and between cities [3]. In this sense, in order to be able to integrate all the components of a smart city and centralize the control of its resources, it is necessary to develop a centralized system that uses advanced technologies related to artificial intelligence, cloud computing or IoT (Internet of Things) [4]. Such a complex IT system, integrated at the level of a city, involves a series of physical and electronic components that must interact in a network to achieve the desired results.
Smart cities therefore possess complex, large and interdependent IT systems, which exposes them to several technical, security and privacy challenges [5]. Our study emphasizes the aspects related to security, closely related to confidentiality and data integrity. Security in the technical scenario involves cyber security and involves the protection of the entire network, its data and information against malicious activities, as they incorporate various technologies, such as portable devices—smart phones and radio frequency identification systems, for example [5].
The efficiency of a smart city is indicated by the computing capacity of the IT system as well as the high level of integration of its various components. Such a computer system depends on these computing components and can fail if any component of the system is compromised by a cyber-attack or serious error, such as not performing security tests before installing it in the system. Whether simple or critical, any system component is important to the overall integrity and proper operation and longevity of the system.
As seen in Figure 1, each stage of industrial revolution has increased the efficiency of industrial processes, while raising the complexity of the industrial systems themselves [6,7]. The evolution of Information Communication Technology, and its integration in production processes, has also changed conventional industrial processes and improved organizational management [8].
These developments have not been without controversy, however. Some examples of developments stirring global debate are self-driving cars or increased supermarket automation. The development of these features has been catalyzed by advances in artificial intelligence as well as systems based on the collaboration of human and machine as resources to form a network that executes commands with an ability that is close to human intelligence [10,11]. With the incorporation of collaborative robots (cobots) into the manufacturing and production processes, simulation is now extensively used in operations to exploit real-time information in order to improve quality through the construction of virtual models [12,13,14]. These simulations can be made in 3D or 2D and can be used to monitor processes such as cycle times and energy consumption, which help reduce failure and wastage along the production line [6,15]. The evolution of these industries, therefore, has had the impact of transforming ordinary machines into intelligent automated machines that can improve the operating and management performance of the network in which they interact. Sectors which have more quickly integrated these trends have increased significantly in added value [16]; however, this increase has been accompanied by increased costs related to data security. Thus, data security, and in a larger sense cybersecurity, has to be incorporated as a primary concern in these evolving networks and systems.
With increased adoption of approaches characteristic of Industries 4.0 and 5.0, efficiency gains have come alongside new operational challenges [17]. Industry 4.0 and 5.0 systems have complex structures, made up of various interdependent components. If any of these components is compromised, this can pose a severe security threat to the system, escalating into interruptions in the system’s functioning. The integration of these components makes the system dangerously susceptible to attacks, as when a single component is compromised, the entire chain may fail. If the system was not programmed to mitigate such attacks, their impact could cause a halt of all operations carried out by the network [18,19]. As such, cybersecurity represents a central consideration and is paramount to their success. The issue of cybersecurity in this environment must be addressed starting from the design stage, and security measures must be implemented in existing systems before fully integrating them with the network.
Given these new security concerns, a study evaluating cybersecurity as applied to industry 4.0 and 5.0 systems in terms of both existing capabilities and possible future improvements should prove valuable in terms of understanding both the present situation as well as upcoming challenges.

2. Methodology

This review of the literature adopted specific procedures and approaches that were relevant for systematic research. Therefore, its main objective was to shed light on the topic of discussion by recording, identifying, understanding, and sharing information, as well as making sense of the topic of interest. Therefore, when writing this review of the literature, it was essential to consider its significance in general research, because such rigorous knowledge shared in this section is indispensable to keep up with the ever-growing cybersecurity literature that is vital in helping practitioners and relevant personnel to come up with findings and then assess and synthesize the issues discussed in conceptual and empirical discussions. As a result, in this literature review, systematic research was conducted, involving an extensive collection of various published works by different authors regarding the topic of discussion and assessed topics that could be learned through considerable discussion.
Moreover, the methodology of this discussion took two primary forms, focusing on the existing literature and on the gaps in this research topic that were addressed in these empirical studies. This way, it was possible to develop a theoretical foundation for the topic of discussion, demonstrate the existence of the research, and justify the research’s contribution towards the cumulative knowledge through validation of the approaches discussed in the literature review. Google scholar has been used for searches, using specific key-words, and groups thereof, as shown in Table 1. The first run of the search (February 2022, 2nd version of this study), using main terms from Table 1 and an arbitrary interval from 2012, returned 16,100 results. Eliminating old versions of the same studies, the number of valid results decreased to 4,578 titles (showing an average of 3.5 versions per title). After filtering the articles which appeared in more than one repository and articles in other languages than English, there remained 1,033 published studies, from which were picked those open sources (mainly). On this group, additional terms were applied, resulting in a base of 647 items to be directly analyzed and classified. Reading the titles, key-words and abstracts and eliminating results with up to 10 citations, and also choosing the titles in journals classified as SCI (Science Citation Index), SCIE (Science Citation Index Expanded) and/or ESCI (Emerging Sources Citation Index), the list was reduced at 192. The resulting proportions between articles vs. conferences papers vs. books (or chapter in a book) were 78% vs. 14% vs. 8%. After a qualitative sorting step, only 102 scientific research studies were chosen and cited.
In this research, not only have scientific articles been used and cited (Table 2) but also industry-related reports from companies (Verizon, Microsoft, PwC, Deloitte, KPMG, Ernst&Young, etc.), agencies reports (ENISA, ECSO, CEPS, EU Parliament, FAO-UN, etc.), standards (from ISO), etc., as shown in Table 3.
The chosen studies are detailed in Table 3, by main editors and number of citations (up to 15 of November 2022).
Additionally, the second form of methodology used for this discussion entails the valuable and original work of discussion, which provides a foundation for the work and gives a concrete perspective for other studies. Therefore, having a review discussion will offer an all-encompassing purpose of developing a synthesis of research pertinent to this topic without the collection or evaluation of any primary data.

3. Correlation between Industry 4.0 and 5.0 with ICT and Cybersecurity

Globally, the manufacturing industry has been adopting ICT over the years in an attempt to facilitate its activities, and as a result, this adoption of technology has offered opportunities for disruptive strategies when it comes to production, development, logistics and the value chain [20]. However, this adoption of ICT has blurred the boundaries between the virtual and the real world, leading to cyber-physical production systems (CPPSs) [21]. This is in fact what led to the emergence of Industry 4.0 (see Figure 2) and Industry 5.0. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that implementation of ICT is associated with other operational risk factors associated with smart and connected manufacturers, as well as networks for the digital supply networks [22]. The interconnection of this network with industry-driven operations and the speed with which digital technology transformed the industry means increased vulnerability to attacks that have more substantial effects than it has ever happened before [23] from a cyber-security perspective. As a result, these events have resulted in numerous studies that seek to review some of the critical aspects of the industry in relation to technological developments, such as the defining characteristics of cybersecurity, as it has been one of the main concerns in which information networks have been adopted for different operational activities [24,25].

4. Digitalization of Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0

Industry 4.0 is based on autonomous devices and other technologies that have facilitated the production process throughout the value chain. Therefore, this model of a smart factory based on these technological advances includes a section whereby the physical processes of the factory are monitored by systems controlled by computers [27]. Such systems have been developed in such a way that they contain a virtual copy of the physical world, producing decentralized decisions based on mechanisms surrounding self-organizations [28]. Consequently, this concept will lead to more digitization of the manufacturing industry so that physical objects will be effortlessly integrated into the information technology’s network. Thus, this will enable manufacturing systems to have vertical networking with their relevant business processes within an organization, as well as for the horizontally connected systems to have spatial dispersion value networks which can be regulated in real-time, from the moment an order has been placed up until the outgoing logistics of that particular order. As a result, we have differences across industries and the services offered tend to be less pertinent, since the digital technologies have a connection with the industrial products and services into mixed products, which are considered to be the hybrids, in that they do not only contain goods or services [28,29]. Therefore, it is worth mentioning how the Internet of Things, as well as the Internet of Services, are deemed the main elements within Industry 4.0 (see Figure 3).
Alternatively, another perspective on Industry 4.0 is with regard to CPPSs, which involve an online network with service machines structured similarly to social networks [30]. Therefore, these networks will connect IT with mechanical and electrical components and will communicate with one another through a network. For instance, advancements such as radio frequency identification (RFID) technology have been among the earliest forms of this technology, which has been under use since its inception. In the contemporary setting, smart machines will gradually share information regarding current levels of stock, faults, and issues, as well as changes in orders or demand levels [31,32,33]. Therefore, deadlines and processes are under extensive coordination in order to enhance efficiency, as well as improve capacity application, intime, as well as the quality of production, development, purchasing, and marketing. Therefore, CPPSs will not just network the machines within an industry on a daily basis, they will also develop a smart network surrounding ICT systems, machines, properties, smart products, and stakeholders throughout the life cycle of a product and the value chain [34,35,36,37]. Moreover, another significant aspect of Industry 4.0 is the possibility of interacting with other smart infrastructures, such as those associated with smart homes and buildings, smart grid, smart logistics, and smart mobility, as presented in Figure 4.
The connection to both business and social networks through the business web as well as the social web will play a mandatory role in the digital transformation of Industry 4.0. Furthermore, these industry-based interfaces and networks will be integrated into the IoT, such as data, people, and services [39,40]. Therefore, some of these smart industries will depend on various contemporary innovative technological advancements. For example, the application of ICT in the digitization of information and the integration of the system throughout different stages of the development of a product and its appropriate use, such as logistics and supply, is to be made within the company or its limits [41]. Second, network communications entail Internet and wireless technologies that allow people, products, and systems to interact, as well as connecting machines in manufacturing industries with relevant suppliers and distributors [31]. Third, cyber-physical systems which employ ICT in monitoring, as well as regulating physical systems and processes entail intelligent robots and embedded sensors, since they can be configured to adapt to their immediate product. In other instances, additive manufacturing devices, such as 3D printing devices, are used [42]. Moreover, the collection of different quantities of information and their exploitation and evaluation within the factory or by having cloud computing and big data analysis, virtualization, simulation, and modeling within the design of a given product, as well as the development of the manufacturing process, and the immense ICT-based support for the human worker, involve augmented reality, robots and cobots, and other intelligent tools [43,44]. These tools are represented in Figure 5.

5. Major Vulnerabilities of Digital Technologies in Industries

The nature of cyberattacks directed at contemporary industries is based on targeting of well-known vulnerabilities within digital technologies which are central to Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 [46]. The first source of vulnerabilities is the continued use of insecure legacy systems that have reduced maintenance. This is common for cities which have been stacking layers of old infrastructure, which depends on old technology and software. Moreover, these systems have not been updated or upgraded in a very long time and they have not evolved into more advanced and secure systems [47]. Therefore, having such technologies for industry can give rise to vulnerabilities when it comes to contemporary systems, since they are likely to contain forever-day exploits that are understood to be the loopholes in legacy software products that are no longer supported by their vendors, meaning that the system will never be patched [48]. Additionally, even when considering new technologies, it will be hard to determine and roll out the patches on the critical operational systems, which will always need to be on.
Another major vulnerability is the use of weakly tested software, as well as weak data encryption protocols to secure the systems used in these industries. Studies have stated that there are about 30 errors and other exploit bugs in about 1000 lines of code [49,50], and when it comes to a contemporary heterogeneous system which is being used in industries and smart cities, it has millions of lines of code that have the potential of producing zero-day exploits for various system hacks, malware, and viruses. In addition, studies of industries and smart cities have shown that most of their IT systems were developed without maximum security. Here we refer to the fact that there are no user authentication methods and default or weak passwords are used [51]. Furthermore, vendors, stakeholders, and governments within these industries have used their technological systems without conducting in-depth cybersecurity testing and drills, which would have been necessary considering some of the security issues which can arise based on how different systems are operated.
Thirdly, vulnerabilities can produce cascade effects, which can cause cyberattacks, and the factors involve the interrelations between industrial technologies and the system. This creates the grounds to develop various cascade effects through disruptions or failures, hence generating knock-on effects which cause more failure in different significant services, such as utilities. For example, when a telecommunications system is under a cyber-attack, the infrastructure is overloaded, and this may lead to failures of emergency response or traffic management system. Therefore, this makes the issue a significant security risk within an urban operating system, whereby there are various systems that have been interconnected, reflecting a system-of-systems approach in the management of services within the city and its infrastructures. As a result, it will nullify the mitigating impact of using the siloed approach, which is perceived as an entirely individual system, whereby there is a physically independent telecommunication cabling as well as a source of power among other systems [52,53,54]. Therefore, in case there is a successful cyber-attack on the electricity grid in a specific place, there will be sizeable cascading effects because that service supports numerous activities such as distributing power to workplaces, homes, hospitals, and many other infrastructures.
Lastly, human error and intentional malfeasance of dissatisfied personnel within a workplace can be another reason for system vulnerabilities because technical exploits can be immensely assisted by the errors people make. For example, when an employee responds to phishing messages or emails, the insertion of infected external drives into computers and installation of malware and viruses can be some of the ways these actors can play a crucial role towards a cyber-attack [55,56]. There are other instances whereby the software of a particular infrastructure could be weak in their system designs, in the sense that they can comfortably and secretively be sabotaged with the help of the rogue employees or former employees (see Figure 6). Therefore, it is worth noting that the aforementioned vulnerabilities can be worsened by various factors, considering that at times it is unclear who is mandated to maintain the security across the complex infrastructure and system. Moreover, vulnerabilities also appear when there are many stakeholders and other institutions which have worked together in the development of designs, supplying software and hardware, as well as in the operation and use of different components.

6. Cybersecurity Risks in Industry 4.0 and 5.0

The technological advancements that constitute the basis for Industry 4.0 have raised various issues concerning their security and overall safety, therefore stating that these developments in the technological paradigm are a direct indication of opportunities and challenges [58]. According to the study conducted for the Associated Chambers of Commerce of India (ASSOCHAM) [59], Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 will prioritize talent over money as a form of investment because the use of elements such as IoT, Artificial Intelligence, blockchain, and other emerging technologies is growing exponentially. These elements can be used to improve governance, consulting, and general digitalization of the major industries [60]. The adoption and implementation of these technologies will improve various operational capacities, talent acquisition, and the delivery of applications in various organizations and sectors. Therefore, the process of integrating a concept within an industry is actually about opening up the IT infrastructure of that industry, thus making it more vulnerable to errors and susceptible to cyber-attacks.
Moreover, it is worth noting that cyber intruders will not stop at anything, considering that as the industry advances, they will also refine their techniques for breaching systems [61]. As a result, such cyber-attacks targeting penetration into the control systems of various organizations will become a threat to the facilities’ production. In case of such attacks, industry computers are usually controlled from a remote location, and in turn, the intruders can have access or spy on their targeted objective [62,63]. Such attacks have been made possible by malware that exploits firewalls or security holes, and oftentimes, network monitoring software cannot detect such intrusions.
Considering that these technological opportunities are also in tandem with their associated cybersecurity risks, it would be necessary for industries to have a complete understanding of the impact of adopting these technologies on their security [64,65,66]. For such industries to capitalize on the fourth and fifth industrial revolutions, they will need to have the necessary contingencies and measures in place that will ensure that their cybersecurity is in tandem with Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 [67,68]. Therefore, factors such as integrated data protection frameworks, as well as sector-specific security baselines will help industries find sustainable advantages from their contemporary technological revolution. It is worth noting that the government, as well as other institutions, are also faced with challenges in their cybersecurity, as they are required to have their platforms resilient to threats so that they can facilitate the adoption of ever-changing and disrupting technology [56,69]. In addition, conventional information security practices could offer the required strategies, but this would not offer sufficient protection for industries considering how technology has been evolving over the years.
Regarding the promise of the impact of cybersecurity plans on organizations, some of the appropriate frameworks that industries can focus on as well as commit to should have some common attributes. For example, the framework should be able to develop capabilities that can detect threats and respond to them adequately and proactively, as well as be able to make use of artificial intelligence in identifying patterns so that IT systems can be monitored through smart technology [70,71,72,73]. Such frameworks should also offer an integrated approach towards cybersecurity, whereby there will be a holistic strategy towards the landscape of a threat instead of implementing security technologies in silos. Lastly, it is essential for the framework to create a well-built connection with its respective institutions throughout its sectors and those of the government for the purposes of sharing research, intelligence, information, and capacity development. As these technologies are developing and scaling up, it is essential to involve human resources, training, and education [74,75,76] as the cornerstones of industrial progress, because upon the successful adoption of these technologies, there will be demand for new skills and expertise.

7. Security Scenarios

Developing and managing a smart city or an industrial revolution as a whole using a computerized network can be challenging in terms of ensuring security for the components and various elements due to the interconnectivity of these elements and the dependence of the whole network on its components. These security risks can be discussed as security of the system infrastructure (SSI).
The physical components of a city’s smart network can be faced with various accidental or intentional attacks, which can cause various degrees of damage depending on the preparedness for such attacks. Below are some of the security issues that can affect city infrastructure, including electricity, water supply, sewer lines and buildings along streets.
  • Theft: this affects city infrastructure when physical and intangible materials such as data, software and credentials are stolen and put to harmful use.
  • DoS attacks may be used to impede the availability of services. Denial of Service may overflood connections until devices connected to it are blocked or the connection shut down.
  • Spying on the installed communication channels may be dangerous if an attacker is able to extract sensitive information.
Other threats may be related to environmental impact, software crashes, and/or hardware failure in such a way that they affect the integrity of the system and cause inefficiency along the production lines. These threat cases can be addressed through the authentication that is provided by the control packet in MQTT (Message Queuing Telemetry Transport) [77,78]. MQTT clients can also be provided with different items from the server to perform authentication in addition to passwords and usernames [77,79].
Critical systems that manage the transportation sector—for example, air transport—are of particular interest as they can potentially cause catastrophes if a hack were to happen while a plane was airborne. They may also cause considerable damage and loss of time (traffic jam or accidents) if the systems controlling land transport media were to be tampered with.
Building management systems that are poorly designed or that do not include proper security features expose the inhabitants of such buildings to insecurity, especially if such buildings do not incorporate appropriate reporting systems or alternative safety measures.
Communication networks in a smart city incorporate cyber-physical objects that are interconnected through advanced technologies such as WIFI or GSM. These objects need security measures to facilitate their continued operation within the network and to ensure that they work as a unit [80,81]. Moreover, these security concerns need to be addressed during the deployment of these objects.
A smart city that has central traffic control uses cameras for control and data collection. These also need to be protected using encryption methods and password protection to ensure the privacy and security of the data collected.

8. Cybersecurity for Smart Cities

When it comes to smart cities, cybersecurity is a contentious topic, and the primary purpose of the development of such cities is to optimize cities around the world in a dynamic way so that the quality of life of people can be improved through the application of ICT. These smart cities differ when it comes to the range of implemented smart technologies, considering that the evolution of connected cities is prevalent in data exchange in a large-scale context [82]. Such cities are susceptible to cyberattacks of different forms, which are meant to disrupt, deceive, destroy, alter, or degrade the computer and ICT systems, such as networks and programs which have been set in place to run the city. Therefore, cyberattacks manifest themselves in three different forms, with a focus on operational systems [83]. Whereas availability attacks focus on closing the system down, thus impeding the use of services, integrity attacks are supposed to enter a system to affect the state of information present in that system through viruses and malware, without causing alarm to the rightful operator. Third, confidentiality attacks are meant to retrieve information and keep tabs on various activities [55]. Such attacks towards the industry can be conducted by different players such as hackers, government agencies, criminals, and terror groups, among many others. Therefore, it should be noted that the growth of ICT and its wide application in different industrial sectors has resulted in an exponential increase in the number of perpetrators of cyberattacks with different intentions.
The complex nature of smart cities, which involve significantly higher levels of data exchange (as represented in Figure 7), will lead to automated control of various services [84,85,86] and assets, thus leading to a high level of automation and interconnection between different services offered by the city.
This will increase the demand for cybersecurity, with the goal of protecting vital ICT aspects of the city, such as privacy, data exchange, and the safety of people within these cities [75,88,89]. However, it is essential to note that currently there are no coordinated standards and guidelines to model such data exchanges that occur throughout the city. As a result, this has forced some of the IPT (intelligent public transport) municipalities, operators, legislators, manufacturers, vendors, and solution providers to adopt particular solutions that have low scalability and cater to different needs [90]. In the current context, it is difficult for IPT operators to have a cybersecurity policy that can be applied in the process of defining significant assets. Furthermore, cybersecurity knowledge and spending in the context of IPT seem to be low, as there are few measures in place and many cybersecurity contingencies.
Since the early days of smart cities, there has been a growing concern for identifying the dimensions that can be used for their characterization, but there is no consensus so far on the factors to consider in the development of more intelligent and sustainable cities [91]. Therefore, it is imperative to understand the concept of smart cities from the ICT context, with the purpose of discussing some of the technologies that make this form of advancement possible, as well as reflecting on its vulnerabilities, threats, along with how to mitigate and ensure that smart cities are safe and conducive to digitalization [92]. For example, the application of big data from satellite imagery that include sensor networks is crucial for improving the measurement of both developmental and environmental indicators. Such research can be possible given that there are about 6 billion smartphones in the world, with 80% of these phones in developing countries, which provides sufficient coverage to give both researchers and prospective investors the social sensors to retrieve the necessary information [93]. Therefore, big data will change how people live and interact throughout their daily activities, and this will be influenced by the spread of mobile network and cloud computing, and as a result, it will offer farther-reaching effects within the ICT sector [94,95]. Therefore, the ICT sector is projected to become a more considerable investment for smart cities in the coming years.
The concept of smart cities is rapidly growing and, as a result, smart cities are spreading throughout the world (see Figure 8).
Governments have facilitated this spread by implementing relevant guidelines and policies, offering a better platform for the establishment of these cities [97]. Right now, more than 55% of the world’s population live in urban areas [98]. Additionally, there are around 150 smart cities in the world, depending on the classification criteria [99,100]. The application of innovative ICT is critical to enhancing different programs and initiatives associated with smart technology and can provide the premises to develop some of the most advanced smart cities in the world that integrate sustainability in different forms, such as green cities and those with low carbon emissions [101,102]. It is worth considering that cities have dense populations and, hence, have significant development in industries and commerce and other functional zones, such as the commercial, industrial, administrative, and residential sectors. Therefore, for smart cities, they will use ICT and other digital technologies to facilitate services, sustainability, and harmonious living through the smart application of different coordinated natural and social developments [103,104,105,106]. Furthermore, some researchers point out that different regions have distinct attributes that make each smart city different, according to their natural environment, resource investment, social attributes, and the overall objective [83,106,107,108], but there are common indicators that determine how these cities can employ different strategies to ensure effectiveness and profitability.
It is equally important to note that there are diverse measures that may not widely apply within the cybersecurity standards that align with the demand of the IPT and with the widely employed good practices [109,110]. Therefore, for the development of cybersecurity guidelines, it is vital to consider the high-level architecture model in order to better understand the critical sectors that can protect the industries from cyberattacks. With the knowledge that industries and smart cities have various levels of maturity, the architecture model will have to focus on the association in these smart cities and industries from the point of the IPT operators, thus integrating the functional process and data exchange between different stakeholders [111]. Some of the particular threats associated with data exchange between IPT operators, as well as the relevant stakeholders in relation to their possible consequences, will vary based on the maturity of the smart city [112,113,114]. As a result, this will reveal the multifaceted nature of threats, as well as their dangers towards information and data, organizational structure, the applications, and their related technologies, culminating with the whole framework pertinent for IPT.

9. Characterizing and Quantifying Malice

Through research, human beings have been categorized as the arrestees of malice in computer-based networks and systems. Quantifying these together with the economic motivation to carry out such activity and the knowledge of the executioner is vital to approximating malice [115]. Although very little research has been conducted in this area of human interaction and attributes, malice has been classified into micro, meso, and macro levels, and all aspects of this category are a potential cause of cyber insecurity [57]. Therefore, it follows that an individual can act maliciously due to their personality or due to their interactions with others. According to this characterization, malice is viewed as sociotechnical and would be useful in determining optimal levels that can be adopted in the process of integrating human factors when evaluating threats to cybersecurity [116]. Human thoughts and behavior are vital aspects that determine that they indulge in malicious acts, but it is almost impossible to categorize such acts. It is even harder to come up with an index that can be used to standardize the behavior of human beings, since everyone has a divergent approach and ideas on how to deal with every situation. Not even a standard psychological test can be formulated to determine this behavior [117].
However, an individual’s personality can be related to their cultural attributes, and since these can influence their behavior, they can also influence the malicious nature [118,119].

10. Future Directions in Cybersecurity

The cyber domain is a multifaceted sector, considering how it has amalgamated different professions and is relevant in almost every industry, since it involves various aspects such as the process of connecting online devices and creating a platform that gives people the opportunity to interact with these devices, thus revealing how these devices have influenced different components of their lives [120]. Therefore, it is worth mentioning that the cyber paradigm is crucial, as it has managed to influence almost every aspect of contemporary life, such as healthcare, powering homes, transportation, and multiple other actions that people perform in their daily lives [121]. As time passes, the number of connected devices and their usage will increase, and as a result of this, the convolution of cyberinfrastructure will exponentially increase. However, as these numbers increase, another major problem associated with the issue is that more vulnerable devices will emerge from this phenomenon, hence the need to have a cybersecurity workforce that will support the development of cyber infrastructure and thus protect networks [122,123]. Consequently, with the inception of cybersecurity and the fact that this issue is critical in maintaining the integrity of cyberspace for many industries, there has been a growing need and demand for the development of various cybersecurity workforces and the pertinent framework that can offer some of the crucial roles of the cyber workforce.

11. Conclusions

Cybersecurity is a vital component in the implementation of smart cities, and it is an important consideration for various data technologies and infrastructures. However, the integration and interdependence of the various components of the management systems influence the cybersecurity.
In an era where Industry 4.0 and 5.0 define many aspects that people interact with, such as IoT, cloud, and cognitive computing, the provision of services such as access control and non-repudiation may help mitigate the vulnerability of computer systems despite the explosion in the expansion and dynamic state of the Internet, which enable the functioning of the systems. The fifth industrial revolution is the key to facilitating development, but its growth is faced with vulnerabilities to insecurity. While we can select and apply ways of combating insecurity, the factors that caused the vulnerability, such as interconnection of its components and overdependence on even its smallest components, have to be addressed separately. In addition, the means of mitigating them have to be determined, and well-developed strategies have to be put in place.

11.1. Old Technologies That Are Still Relevant to Cybersecurity

Despite the criticism and vulnerabilities in existing security technologies, systems such as GPS and biometric identification, which have been around for a while, have proven rather resilient but important in their respective fields. GPS systems that are now being adopted even by the automobile industry have been key in location determination and navigation. Through this, it can be used to determine the origin and destination of any other GPS enabled systems or to calculate routes to destination. These are important to security, as the location data of the physical security components is a cause of concern. Biometric devices have also been widely used, as they have helped reduce unauthorized access to vital components that can be used to store data.

11.2. New Security Promises That Have Been Fulfilled

With an increase in the number of IoT devices, there has been an increase in entry points for malicious activity. In response, smart cities are adopting IoT sensors in addition to existing systems. These sensors are connected to a broader network to enable aggregation and analysis of the collected data. Moreover, smart cities need to adopt network layers [124] with a central core from which all data and communication updates are processed. However, the components that are integrated within such a network would need to be scalable, interoperable, and compliant to ensure security maintenance. Blockchain, which is a recent invention, is proving to be viable in cybersecurity and in preventing a denial of service (DoS) with the help of the distributed ledger technology found in cryptocurrencies. Its decentralized nature provides data security and also reduces the reliance of a network on a central authority.
Users of cybersecurity systems have indicated that there is not a single defense against cybersecurity threats that can be completely relied upon, as what is considered safe at a particular moment may not be in a future date. This is due to the dynamic nature of cybercrime and the ingenuity of cybercriminals. Blockchain has been deemed to have the capabilities of data integrity and confidentiality; however, much of it is still being criticized with respect to its reliance.

11.3. Above New and Old Technologies

Finally, security and safety of information and data shared over a computer-based system and those of the person sharing them should be of the most significant concern. Therefore, cybersecurity must be seriously addressed by all concerned parties to develop a safe and secure environment in which smart people can thrive in a smart city.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.C.; methodology, A.T. and R.C.; validation, R.D.Z., A.T. and R.C.; formal analysis, A.C.; investigation, A.C.; resources, A.C.; writing—original draft preparation, A.C.; writing—review and editing, A.C., A.T. and R.D.Z.; supervision, A.T. and R.D.Z.; funding acquisition, R.C. and R.D.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Nahavandi, S. Industry 5.0—A Human-Centric Solution. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Przeybilovicz, E.; Cunha, M.A.; Macaya, J.F.M.; de Albuquerque, J.P. A Tale of two “Smart Cities”: Investigating the Echoes of New Public Management and Governance Discourses in Smart City Projects in Brazil. In Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, HI, USA, 3–6 January 2018; pp. 2486–2495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Jia, J.; Wu, X. A Multidimensional Assessment Model Using RE–3DSG Sensors on Net ES and GVR for Sustainable and Smart Cities. Sensors 2020, 20, 1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Hernández, J.L.; García, J.L.H.; Schonowski, J.; Atlan, D.; Chanson, G.; Ruohomäki, T. Interoperable Open Specifications Framework for the Implementation of Standardized Urban Platforms. Sensors 2020, 20, 2402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. AlDairi, A.; Tawalbeh, L. Cyber Security Attacks on Smart Cities and Associated Mobile Technologies. In ScienceDirect 109, Proceeding of the 7th International Conference on Sustainable Energy Information Technology, Madeira, Portugal, 16–19 May 2017; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 1086–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Vaidya, S. Industry 4.0—A Glimpse. In ScienceDirect 20, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Materials, Manufacturing and Design Engineering (iCMMD2017), Maharashtra, India, 11–12 December 2017; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 233–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ivascu, L. Measuring the Implications of Sustainable Manufacturing in the Context of Industry 4.0. Processes 2020, 8, 585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Piccarozzi, M.; Aquilani, B.; Gatti, C. Industry 4.0 in Management Studies: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Park, E.; Del Pobil, A.P.; Kwon, S.J. The Role of Internet of Things (IoT. in Smart Cities: Technology Roadmap-oriented Approaches. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Özdemir, V.; Hekim, N. Birth of Industry 5.0: Making Sense of Big Data with Artificial Intelligence, “The Internet of Things” and Next-Generation Technology Policy. OMICS J. Integr. Biol. 2018, 22, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Paszkiewicz, A.; Bolanowski, M.; Zapała, P. Phase Transitions in Wireless MESH Networks and Their Application in Early Detection of Network Coherence Loss. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 5508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Georgescu, T.-M.; Iancu, B.; Zurini, M. Named-Entity-Recognition-Based Automated System for Diagnosing Cybersecurity Situations in IoT Networks. Sensors 2019, 19, 3380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Sebastian, R.; Olivadese, R.; Piaia, E.; Giulio, R.D.; Bonsma, P.; Braun, J.-D.; Riexinger, G. Connecting the Knowhow of Design, Production and Construction Professionals through Mixed Reality to Overcome Building’s Performance Gaps. Multidiscip. Digital Publ. Inst. Proc. 2018, 2, 1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Herranz, G.; Antolínez, A.; Escartín, J.; Arregi, A.; Gerrikagoitia, J.K. Machine Tools Anomaly Detection Through Nearly Real-Time Data Analysis. J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2019, 3, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Park, J.; Kim, K.-H.; Kim, K. An Algorithm for Timely Transmission of Solicitation Messages in RPL for Energy-Efficient Node Mobility. Sensors 2017, 17, 899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Matuszak, J. Is Your Business Ready for Industry 5.0? KnowHow Hub Powered by Distrelec. Available online: https://knowhow.distrelec.com/manufacturing/is-your-business-ready-for-industry-5-0/ (accessed on 15 November 2022).
  17. Sanmartin, P.; Rojas, A.; Fernandez, L.; Avila, K.; Jabba, D.; Valle, S. Sigma Routing Metric for RPL Protocol. Sensors 2018, 18, 1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Waslo, R.; Lewis, T.; Hajj, R.; Carton, R. Industry 4.0 and Cybersecurity: Managing Risk in an Age of Connected Production. Available online: https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/focus/industry-4-0.html (accessed on 22 September 2019).
  19. Toma, C.; Alexandru, A.; Popa, M.; Zamfiroiu, A. IoT Solution for Smart Cities’ Pollution Monitoring and the Security Challenges. Sensors 2019, 19, 3401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. European Parliament, Davies, R, Industry 4.0: Digitalisation for Productivity and Growth. Available online: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI%282015%29568337 (accessed on 7 January 2019).
  21. Zan, T.; Liu, Z.; Su, Z.; Wang, M.; Gao, X.; Chen, D. Statistical Process Control with Intelligence Based on the Deep Learning Model. Appl. Sci. 2019, 10, 308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Lisova, E. Monitoring for Securing Clock Synchronization. Ph.D. Thesis, Malardalen University, Västerås, Sweden, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  23. European Union Agency for Cybersecurity. Cyber Security for Smart Cities—An Architecture Model for Public Transport—Study; Publications Office of the EU: Mestreech, The Netherland, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Pasetti, M.; Ferrari, P.; Silva, D.R.C.; Silva, I.; Sisinni, E. On the Use of LoRaWAN for the Monitoring and Control of Distributed Energy Resources in a Smart Campus. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dymora, P.; Mazurek, M. Anomaly Detection in IoT Communication Network Based on Spectral Analysis and Hurst Exponent. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 5319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Deloitte, Challenges and Solutions for the Digital Transformation and Use of Exponential Technologies. Available online: https://manufacturing.report/whitepapers/industry-40-challenges-and-solutions-for-the-digital-transformation-and-use-of-exponential-technologies (accessed on 20 November 2022).
  27. Blichfeldt, H.; Faulland, R. Performance effects of digital technology adoption and product & service innovation—A process-industry perspective. Technovation 2021, 105, 102275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rojko, A. Industry 4.0 Concept: Background and Overview. Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol. 2017, 115, 77–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Costa, D.G.; Vasques, F.; Portugal, P.; Aguiar, A. A Distributed Multi-Tier Emergency Alerting System Exploiting Sensors-Based Event Detection to Support Smart City Applications. Sensors 2019, 20, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Ferreira, F.; Faria, J.; Azevedo, A.L.; Marques, A.L. Industry 4.0 as Enabler for Effective Manufacturing Virtual Enterprises. In Collaboration in a Hyperconnected World; Afsarmanesh, H., Camarinha-Matos, L., Soares, A., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2016; pp. 274–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Nagy, J.; Oláh, J.; Erdei, E.; Máté, D.; Popp, J. The Role and Impact of Industry 4.0 and the Internet of Things on the Business Strategy of the Value Chain—The Case of Hungary. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Angelopoulos, A.; Michailidis, E.T.; Nomikos, N.; Trakadas, P.; Hatziefremidis, A.; Voliotis, S.; Zahariadis, T. Tackling Faults in the Industry 4.0 Era—A Survey of Machine-Learning Solutions and Key Aspects. Sensors 2020, 20, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Aslam, F.; Aimin, W.; Li, M.; Ur Rehman, K. Innovation in the Era of IoT and Industry 5.0: Absolute Innovation Management (AIM) Framework. Information 2020, 11, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Pérez, F.; Irisarri, E.; Orive, D.; Marcos, M.; Estevez, E. A CPPS Architecture approach for Industry 4.0. In Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Emerging Technologies & Factory Automation, Luxembourg, 8–11 September 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Botlíková, M.; Botlík, J. Local Extremes of Selected Industry 4.0 Indicators in the European Space—Structure for Autonomous Systems. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2020, 13, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Butt, J. A Strategic Roadmap for the Manufacturing Industry to Implement Industry 4.0. Designs 2020, 4, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cioffi, R.; Travaglioni, M.; Piscitelli, G.; Petrillo, A.; De Felice, F. Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Applications in Smart Production: Progress, Trends, and Directions. Sustainability 2020, 12, 492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Avvanz Global, Digital Transformation—Transform, Optimize and Scale Organizations to Become Profitable Leveraging Digital Transformation Singapore. Available online: https://www.avvanz.com/digital-transformation-2/ (accessed on 9 November 2022).
  39. McKinsey & Company. Industry 4.0: How to Navigate Digitization of the Manufacturing Sector. Available online: http://www.forschungsnetzwerk.at/downloadpub/mck_industry_40_report.pdf (accessed on 2 February 2019).
  40. Ingaldi, M.; Ulewicz, R. Problems with the Implementation of Industry 4.0 in Enterprises from the SME Sector. Sustainability 2020, 12, 217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Chalmeta, R.; Santos-Deleón, N.J. Sustainable Supply Chain in the Era of Industry 4.0 and Big Data: A Systematic Analysis of Literature and Research. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lee, K.-L.; Roesinger, A.; Hommel, U. Development and Practice of Industrie 4.0 in China—Practical Experience of a German Industrial Software Company in China. Sci 2022, 4, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Vermesan, O.; Bröring, A.; Tragos, E.; Serrano, M.; Bacciu, D.; Chessa, S.; Gallicchio, C.; Micheli, A.; Dragone, M.; Saffiotti, A.; et al. Internet of robotic things: Converging sensing/actuating, hypoconnectivity, artificial intelligence and IoT Platforms. In Cognitive Hyperconnected Digital Transformation: Internet of Things Intelligence Evolution; Vermesan, O., Bacquet, J., Eds.; River Publishers: Alsbjergvej, Denmark, 2017; Volume 1, pp. 97–155. [Google Scholar]
  44. Coronado, E.; Venture, G. Towards IoT-Aided Human–Robot Interaction Using NEP and ROS: A Platform-Independent, Accessible and Distributed Approach. Sensors 2020, 20, 1500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Intelegain Technologies. The Ultimate Guide to IoT-Driven Digital Transformation in Manufacturing. Available online: https://www.intelegain.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-iot-driven-digital-transformation-in-manufacturing/ (accessed on 10 November 2022).
  46. Rodríguez-Lera, F.J.; Matellán-Olivera, V.; Balsa-Comerón, J.; Guerrero-Higueras, M.; Fernández-Llamas, C. Message Encryption in Robot Operating System: Collateral Effects of Hardening Mobile Robots. Front. ICT 2018, 5, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Kitchin, R.; Dodge, M. The (In) Security of Smart Cities: Vulnerabilities, Risks, Mitigation, and Prevention. J. Urban Technol. 2017, 26, 47–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Cerrudo, C. An Emerging US (and World) Threat: Cities Wide Open to Cyber Attacks. Available online: https://ioactive.com/pdfs/IOActive_HackingCitiesPaper_CesarCerrudo.pdf (accessed on 10 December 2019).
  49. Wiggers, K. AI Spots Critical Microsoft Security Bugs 97% of the Time. Available online: https://venturebeat.com/2020/04/16/ai-spots-critical-microsoft-security-bugs-97-of-the-time (accessed on 7 April 2020).
  50. Ashkenazi, A. App Shielding vs. Bug Bounty Programs: In Pursuit of Fortified Mobile Applications. Available online: https://jaxenter.com/app-shielding-mobile-163474.html (accessed on 18 December 2019).
  51. Liddell, P.; Archibald, G.; Pyke, S. Digital Supply Chain—The Hype and the Risks. Available online: https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/au/pdf/2018/digital-supply-chain-hype-and-risks.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2019).
  52. Little, R.G. Managing the risk of cascading failure in complex urban infrastructures. In Disrupted Cities, 1st ed.; Graham, S., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2009; Volume 1, pp. 27–39. [Google Scholar]
  53. Mourad, A.; Yang, R.; Lehne, P.H.; De La Oliva, A. A Baseline Roadmap for Advanced Wireless Research Beyond 5G. Electronics 2020, 9, 351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Bajracharya, R.; Shrestha, R.; Jung, H. Future Is Unlicensed: Private 5G Unlicensed Network for Connecting Industries of Future. Sensors 2020, 20, 2774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Lacy, M.; Prince, D. Securitization and the global politics of cybersecurity. Glob. Discourse Interdiscip. J. Curr. Aff. 2018, 8, 100–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Verizon Communications Inc. 2021 Data Breach Investigations Report. Available online: https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/reports/dbir/2021/masters-guide/ (accessed on 5 August 2022).
  57. King, Z.M.; Henshel, D.S.; Flora, L.; Cains, M.G.; Hoffman, B.; Sample, C. Characterizing and Measuring Maliciousness for Cybersecurity Risk Assessment. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Yeboah-Ofori, A.; Islam, S. Cyber Security Threat Modeling for Supply Chain Organizational Environments. Future Internet 2019, 11, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Ernst & Young. Cybersecurity for Industry 4.0: Cybersecurity Implications for Government, Industry and Homeland Security. Available online: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/ey-cybersecurity-for-industry-4-0/$File/ey-cybersecurity-for-industry-4-0.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2019).
  60. Košťál, K.; Helebrandt, P.; Belluš, M.; Ries, M.; Kotuliak, I. Management and Monitoring of IoT Devices Using Blockchain. Sensors 2019, 19, 856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Tariq, F.; Khandaker, M.; Wong, K.K.; Imran, M.; Bennis, M.; Debbah, M. A Speculative Study on 6G. Available online: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.06700v2.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2022). [CrossRef]
  62. Alkhalil, A.; Ramadan, R.A. IoT Data Provenance Implementation Challenges. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Ambient Systems, Networks and Technologies, Madeira, Spain, 16–19 May 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Martens, C.D.P.; da Silva, L.F.; Silva, D.F.; Martens, M.L. Challenges in the implementation of internet of things projects and actions to overcome them. Technovation 2022, 118, 102427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Li, Y.; Liu, Q. A comprehensive review study of cyber-attacks and cyber security; Emerging trends and recent developments. Energy Rep. 2021, 7, 8176–8186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Cremer, F.; Sheehan, B.; Fortmann, M.; Kia, A.N.; Mullins, M.; Murphy, F.; Materne, S. Cyber risk and cybersecurity: A systematic review of data availability. Geneva Pap. Risk Insur. Issues Pract. 2022, 47, 1–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Khan, N.S.; Chishti, M.A.; Saleem, M. Identifying Various Risks in Cyber-Security and Providing a Mind-Map of Network Security Issues to Mitigate Cyber-Crimes. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Communication, Computing and Networking, Chandigarh, India, 29–30 March 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Xu, X.; Lu, Y.; Vogel-Heuser, B.; Wang, L. Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0-Inception, conception and perception. J. Manuf. Syst. 2021, 61, 530–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Veksler, V.D.; Buchler, N.; Hoffman, B.E.; Cassenti, D.N.; Sample, C.; Sugrim, S. Simulations in Cyber-Security: A Review of Cognitive Modeling of Network Attackers, Defenders, and Users. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Microsoft Security, The 2021 Microsoft Digital Defense Report. Microsoft Corporation. Available online: https://info.microsoft.com/ww-landing-Microsoft-Digital-Defense-Report-Gate.html (accessed on 5 April 2022).
  70. Radanliev, P.; De Roure, D.C.; Nicolescu, R.; Huth, M.; Montalvo, R.M.; Cannady, S.; Burnap, P. Future developments in cyber risk assessment for the internet of things. Comput. Ind. 2018, 102, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Pupillo, L.; Fantin, S.; Ferreira, A.; Polito, C. Artificial Intelligence and Cybersecurity: Technology, Governance and Policy Challenges—Final Report of a CEPS Task Force. Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), 2021. Available online: https://www.ceps.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/CEPS-TFR-Artificial-Intelligence-and-Cybersecurity.pdf (accessed on 9 October 2022).
  72. Raimundo, R.; Rosário, A. The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Data System Security: A Literature Review. Sensors 2021, 21, 7029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Das, R.; Sandhane, R. Artificial Intelligence in Cyber Security. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021, 1964, 042072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Hamada, T. Determinants of Decision-Makers’ Attitudes toward Industry 4.0 Adaptation. Soc. Sci. 2019, 8, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Coşkun, S.; Kayıkcı, Y.; Gençay, E. Adapting Engineering Education to Industry 4.0 Vision. Technologies 2019, 7, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Haidine, A.; El Hassani, S.; Aqqal, A.; El Hannani, A. The Role of Communication Technologies in Building Future Smart Cities. In Smart Cities Technologies; Da Silva, I.N., Flauzino, R.A., Eds.; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2016; pp. 58–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Kwon, S.; Jeong, J.; Shon, T. Toward Security Enhanced Provisioning in Industrial IoT Systems. Sensors 2018, 18, 4372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Khan, M.A.; Khan, M.A.; Jan, S.U.; Ahmad, J.; Jamal, S.S.; Shah, A.A.; Pitropakis, N.; Buchanan, W.J. A Deep Learning-Based Intrusion Detection System for MQTT Enabled IoT. Sensors 2021, 21, 7016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Husnain, M.; Hayat, K.; Cambiaso, E.; Fayyaz, U.U.; Mongelli, M.; Akram, H.; Abbas, S.G.; Shah, G.A. Preventing MQTT Vulnerabilities Using IoT-Enabled Intrusion Detection System. Sensors 2022, 22, 567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Miguel, M.L.F.; Jamhour, E.; Pellenz, M.E.; Penna, M.C. SDN Architecture for 6LoWPAN Wireless Sensor Networks. Sensors 2018, 18, 3738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Chamoso, P.; González-Briones, A.; Rodríguez, S.; Corchado, J.M. Tendencies of Technologies and Platforms in Smart Cities: A State-of-the-Art Review. Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput. 2018, 2018, 3086854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Efthymiopoulos, M.P. Cyber-security in smart cities: The case of Dubai. J. Innov. Entrep. 2016, 5, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Wu, S.M.; Guo, D.; Wu, Y.J.; Wu, Y.C. Future Development of Taiwan’s Smart Cities from an Information Security Perspective. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Europeean Parliament. Digitising Industry (Industry 4.0) and Cybersecurity. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/607361/IPOL_BRI(2017)607361_EN.pdf (accessed on 18 December 2022).
  85. Habraken, M.; Bondarouk, T. Embracing Variety in Decision-Making Regarding Adoption of Industry 4.0. Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Flores, M.; Naya, S.; Fernández-Casal, R.; Zaragoza, S.; Raña, P.; Tarrío-Saavedra, J. Constructing a Control Chart Using Functional Data. Mathematics 2020, 8, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Naeem, M.A.; Ali, R.; Kim, B.-S.; Nor, S.A.; Hassan, S. A Periodic Caching Strategy Solution for the Smart City in Information-Centric Internet of Things. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Alibasic, A.; Al Junaibi, R.; Aung, Z.; Woon, W.; Omar, M. Cybersecurity for smart cities: A brief review, In Lecture Notes in Computer Science. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Data Analytics for Renewable Energy Integration, Riva del Garda, Italy, 23 September 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Han, Q. Personal Data Protection Strategy Research Based on the Theory of Information Ecology. Multidiscip. Digital Publ. Inst. Proc. 2017, 1, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. European Cyber Security Organisation (ECSO). The Role of the Regions in Strengthening the European Union’s Cyber Security. 2021. Available online: https://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/cybersecurity (accessed on 10 December 2021).
  91. Guedes, A.L.A.; Alvarenga, J.C.; Goulart, M.D.S.S.; Rodriguez, M.V.R.Y.; Soares, C.A.P. Smart Cities: The Main Drivers for Increasing the Intelligence of Cities. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Wu, S.M.; Chen, T.-C.; Wu, Y.J.; Lytras, M. Smart Cities in Taiwan: A Perspective on Big Data Applications. Sustainability 2018, 10, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Lytras, M.D.; Visvizi, A. Who Uses Smart City Services and What to Make of It: Toward Interdisciplinary Smart Cities Research. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. PwC India. Creating Cyber Secure Smart Cities. Available online: https://www.pwc.in/research-insights/2018/creating-cyber-secure-smart-cities.html (accessed on 20 December 2019).
  95. Chumnumporn, K.; Jeenanunta, C.; Komolavanij, S.; Saenluang, N.; Onsri, K.; Fairat, K.; Itthidechakhachon, K. The Impact of IT Knowledge Capability and Big Data and Analytics on Firm’s Industry 4.0 Capability. Proceedings 2019, 39, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Habibzadeh, H.; Soyata, T.; Kantarci, B.; Boukerche, A.; Kaptan, C. Sensing, communication and security planes: A new challenge for a smart city system design. Comput. Networks 2018, 144, 163–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Zedadra, O.; Guerrieri, A.; Jouandeau, N.; Spezzano, G.; Seridi, H.; Fortino, G. Swarm Intelligence and IoT-Based Smart Cities: A Review. In The Internet of Things for Smart Urban Ecosystems; Cicirelli, F., Guerreri, A., Mastroianni, C., Spezzano, G., Vinci, A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Berlin, Germany, 2019; pp. 177–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. FAO (The Food and Agriculture Organization). FAO Framework for the Urban Food Agenda; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Marzouk, O.A.; Fang, G. Compilation of Smart Cities Attributes and Quantitative Identification of Mismatch in Rankings. J. Eng. 2022, 2022, 5981551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Dashkevych, O.; Portnov, B.A. Criteria for Smart City Identification: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Ijaz, S.; Shah, M.A.; Khan, A.; Ahmed, M. Smart Cities: A Survey on Security Concerns. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 2016, 7, 612–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Maresova, P.; Soukal, I.; Svobodova, L.; Hedvicakova, M.; Javanmardi, E.; Selamat, A.; Krejcar, O. Consequences of Industry 4.0 in Business and Economics. Economies 2018, 6, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Akgül, Ö.U.; Canberk, B. Chapter 3—Software defined things: A green network management for future smart city architectures. In Smart Cities and Homes Key Enabling Technologies; Obaidat, M.S., Nicopolitidis, P., Eds.; Elsevier, ScienceDirect: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 41–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Camarinha-Matos, L.M.; Fornasiero, R.; Ramezani, J.; Ferrada, F. Collaborative Networks: A Pillar of Digital Transformation. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 5431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Robbe, M.-F.; Vinyals, M.; Lodeweyckx, S.; Espeche, J.M.; Brun, P.-E.; Costa, S.V.; Mourshed, M.; Kavgić, A.; Loureiro, T. Putting Residential Flexibility Management into Action with Pilot Sites in Europe: From Mas2tering to DRIvE Projects. Proceedings 2018, 2, 1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Bosse, S.; Engel, U. Augmented Virtual Reality: Combining Crowd Sensing and Social Data Mining with Large-Scale Simulation Using Mobile Agents for Future Smart Cities. Multidiscip. Digital Publ. Inst. Proc. 2018, 4, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Vrchota, J.; Mařiková, M.; Řehoř, P.; Rolínek, L.; Toušek, R. Human Resources Readiness for Industry 4.0. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019, 6, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Vrchota, J.; Pech, M. Readiness of Enterprises in Czech Republic to Implement Industry 4.0: Index of Industry 4.0. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 5405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Kołodziej, J.; Hopmann, C.; Coppa, G.; Grzonka, D.; Widłak, A. Intelligent Transportation Systems—Models, Challenges, Security Aspects. In Cybersecurity of Digital Service Chains; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; Volume 13300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Sima, V.; Gheorghe, I.G.; Subić, J.; Nancu, D. Influences of the Industry 4.0 Revolution on the Human Capital Development and Consumer Behavior: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Myeong, S.; Jung, Y.; Lee, E. A Study on Determinant Factors in Smart City Development: An Analytic Hierarchy Process Analysis. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Dodge, M.; Kitchin, R. The Challenges of Cybersecurity for Smart Cities. In Creating Smart Cities; Coletta, C., Evans, L., Heaphy, L., Kitchin, R., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2017; Volume 1, pp. 205–216. [Google Scholar]
  113. ISO/IEC 25010. Systems and Software Engineering—Systems and Software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE)—System and Software Quality Models. 2011. Available online: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:37122:ed-1:v1:en (accessed on 3 April 2022).
  114. Liu, J.; Chen, N.; Chen, Z.; Xu, L.; Du, W.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, C. Towards sustainable smart cities: Maturity assessment and development pattern recognition in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 370, 133248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Elmaghraby, A.S.; Losavio, M.M. Cyber security challenges in Smart Cities: Safety, security and privacy. J. Adv. Res. 2014, 5, 491–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Fine, G.A. Group Culture and the Interaction Order: Local Sociology on the Meso-Level. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012, 38, 159–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Fluck, J. Why Do Students Bully? An Analysis of Motives Behind Violence in Schools. Youth Soc. 2014, 49, 567–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Gil, S.; Kott, A.; Barabási, A.-L. A genetic epidemiology approach to cyber-security. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, srep05659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  119. Tobarra, L.; Robles-Gómez, A.; Pastor, R.; Hernández, R.; Duque, A.; Cano, J. A Cybersecurity Experience with Cloud Virtual-Remote Laboratories. Proceedings 2019, 31, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Dawson, J.; Thomson, R.H. The Future Cybersecurity Workforce: Going Beyond Technical Skills for Successful Cyber Performance. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  121. Li, Z.; Shahidehpour, M. Deployment of cybersecurity for managing traffic efficiency and safety in smart cities. Electr. J. 2017, 30, 52–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Rantos, K.; Spyros, A.; Papanikolaou, A.; Kritsas, A.; Ilioudis, C.; Katos, V. Interoperability Challenges in the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Ecosystem. Computers 2020, 9, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Buchler, N.; La Fleur, C.G.; Hoffman, B.; Rajivan, P.; Marusich, L.; Lightner, L. Cyber Teaming and Role Specialization in a Cyber Security Defense Competition. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 2133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Yin, X.C.; Liu, Z.G.; Nkenyereye, L.; Ndibanje, B. Toward an Applied Cyber Security Solution in IoT-Based Smart Grids: An Intrusion Detection System Approach. Sensors 2019, 19, 4952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sensors 23 00120 g001 550
Figure 1. Industrial revolution [9].
Figure 1. Industrial revolution [9].
Sensors 23 00120 g001
Sensors 23 00120 g002 550
Figure 2. The Industry 4.0 Environment [26].
Figure 2. The Industry 4.0 Environment [26].
Sensors 23 00120 g002
Sensors 23 00120 g003 550
Figure 3. Elements of Industry 4.0 [26].
Figure 3. Elements of Industry 4.0 [26].
Sensors 23 00120 g003
Sensors 23 00120 g004 550
Figure 4. Industry 4.0 and the elements of digitalization [38].
Figure 4. Industry 4.0 and the elements of digitalization [38].
Sensors 23 00120 g004
Sensors 23 00120 g005 550
Figure 5. Tools of digitalization in industry 4.0 [45].
Figure 5. Tools of digitalization in industry 4.0 [45].
Sensors 23 00120 g005
Sensors 23 00120 g006 550
Figure 6. Representation of cyber security risks posed by humans considering the benign or malicious intent and the level of computational competence [57].
Figure 6. Representation of cyber security risks posed by humans considering the benign or malicious intent and the level of computational competence [57].
Sensors 23 00120 g006
Sensors 23 00120 g007 550
Figure 7. Representation of off-path and on-path caching mechanism in smart city [87].
Figure 7. Representation of off-path and on-path caching mechanism in smart city [87].
Sensors 23 00120 g007
Sensors 23 00120 g008 550
Figure 8. Architectural depiction of smart city [96].
Figure 8. Architectural depiction of smart city [96].
Sensors 23 00120 g008
Table
Table 1. Key-words used for searching.
Table 1. Key-words used for searching.
Main TermsAdditional Terms
Terms grouped“cybersecurity” related“smart city” relatedactors involved relatedtechnologies involved relateddiscussion/approaches related
Key-wordscyber risk, cybersecurity, cyber threats, cyber-attacks etc.smart city, smart cities, smart grid, sustainable city etc.cybercrime, psychology of cybercriminals etc.MQTT, 6G, 5G, LoRaWAN, 6LoWPAN, RPL, blockchain etc.IoT, Big Data, Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning in cybersecurity, cobots, standards, classifications etc.
Table
Table 2. Articles from indexed journals (per publisher).
Table 2. Articles from indexed journals (per publisher).
ItemsPublished IntervalCitations
Annual Review of Sociology12012160
Frontiers52018169
Hindawi22018, 2022243
IEEE12020524
Nature—Scientific Reports1201634
OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology12018310
The Science and Information (SAI) Organization12016102
Online-Journals.org120171082
Sage1201752
Springer22016, 202259
Taylor & Francis22018, 2019193
Sciencedirect92014–20221089
MDPI532017–20224413
Table
Table 3. Types of items cited in the review.
Table 3. Types of items cited in the review.
Published in (year)No. of ItemsCitationsAverage
(cit. per item)
Articles in scientific Journals2012–2022808480106
Proceeding of conferences2015–2021141701122
Books & chapters in books2010–2022861777
Companies reports2015–20221246339
Agencies reports2016–2021613623
Blogs (from professionals)20222 - -
PhD Thesis2018166
Standards (ISO)20191 - -
TOTAL2012–20221241140392
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Clim, A.; Toma, A.; Zota, R.D.; Constantinescu, R. The Need for Cybersecurity in Industrial Revolution and Smart Cities. Sensors 2023, 23, 120. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23010120

AMA Style

Clim A, Toma A, Zota RD, Constantinescu R. The Need for Cybersecurity in Industrial Revolution and Smart Cities. Sensors. 2023; 23(1):120. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23010120

Chicago/Turabian Style

Clim, Antonio, Andrei Toma, Răzvan Daniel Zota, and Radu Constantinescu. 2023. "The Need for Cybersecurity in Industrial Revolution and Smart Cities" Sensors 23, no. 1: 120. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23010120

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop