CyberTOMP: A novel systematic framework to manage asset-focused cybersecurity from tactical and operational levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently different reference models are used to manage cybersecurity, although practically none are applicable “as is” to lower levels as they do not detail specific procedural aspects for them. However, they urge organizations to develop a methodological foundation to manage cybersecurity at those levels. Although they allow organizations to adhere to a recognized standard at the strategic level, this advantage vanishes when organizations must define specific low-level procedures, allowing the appearance of inconsistency at tactical and operational levels between departments of the same organization or between organizations. The design of these elements with the required holism and homogeneity is difficult, and this is why generic processes focused on getting certified regarding a standard are usually originated, but they are insufficient to obtain effective cybersecurity because they are not focused on dealing with real cyber threats. Because of the great responsibility of lower levels to achieve effective cybersecurity, this lack of methodological definition makes it difficult to adapt cybersecurity to the highly dynamic cyber context with the required holism and strategic alignment. Our proposal provides CyberTOMP, a process for managing cybersecurity at lower levels, as well as a set of methodological elements that support it. The novelty of these contributions is that they complement the strategic standard selected by the organization, providing it with a set of procedural elements ready to be used out of the box, contributing those aspects required by high-level frameworks to manage cybersecurity at lower levels, for which there is no alternative with a managerial approach.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".