INTRODUCTION
Critical infrastructure can have a simple explanation of the wheel or more importantly, the backbone of the most technological economies in the world. It guides everything. It controls everything. It dictates the share which each person or a select community gets. It is simply the lives of most of the citizens in such nations. As such, the security of such systems is vital. Such systems will be prone to attacks and manipulations by people who are not contented or want a larger share than that they are already allocated. Some people will also like to cartel the follow of such resources so that they can always be the dominating factor over their fellow citizens. The security of such critical infrastructures such as water and electricity need to revamp. The security strength of such infrastructure needs to be top notch and up to standard to and still be dynamic to keep up with the dynamically changing world.
Recent years has seen the change in approach to security. The mitigating hand it has played has drastically lowered the threats to nations and stopped critical security attacks which have saved countless lives. The securing of critical systems is one of the many steps that different governments are taking to secure their citizens. Some of the infrastructure if left unprotected is just the stepping stone to calamity. Take an example of the military. If the systems of the defense forces are not adequately secure, then it is an outright gesture to allow any attack to happen. Moreover, His Excellency President Bill Clinton, in 1996 instituted the beefing of security in the various and vital organs of the government including the Department of Defense (Collier and Lakoff, 2008).
It is right and advised to describe the security of the critical infrastructure as new problematization which introduces uncertainty in trending the new and murky unknown and untraveled roads. Reliable information on the risks of cyber-attacks to critical infrastructure is not readily available making the roads further scary and unattractive. Governments and blue chip companies are consistently withholding necessary information which can aid in the current fight. The withholding of such information has gifted the cyber gurus a walk in the park in manipulating of such systems. They are simply punching the systems and rendering it useless. It has, consequently, made the cyber security insecure. Withholding of the system security leads to the building of knowledge silos which are experiencing a restriction in access, and hence the information being useless. Muegge and Craigen, 2015, therefore, suggests that to secure most of the systems, information has to be released to the public. The public needs to learn and understand how to protect themselves from such attacks. Their approach, however, raises various issues. Is this the right way to go? As the paper continues to broaden, a correct approach will be seen and determined.
ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE
Critical infrastructure is pivotal in human life. They serve the basic human rights and strings a balance especially in areas where the people cannot strike a balance. Infrastructure such as nuclear power generation powers most nations (Muegge & Craigen, 2015). Telecommunication infrastructure which is one of the most critical infrastructures also powers and enables ease communication between people. It reduces the hustle and bustle of traveling to places to pass a message. These systems security strength, however, depends on the strength of their planning stage. The regulation of nuclear power generating companies into the entry and exit of the markets increases the security strength of such vital infrastructure. The strict auditing of such enterprises also reduces the risk levels (Muegge & Craigen, 2015). The compliance to standards level of electricity plants is one of the few measures that ensures the security of such infrastructure.
TELECOMMUNICATION INFRASTRUCTURE
In the telecom sector which is well indicated as a critical infrastructure may suffer hugely and most often than not most damaging security attacks (Muegge & Craigen, 2015). To secure such systems, they tend to follow the trend set by the nuclear power generating company. The restriction of entry and exit into the markets monopolizes the security level of such systems hence enabling the securing of such systems secure. The systems also lay measures to ensure their systems are secure. They employ real-time monitoring of their systems. As such, they can mitigate the massive attacks as soon as they happen (Muegge & Craigen, 2015). As seen in the previous two paragraphs, monopolization of such security information is one of the keys to maintaining the security of such infrastructure. As such, the Muegge and Craiggen argument are neutralized and rendered controversial.
TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
Thales, a security company which aims at offering security to critical infrastructure has come up with a very attractive proposal in the securing of traveling terminals. With the rise in the rate of terrorism rate, the securing of moving terminals is now essential. Terrorists are changing tact and are nowadays attacking these terminals especially the airports. A good example is the 9/11 attack in the United States which started at the airport. The securing of such infrastructure is essential. A command and control center is not a new thing in most of the traveling terminals. Close Circuit Televisions (CCTVs) are not a new feature too. Metal detectors are also in use in most of the traveling terminals. The traveling terminals also have a huge contingent of security officers and in some cases the military to provide physical safety (Thales,2016).
The systems are, however, not tamper proof. The systems can be hacked and the control of such terminals being put in jeopardy. Most of the security apparatus will tend to depend solely on the equipment and forget their work. The system can also be manually manipulated by people who are malicious. The vulnerability of such systems creates a crossroads on the level of the technological security should be employed concerning the human (Thales,2016).
According to Jackson, NIST has come up with a comprehensive security framework for the critical infrastructure operators (2016). The building up of the structure has consistently been evolving with the changing time. It is an association of the different stakeholders both from the public and the private sector who are still working to improve the framework to cope up with such framework. The guidelines are, however, voluntary. The making of such critical framework voluntary is, however, uncalled for and careless. If the frame set aside is meant to benefit the people, the government should be involved in the formulating of the framework. The framework should also be made compulsory particularly when any single company has a direct impact on the citizens of a particular country. The framework has an inconsistent. It has an aim of helping yet it does not give the operator with the tools to use or what to do. It is only offering so broad and vague guidelines which render it ambiguous since it will tend to eat the cake and having it. Other critics have it that their system, even though developed by the public and private sector, the government may use the framework as a back door to access most of the frame users' information.
Some of the most significant inconsistencies, contradictions and ambiguities are the government masquerading as the organization to offer security, yet they are the people behind some of the misgivings her citizens are experiencing. Some of the online based companies are irregularly attaining their clients' data and selling it to the highest bidders. As such, they are not only breaking the confidence of their customers but risking their lives. They are selling the valuable information of some of the infrastructure-oriented companies to rival companies who may in one way or another be malicious and stall the company and hence create a hick up in the service delivery of such enterprises (Markoff, 2016).
Another ambiguity which has clearly stood out is if monopolization and cartels of entering and exit of players in any critical sector increases the security. The use of ambiguity is well informed since some of the companies involved in the critical infrastructure may be so profit oriented that they will tend to block other players who may offer better services in the name of security (Business Finding, 2014). As such, an issue of ambiguity is raise. There is also a problem of contradiction and inconsistency. Many players in any sector will lead to a rise in the pool of resources and ideas. As such, security will be an issue of the past if the monopolization of such sectors is quickly solved.
CONCLUSION
In a nutshell, the issue of safety, especially in the critical infrastructure, is essential. It should not be left in the hands of the few people who may stray and their ways be perverted. The players in the respective industry should be responsible and should comprehensively invest in the security of their sectors.
REFERENCE
Business Finding (2014) Larger Industries Monopolizing Businesses and profits retrieved on 22 July 2016 from https://www.firstamericanmerchant.com/larger-industries-monopolizing-businesses-and-profits/
Collier S.J. and Lakoff A. (2008) The Vulnerability of Vital Systems: How "Critical Infrastructure" Became a Security Problem
Jackson W. (2014) Protecting Critical Infrastructure: A New Approach retrieved on 22 July 2016 from http://www.informationweek.com/government/cybersecurity/protecting-critical-infrastructure-a-new-approach/d/d-id/1204577
Markoff J. (2016) Surveillance of Citizens by Government retrieved on 22 July 2016 from http://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/surveillance-of-citizens-by-government
Muegge S. and Dan Craigen (2015) A Design Science Approach to Constructing Critical Infrastructure and Communicating Cyber security Risk. Management Review retrieved on 22 July 2016 from http://timreview.ca/article/902
