As we know, threats are increasing day by day. Our countries don’t have any master plan to defend us from this threats.

Recently, the United States and United Kingdom governments published a mutual “Technical Warning” on the threats of “Russian state-sponsored cyber actors.” While timely and targeted, this warning shouldn’t be an astonishment to anyone.

We’ve testified sufficient cyberattacks in contemporary years to concede that the digital kingdom is mankind’s new battleground. And while the west is ramping up its protection, its applications aren’t overseen by an overall policy. Yes, it’s true: There is no master plan.

Anything we require now, before a more severe cyber-attack, is a policy along the edges of our National Response Framework (NRF). This document is in its personal messages, “A guide to how the nation responds to all types of disasters and emergencies.” Supplies, functions, duties, you identify it. From the Oval Office below to provincial governments. It likewise includes Native American Tribal Councils. No, thoughtfully, view it up because you can. This isn’t a mystery, eyes only doomsday plan. The National Response Framework is accessible to the public because it needs to be. There can’t be any room for misunderstanding or embarrassment.

Although cyber assaults do befall under the parasol of the NRF, they’re perceived only in a nebulous and fragile annex that leaves far too many puzzles unanswered. What sorts of initiatives, for example, fall under the subject of “Experience of National Significance”? Whacked heating-oil companies in winter? Traffic lights at haste hour? What if an assault targets something apparently harmless, such as the billing authority of a medical insurance organization that could delay someone’s life-saving prescription? These including a thousand other enigmas need unraveling out, along with everyone’s nominated progression of action.

A National Cyber Response Framework should figure three primary principles.

1. Government Responsibility.

Who responds to whom? We require knowing precisely what medium of government is liable for every portion of our safety and acknowledgment. Assault versus security. Nonmilitary versus military. International versus domestic. We need to clear up the extension and formalize the series of control. We can’t pass the indistinct swamp of pre-Sept. 11 intelligence distribution to replicate itself in cyberspace.

2. Private Sector Responsibility.

The NRF Annex admits that “the power of the Federal Government to exercise authority over activities in cyberspace is limited.” As for how the government should operate with private corporations in the event of an assault, the document uses expressions such as “information-sharing” and “promote continuous dialogue.” Not only do countries corporations need to be hauled kicking and screaming to help guard the country that protects them, but every other corporation, large and small, must be bear some liability for their own security.

3. Personal Responsibility.

None security strategy is impeccable without the support of common citizens. All of us have a role to perform, under 13-year-old humans and all his networked devices. Just as the Greatest Generation prepared for air assaults and shaded their places with blackout shades, we need to do our part.

It’s fabulous that we’ve conclusively awakened up to the threats of cyber-attacks, and it’s even better than we’re rising to develop protecting tools. Now those tools require being synchronized by a single plan. Turkey to do so transmits us constantly vulnerable and supports bolder attacks. And when those attacks come, we can’t beat our personal chaos to provide aid and succor to the attacker.