국가난제 혁신전략 연구 2025 제3권 사이버경제안보 관점 공급망 난제 요인 분석 연구

RLv02iLdWeQs2rLDcCn8+Q==

연구성과

연구보고서

국가난제 혁신전략 연구 2025 제3권 사이버경제안보 관점 공급망 난제 요인 분석 연구 Innovation Strategy Study to Address National Challenges 2025 (Vol. 3 : A Diagnostic Study on Systemic Malfunction of Cybersecurity in Digital Infrastructure as a National Challenge)

국가난제 혁신전략 연구 2025 제3권 사이버경제안보 관점 공급망 난제 요인 분석 연구원문 다운로드 국가난제 혁신전략 연구 2025 제3권 사이버경제안보 관점 공급망 난제 요인 분석 연구원문보기

보고서명
국가난제 혁신전략 연구 2025 제3권 사이버경제안보 관점 공급망 난제 요인 분석 연구
보고서명(영문)
Innovation Strategy Study to Address National Challenges 2025 (Vol. 3 : A Diagnostic Study on Systemic Malfunction of Cybersecurity in Digital Infrastructure as a National Challenge)

책임자 조원선
소속기관과학기술정책연구원
내부연구참여자손수아,홍성주
외부연구참여자이아름
발행기관 과학기술정책연구원
ISBN979-11-24145-42-5
출판년도2025
페이지129
보고서유형 일반연구보고서
연구유형 정책
표준분류 과학기술 > 과학기술일반
자료유형연구보고서
공공누리유형 4유형 (출처표시+상업적이용금지+변경금지)
주제어국가난제,혁신전략,순환경제,사이버안보,국정과제

조회수

조회수 반영까지 최대 10분 정도 소요될 수 있습니다.

7
다운로드

다운로드 수 반영까지 최대 10분 정도 소요될 수 있습니다.

0

■연구 목적
○ 국민이 인식하는 국가난제를 발굴 및 분석하고, 그중 과학기술 혁신전략의 역할이 기대되는 난제의 심층 연구를 수행

■주요 내용
1) 연구 플랫폼 운영 : 국가난제 이론 탐색 및 글로벌 심포지엄 개최, 학습 촉진 및 국가난제혁신포럼 총괄위원회 운영 등
2) 국가난제 발굴 및 정책노트 제작 : 델파이조사, 국민인식조사, 청년참여 워크숍 등을 통한 2025 10대 국가난제 선정 및 󰡔국가난제 EYE󰡕 발간
3) 주제연구 부문 : 2024년도 10대 국가난제 중 과학기술의 기대 역할이 큰 국가난제 선정 및 관련 세부 주제 진단분석 연구 수행 (순환경제, 사이버안보)
4) 타겟 연구 부문 : 역대 정부 국정과제 분석, 디지털 헬스 난제 진단, 해외 동향 중 난제 돌파를 위한 거버넌스 및 R&D의 시스템적 성공 요인 분석 등

■정책 대안
○ 제언 1. 국정의제 우선순위 및 국정운영 혁신
- 국민이 생각하는 국가난제의 위기인식 우선순위를 국정 의제에 반영, 이를 위해 대통령 직속의 최고 국정기구에 문제 해결 역할을 부여하고, 예산·수단 조정 권한 확대
○ 제언 2. 국민인식 맞춤형 정책 포트폴리오
- 정책 기획 시 국민인식의 복합적 조합을 활용, 예로 복합성이 높게 나타나는 난제는 규모 있는 정부 사업, 중장기 전략, 이어달리기 정책 등의 패키지가 필요
○ 제언 3. 국민 수용성을 고려한 정책 대응 역량 제고
- 국민감정지도를 통해 난제별로 서로 다른 감정·전망·기대가 드러났으며, 이는 정책 수용성 높은 정책 기획에 활용 가능
- 감정지도는 포트폴리오 중 리더십·정책 공감 영역에서 유용하며, 감정 유형(안타까움·무력감·답답함·분노·기대감·복합감정)에 따라 정책적 수단 다각화

Innovation Strategy Study to Address National Challenges 2025Volume III. A Diagnostic Study on Systemic Malfunction of Cybersecurity in Digital Infrastructure as a National Challenge

ㆍProject Leader: Onesun Cho
ㆍParticipants: Soo-ah Sohn · Sungjoo Hong · Areum Lee

1. Introduction: The Strategic Imperative of Digital Infrastructure Security
Digital infrastructure has emerged as the foundational architecture underpinning modern economic systems serving as the primary domain within which cybersecurity threats materialize with increasing frequency and severity. When security frameworks within digital infrastructure experience systemic malfunction, the consequences extend far beyond mere technical failures, manifesting as comprehensive disruptions to essential national functions encompassing financial systems, logistics networks, and public administration mechanisms. These disruptions precipitate immediate and substantial economic losses while simultaneously generating widespread societal disorder. In this context, cybersecurity threats targeting digital infrastructure have become inextricably intertwined with broader concerns of economic security.
South Korea has recently witnessed a disturbing pattern of severe incidents, including large scale communication outages, catastrophic data center fires, and massive data breaches. These recurring events have exposed profound structural vulnerabilities within the nation’s digital infrastructure ecosystem, suggesting that conventional approaches to security management have proven inadequate in addressing the underlying systemic challenges.

2. Theoretical Framework: Understanding the National Wicked Problem Paradigm
The persistent nature of these digital infrastructure challenges indicates that they exhibit the defining characteristics of what scholars term a National Wicked Problem or National Challenges. This conceptual framework recognizes that certain policy challenges resist resolution through conventional technical countermeasures due to their inherent complexity. Digital infrastructure security exemplifies this phenomenon through its complex interconnectivity between physical and virtual elements, its highly decentralized ownership and operational structures, and its multilayered causal relationships that defy simple linear analysis.
The national wicked problem demonstrates three fundamental characteristics that distinguish it from conventional policy challenges. First, it involves complex interconnections among diverse factors that render single factor analysis methodologically impossible. Second, it encompasses numerous stakeholders with conflicting and overlapping interests, which significantly complicates any attempts at structural resolution through simple policy adjustments. Third, it reveals the inherent limitations of short-term prescriptive measures, which may temporarily alleviate symptoms while failing to address root causes. These structural challenges cannot be resolved expeditiously through simple technological improvements or through the isolated efforts of single organizations.

3. Research Objectives and Methodology
This comprehensive study seeks to systematically diagnose the factors underlying the repeated failures in South Korea’s digital infrastructure security through the analytical lens of the National Wicked Problem framework. The research transcends technical prescriptions to explore fundamental improvements at governance and institutional levels. The methodological approach applies the national wicked problem analysis framework to examine the structural causes underlying the problem’s persistent nature, analyzing the cybersecurity landscape in digital infrastructure from multiple analytical dimensions.
The research methodology incorporates three complementary analytical approaches. The continuity analysis examines path dependence by investigating how historical policy decisions, particularly those focused on quantitative growth metrics, have influenced contemporary problems. The stakeholder analysis explores conflict structures among key actors and identifies mechanisms that hinder the resolution of the wicked problem. The causality analysis derives causal loops that generate and sustain the structural vicious cycle, employing system dynamics methodology to analyze complex interactions and feedback structures among technological, institutional, market, and societal factors.

4. Analysis of the Cybersecurity Wicked Problem Landscape for identifying Policy Gaps
The contemporary digital infrastructure landscape is undergoing a fundamental transformation driven by the convergence of multiple technological paradigms. The proliferation of internet technologies, mobile platforms, and artificial intelligence systems has catalyzed an exponential increase in data traffic volumes and infrastructure demand, establishing a condition of profound societal digital dependency. This technological evolution manifests through the widespread adoption of cloud computing architectures and edge computing frameworks, which, while enhancing operational efficiency and system performance, simultaneously introduce unprecedented levels of structural complexity into the infrastructure ecosystem.
The heightened complexity inherent in these converged systems creates a paradoxical vulnerability wherein the interconnectedness designed to enhance resilience instead amplifies systemic risk. Vulnerabilities residing at specific nodes within the infrastructure can propagate through the entire system with cascading effects, transforming localized failures into comprehensive systemic disruptions. This phenomenon particularly threatens economic supply chains, where digital dependencies create multiple points of potential failure that can precipitate widespread operational paralysis.
The reconceptualization of digital infrastructure from commercial assets to strategic national resources represents a fundamental shift in the geopolitical understanding of technological capabilities. This transformation has occurred within the broader context of intensifying great power competition, where control over digital infrastructure increasingly determines national competitive advantages and strategic autonomy. The integration of physical infrastructure layers with virtual network components has generated novel threat vectors that transcend traditional security paradigms, creating vulnerabilities that existing fragmented security architectures struggle to address effectively.
This structural evolution enables the amplification of single-point failures into systemic risks, manifesting as increasingly sophisticated security threats. The weaponized interdependence emerges as adversaries exploit the interconnected nature of global digital systems to achieve strategic objectives. Attribution uncertainty complicates response mechanisms as the anonymity and technical sophistication of cyber operations obscure the identification of responsible actors. Furthermore, the rise of techno-nationalism introduces additional complexity as nations increasingly view technological capabilities through the lens of national security imperatives, leading to fragmented governance approaches and conflicting regulatory frameworks.
The cybersecurity domain exhibits classical characteristics of market failure despite the critical importance of security as a public good. The predominance of private ownership in critical infrastructure creates a fundamental misalignment between private incentives and public security requirements. Private entities, operating under profit maximization imperatives, maintain systematic incentives to minimize security investments, particularly when the benefits of such investments accrue primarily to the broader ecosystem rather than to the investing entity. This creates a pervasive free rider problem wherein organizations benefit from the security investments of others while minimizing their own contributions, resulting in chronic underinvestment across the entire market ecosystem.
The regulatory framework further exacerbates this market failure through the prevailing practice of granting legal immunity upon implementation of minimum security measures. This regulatory approach, while intended to encourage basic security adoption, paradoxically creates a ceiling effect where organizations have little incentive to exceed minimal compliance requirements. The result is a security ecosystem characterized by lowest-common-denominator approaches that fail to address the sophisticated and evolving nature of contemporary cyber threats.
The political economy of cybersecurity governance exhibits a distinctive pattern of punctuated equilibrium, wherein long periods of relative stasis are interrupted by brief episodes of intense policy activity. During normal operational periods, cybersecurity risks accumulate incrementally with low political visibility, as the technical nature of vulnerabilities and the absence of immediate visible impacts fail to capture public or political attention. This latency period is characterized by the gradual accumulation of technical debt, outdated security architectures, and expanding attack surfaces that remain largely invisible to non-technical stakeholders.
However, Focusing events, including major data breaches, infrastructure failures, or cyber attacks of a high profile, transform accumulated risks into political issues of high priority. This sudden politicization triggers reactive policy responses characterized by urgency and symbolism rather than systematic analysis. These interventions target visible symptoms while failing to rectify the structural vulnerabilities that enabled the crisis.
The transnational nature of digital infrastructure adds complexity to cybersecurity governance. Digital systems operate across national boundaries, creating dependencies that span multiple regulatory regimes. While this necessitates international coordination, the involvement of diverse stakeholders, specifically multinational corporations, foreign governments, and technical standards bodies, significantly complicates governance and processes for decision making.
The multiplicity of stakeholders with divergent interests, regulatory philosophies, and technical capabilities creates a governance environment characterized by fragmentation and coordination failures. National security imperatives often conflict with commercial interests, while technical standardization efforts struggle to reconcile different national approaches to privacy, security, and digital sovereignty. This complexity is further amplified by the rapid pace of technological change, which consistently outpaces the ability of governance mechanisms to adapt and respond effectively.
The preliminary diagnostic analysis reveals that the cybersecurity wicked problem perpetuates itself through three distinct yet interconnected feedback mechanisms that create a self-reinforcing cycle of vulnerability and inadequate response. These feedback loops operate simultaneously and synergistically, each amplifying the effects of the others and creating systemic resistance to fundamental reform.
Loop A manifests as policy path dependence, wherein historical success in achieving quantitative infrastructure growth creates cognitive and institutional lock-in that prevents necessary transitions toward security-focused policies. The accumulated political capital and institutional arrangements built around speed and diffusion metrics create powerful constituencies resistant to paradigm shifts that might compromise quantitative performance indicators.
Loop B represents the “fixes that fail” archetype, where organizational and governmental responses consistently prioritize short-term recovery measures over long-term structural improvements. This pattern emerges from the immediate pressures to restore service and minimize visible disruption, leading to quick fixes that address symptoms while allowing root causes to persist and potentially worsen. The accumulation of technical debt and deferred maintenance resulting from this approach creates increasingly fragile systems vulnerable to cascading failures.
Loop C embodies the dynamics of responsibility avoidance and market failure, where the complexity of stakeholder interests and the diffusion of accountability create systematic disincentives for proactive security investment. The ability to externalize costs and risks, combined with the difficulty of attributing responsibility in complex multi-stakeholder environments, fosters a culture of minimal compliance and reactive response rather than proactive risk management.
The interaction of these three feedback loops generates a comprehensive structural vicious cycle that perpetuates vulnerability within the digital infrastructure ecosystem. This cycle follows a predictable pattern: chronic underinvestment in security creates latent vulnerabilities that remain dormant until triggered by adverse events. When incidents occur, they generate immediate crisis responses focused on blame attribution and rapid restoration rather than systematic analysis. The resulting partial improvements fail to address fundamental weaknesses, allowing risks to re-accumulate in new forms while maintaining the underlying structural vulnerabilities.
This analysis confirms the existence of substantial policy gaps that current institutional systems and governance frameworks fail to address adequately. These gaps manifest across multiple dimensions: the absence of mechanisms to overcome path dependency in policy formulation, the lack of incentive structures that align private interests with public security requirements, the fragmentation of governance authority that prevents coordinated response, and the insufficient adaptive capacity to respond to rapidly evolving technological and threat landscapes. The identification of these policy gaps establishes the foundation for developing targeted interventions that can interrupt the self-reinforcing cycles and enable fundamental transformation of the cybersecurity governance paradigm.

5. Diagnosis of the Digital Infrastructure Wicked Problem
□ Diagnosis of Policy Continuity: Fixation on ‘Quantitative Performance’ and Marginalization of Security
The historical trajectory of South Korea’s digital infrastructure policy reveals a profound and persistent path dependency that has fundamentally shaped the contemporary vulnerability landscape. Since the middle of the 1990s, policy formulation has consistently privileged quantitative performance metrics, primarily infrastructure speed and coverage diffusion, over qualitative attributes such as security robustness and systemic resilience. This strategic orientation, while instrumental in achieving infrastructure development of the highest international caliber, has paradoxically established the structural foundations for the current security crisis.
The evolution of this path dependency manifests through three distinct yet interconnected historical periods, each reinforcing the primacy of quantitative metrics while systematically marginalizing security considerations. During the informatization and internet diffusion period spanning the 1990s to the early 2000s, policy frameworks concentrated overwhelmingly on infrastructure proliferation and digital divide resolution. This era, characterized by technological optimism and rapid deployment imperatives, established institutional arrangements and cognitive frameworks that prioritized access and speed over security architecture. The absence of consistent security awareness during this formative period created foundational vulnerabilities that would compound over subsequent decades.
The subsequent mobile and broadcasting convergence period, extending from the middle of the 2000s to the middle of the 2010s, witnessed the emergence and escalation of cyber threats, yet policy responses remained constrained by established institutional pathways. Despite growing evidence of systemic vulnerabilities, structural gaps in response systems were systematically overlooked or addressed through incremental adjustments rather than fundamental reforms. Governance restructuring efforts during this period, while acknowledging the changing threat landscape, failed to overcome the entrenched prioritization of quantitative performance, resulting in ineffective crisis response mechanisms that perpetuated rather than resolved underlying weaknesses.
In the current digital deepening period extending from the late 2010s to the present, the emergence of attacks driven by artificial intelligence and sophisticated threat actors has elevated cybersecurity to a critical national security concern. New regulatory frameworks have been introduced, yet fundamental structural issues, including the absence of centralized control mechanisms, insufficient coordination authority, and persistent operational confusion, remain substantively unaddressed. The governance architecture continues to lack the integrated capabilities necessary for responding to complex incidents that increasingly blur the boundaries between infrastructure failures and advanced technological attacks. This persistence of structural inadequacies despite evolving threats demonstrates the powerful constraining effect of path dependency on policy adaptation.
The core diagnostic finding reveals a fundamental paradox, namely that the very factors that enabled South Korea’s remarkable success in digital infrastructure development have become the primary sources of contemporary vulnerability. The institutional focus on visible economic achievements, measured through speed benchmarks and coverage statistics, has systematically obscured the accumulation of invisible security risks. This cognitive and institutional entrenchment has created a perpetually reinforcing cycle wherein security investments are continually deferred in favor of performance enhancements, resulting in the progressive solidification of a structurally vulnerable infrastructure ecosystem.

□ Diagnosis of Stakeholder Interests: The Evolution of Conflict Complexity and Governance Inadequacy
The analysis of stakeholder dynamics across three historical periods reveals a persistent governance failure. As conflicts have grown more complex, the government’s response mechanisms have remained fundamentally reactive, anchored in ex post legal and institutional adjustments. This mismatch between evolving challenges and static governance approaches constitutes a central dimension of the wicked problem.
During the initial informatization period, the stakeholder landscape remained relatively simple. Conflicts emerged primarily around the introduction of new technologies and their early technical side effects, typically involving bilateral disputes between technology providers and users or between domestic and international entities over issues such as royalty payments. Nascent institutional frameworks reflected this simplicity, relying on ad hoc resolution mechanisms and minimal regulatory oversight. Critically, this period established patterns of reactive response that would persist into subsequent eras despite their growing inadequacy.
The mobile and broadcasting convergence period brought significant escalation in both scale and complexity. Increased usage intensity generated new categories of problems, including traffic overload and large scale data breaches affecting millions of users simultaneously. The stakeholder ecosystem expanded to encompass government agencies, telecommunications corporations, platform companies, consumer groups, and civil society organizations. Security threats diversified from simple technical failures to sophisticated attacks targeting multiple vulnerabilities. Yet conflict management systems evolved only incrementally through continuous supplementation rather than fundamental redesign. The reactive patterns established during informatization persisted, now manifestly insufficient for the challenges they confronted.
The current digital deepening period represents a qualitative transformation. Single failures have become capable of disrupting entire economic sectors. The stakeholder structure has become genuinely multi layered, with complex interdependencies that make attribution of responsibility increasingly contentious. Disputes over accountability have intensified, leading to increased reliance on compulsory measures including legal sanctions, litigation, and administrative penalties. Issues from previous periods have reemerged at greater scale and with more severe consequences, suggesting that earlier interventions failed to address root causes.
This historical trajectory exposes a predictable and self defeating cycle. Incidents occur, public outcry ensues, regulatory frameworks are hastily amended, and temporary calm is restored until the next crisis. Rather than providing fundamental solutions, this pattern generates an accumulation of regulatory layers that increase complexity without enhancing effectiveness. The governance system perpetually lags behind the evolving threat landscape, addressing yesterday’s problems with today’s policies while tomorrow’s vulnerabilities accumulate unaddressed.

□ Diagnosis of Causal Relationships: System Dynamics and the Architecture of Structural Vulnerability
The application of System Dynamics methodology to analyze the cybersecurity wicked problem reveals a complex architecture of interconnected feedback loops that perpetuate and amplify structural vulnerabilities. The comprehensive modeling of the system as a dynamic entity demonstrates that the persistence of cybersecurity challenges emerges not from isolated failures but from the systemic interaction of multiple reinforcing mechanisms that overwhelm stabilizing forces. The analysis conclusively shows that reinforcing loops(R) that entrench problems operate with greater force and persistence than balancing loops(B) intended to restore equilibrium, creating a system trapped in a state of chronic vulnerability.
The first identified structural dynamic, the threat enhancement structure arising from technological advancement, exhibits characteristics of a complex adaptive system wherein technological progress paradoxically increases system vulnerability. Technological advancement operates through dual reinforcing mechanisms: it increases attack profitability(R1) by expanding the potential gains from successful breaches while simultaneously generating new categories of vulnerabilities(R2) through increased system complexity and interdependence. This creates a perpetual arms race where defensive measures consistently lag behind offensive capabilities, with each technological innovation introducing novel attack vectors faster than security architectures can adapt. The complex adaptive nature of this structure means that both attackers and defenders continuously evolve their strategies in response to each other, creating an inherently unstable equilibrium that trends toward increased vulnerability over time.
The second structural dynamic manifests as organizational dependence on immediate recovery mechanisms, exemplifying the shifting the burden systems archetype. When security incidents occur, organizations face immediate pressure to restore operations, leading them to prioritize rapid recovery measures(B1) that address visible symptoms. This immediate response, while necessary for operational continuity, systematically diverts resources and attention from fundamental security investments(B2) that would address root causes. The resulting delay in sustained capacity building(R3) creates technical debt that accumulates over time, making systems progressively more fragile. Distorted market incentives(R4) reinforce this pattern by rewarding rapid recovery over prevention. Organizations become increasingly dependent on reactive measures while their fundamental security posture continues to deteriorate.
The third structural dynamic reveals systematic failures in governance responsibility and coordination mechanisms. When incidents occur, organizations instinctively restrict information disclosure to minimize legal liability and reputational damage(R5), creating information asymmetries that delay effective initial response and prevent systemic learning. Simultaneously, the fragmentation of government authority across multiple agencies, combined with conflicting mandates and overlapping jurisdictions, diminishes coordination capacity precisely when unified response is most critical. This structural weakness leads to delayed recovery(R6) and inefficient resource allocation, amplifying the initial impact of incidents. The interaction between corporate information hoarding and governmental coordination failures creates a governance vacuum where neither market mechanisms nor regulatory frameworks effectively address systemic vulnerabilities.
The fourth and perhaps most fundamental structural dynamic is the policy entrenchment centered on speed and diffusion metrics(policy lock-in and path dependency). This structure operates through powerful reinforcing mechanisms where the historical focus on quantitative performance generates visible economic benefits through industrial growth(R7) and public satisfaction with service availability(R8). These positive outcomes create political and institutional momentum that further entrenches the existing policy paradigm, making deviation increasingly difficult even as evidence of security inadequacies accumulates. The entrenchment effect manifests through multiple channels. It systematically constrains security investment(R9) by prioritizing resources for performance enhancement, while simultaneously driving increased traffic volumes(R10) that expand the attack surface and stress existing security mechanisms. Infrastructure vulnerability accumulates over time, becoming increasingly expensive and complex to address.

□ The Distinctive Nature of the Cybersecurity Wicked Problem
The cybersecurity wicked problem in digital infrastructure exhibits distinctive characteristics that differentiate it from other national policy challenges and complicate traditional governance approaches. Unlike physical infrastructure challenges that manifest through visible deterioration or social problems that generate immediate human impact, cybersecurity vulnerabilities remain largely invisible until catastrophic failure occurs. This invisibility creates a systematic bias against preventive investment, as the absence of visible problems is misinterpreted as evidence of adequate security rather than recognized as potential accumulation of latent risk.
The phenomenon of institutional lock-in represents another distinctive characteristic, wherein policy frameworks remain anchored to obsolete technological paradigms while the threat landscape evolves at exponential rates. Traditional governance mechanisms, designed for relatively stable policy domains, prove fundamentally inadequate for managing rapidly evolving technological risks. The resulting temporal mismatch between institutional adaptation and technological change creates persistent policy inadequacy, where regulatory frameworks perpetually address yesterday’s threats while remaining blind to emerging vulnerabilities.
Most fundamentally, the cybersecurity ecosystem functions as a complex adaptive system where multiple actors, including attackers, defenders, governments, corporations, and users, continuously observe, learn from, and adapt to each other’s behaviors. This creates an environment of perpetual evolution where static solutions rapidly become obsolete and where the optimization efforts of individual actors may paradoxically decrease overall system security. The complex adaptive nature means that interventions in one part of the system generate unpredictable cascading effects throughout the entire ecosystem, making traditional linear policy approaches not merely inadequate but potentially counterproductive. The recognition of these distinctive characteristics underscores the necessity for fundamentally new approaches to cybersecurity governance that acknowledge and address the complex, dynamic, and adaptive nature of the challenge.
6. Policy Recommendations for Securing Resilient Digital Infrastructure
This study identifies that Korea’s cybersecurity problem is a structural vicious cycle driven by the interaction of policy lock-in (path dependence), market failure (underinvestment), and governance failure (fragmented authority, reactive response). Policy gaps in policy priority, market incentives, integrated governance, and adaptive capacity were identified.

Four strategic directions are proposed to address these gaps:

□ Policy Paradigm Shift (Overcoming Path Dependence): Shift the policy focus from ‘Quantitative Performance’ to ‘Qualitative Resilience’.
The first strategic direction requires shifting the policy focus from quantitative performance to qualitative resilience. This means fundamentally reorienting national digital infrastructure policy from speed and coverage metrics to security and resilience indicators. Key initiatives include expanding critical infrastructure designation to encompass data centers, cloud services, and AI systems, while implementing mandatory digital infra resilience impact assessments. These assessments would evaluate security implications with equal weight to economic benefits in all major digital projects. Policy incentives must shift to reward sustained resilience investments over immediate performance gains, breaking the historical path dependency that has prioritized visible quantitative achievements while systematically marginalizing invisible but critical security requirements.

□ Market Incentive Restructuring: Aligning Private Interests with Public Security
Addressing market failure requires comprehensive redesign of economic incentives and accountability mechanisms. Tax incentives for security investments must expand substantially, particularly for fundamental architectural improvements rather than superficial compliance measures. The current practice of granting immunity for minimum security standards must be eliminated, replaced by graduated liability frameworks that incentivize excellence. Introduction of punitive damages for gross negligence or intentional concealment would create meaningful deterrents against security shortcuts. Additionally, establishing government backed cyber insurance markets and security-as-a-utility programs for vulnerable sectors would socialize risks while maintaining private sector efficiency, creating sustainable economic models for security investment.

□ Governance Integration: Building Coordinated Response Architecture
Fragmented governance structures require consolidation through a pan governmental integrated control tower with clear authority to coordinate across agencies and sectors during cyber incidents. Public and private roles and responsibilities must be explicitly defined through binding frameworks that activate automatically during crises. Information sharing mechanisms founded on trust and protected by legal safe harbors would overcome current information hoarding behaviors. Implementation of ‘just culture’ principles borrowed from aviation safety would focus on system improvement rather than blame, encouraging transparency. Regular joint exercises and embedded liaison programs would build operational familiarity before crises occur, transforming reactive coordination into proactive collaboration.

□ Adaptive Capacity Building: Human Capital and Technological Sovereignty
Strengthening adaptive capabilities requires aggressive human resource development through competitive compensation packages, including wage flexibility and regional settlement incentives to address geographic concentration of talent. Educational partnerships must produce professionals ready for practice through apprenticeship models and continuous upskilling programs. Technological sovereignty demands strategic R&D investment in architectures designed with security as a foundational principle, particularly zero trust frameworks that assume breach and minimize damage. Development of indigenous security technologies reduces foreign dependencies while building domestic expertise. Regulatory modernization must enable secure innovation, moving from prescriptive rules to standards based on outcomes that accommodate technological evolution while maintaining security baselines. This creates resilient adaptive capacity for unknown future threats.

국문 요약 i

영문 요약 I

제1장 서론 1
제1절 연구배경: 사이버안보 문제, 국가난제로의 부상 1
제2절 연구질문과 연구방법 4

제2장 사이버안보 난제 지형도 분석 7
제1절 인터넷 및 AI의 발전과 디지털 인프라의 확산 7
제2절 국내외 사이버안보 동향 12
1. 국내･외 정보보호 R&D 투자 동향 12
2. 정보보호 침해 사고 발생 시 제재 비교 16
3. 침해율 비교 분석 19
제3절 디지털 인프라의 구조적 변화와 사이버안보 복잡성 심화 22
1. 상업 자산에서 전략자산으로의 변화와 안보화 22
2. 이해관계의 복잡성 심화 25
제4절 인과구조 사전진단: 경로의존･임시방편･책임회피의 상호강화 루프 29
1. 루프 A: 속도･확산 중심의 정책 경로의존 29
2. 루프 B: 단기 복구 의존과 취약성 축적 30
3. 루프 C: 이해관계 복잡성과 책임회피의 악순환 31
제5절 소결 34

제3장 디지털 인프라 난제 진단 36
제1절 연속관계 진단 36
1. 디지털 인프라 문제의 역사적 지속성 37
2. 디지털 인프라 정책의 경로의존성 50
3. 소결 68
제2절 이해관계 진단 70
1. 디지털 인프라 시대의 갈등해결 방안 70
2. 국가난제 지형도를 본 복잡성 진단 72
3. 이해관계 충돌 현상을 통해 본 복잡성 진단 86
4. 소결 98
제3절 인과관계 진단 101
1. 인과관계 진단 방법 101
2. 핵심 인과 요인 분석 105
3. 사이버안보 난제의 차별성 제언 110
4. 소결 112

제4장 결론: 요약 및 정책제언 114
제1절 연구 요약 : 난제진단 분석과 결과 114
1. 정책 연속성 진단: 양적 성능 중심 발전 경로의 고착과 안보의 주변화 115
2. 이해관계 진단: 갈등 구조의 심화와 사후적 대응의 한계 116
3. 인과관계 진단: 시스템 다이내믹스 분석을 통한 구조적 악순환분석 116
제2절 사이버안보 난제의 구조적 악순환 해소하고 복원력 강한 디지털 인프라 확보를 위한 전략적 방향성 117
1. 전략적 방향성 1: 질적 복원력 중심의 디지털 인프라 정책 재정립 (경로의존성 극복) 117
2. 전략적 방향성 2: 인센티브 구조 재설계 및 책임성 강화(시장실패 극복) 117
3. 전략적 방향성 3: 통합 거버넌스 및 구조적 학습 시스템 구축 118
4. 전략적 방향성 4: 적응적 대응 역량 강화를 위한 사이버안보 전문인력 확보 및 유지를 위한 실효성 있는 유인책 마련 118

참고문헌 121

콘텐츠 큐레이션 : 동일주제 가장 많이 이용된 자료 추천

현재 페이지에서 제공되는 연구보고서에 대하여 평가해 주세요

별점5점만점에 5점 별점5점만점에 4점 별점5점만점에 3점 별점5점만점에 2점 별점5점만점에 1점

의견(0)

연구성과에 따른 의견과 무관한 글, 선정적인 글 및 비방글 등의 게시물은 관리자에 의해 언제든 삭제 조치 될 수 있으며, 주민등록번호 형식 및 연속된 숫자 13자리는 입력할 수 없습니다.

입력 가능 Byte : 4000 Byte 현재 입력 Byte : 0 Byte

자동등록방지 숫자를 순서대로 입력하세요.

NKIS 국가정책연구포털

연구성과

국책연구동향

NKIS 통계

게시판

NKIS소개

연구성과

국책연구동향

NKIS 통계

게시판

NKIS소개

연구성과

연구보고서

국가난제 혁신전략 연구 2025 제3권 사이버경제안보 관점 공급망 난제 요인 분석 연구

Innovation Strategy Study to Address National Challenges 2025 (Vol. 3 : A Diagnostic Study on Systemic Malfunction of Cybersecurity in Digital Infrastructure as a National Challenge)

국문초록

영문초록

목차

콘텐츠 큐레이션 : 동일주제 가장 많이 이용된 자료 추천

연구보고서

정책연구자료

세미나

현재 페이지에서 제공되는 연구보고서에 대하여 평가해 주세요

의견(0)