#FactCheck: Video of Woman Shot by Police in Brazil Falsely Shared as France Protest

On 6 June 2025, the EU Council officially adopted the revised Cybersecurity Blueprint, marking a significant evolution from the 2017 guidance. This framework, formalised through Council Recommendation COM(2025) 66 final, responds to a transformed threat environment and reflects new legal milestones like the NIS2 Directive (Network and Information Security Directive) and the Cyber Solidarity Act.

From Fragmented Response to Cohesive Strategy

‍

Between 2017 and now, EU member states have built various systems to manage cyber incidents. Still, real-world events and exercises highlighted critical gaps - uncoordinated escalation procedures, inconsistent terminology, and siloed information flows. The updated Blueprint addresses these issues by focusing on a harmonised operational architecture for the EU. It defines a clear crisis lifecycle with five stages: Detection, Analysis, Escalation, Response, and Recovery. Each stage is supported by common communication protocols, decision-making processes, and defined roles. Consistency is key; standardised terminology along with a broad scope of application that eases cross-border collaboration and empowers coherent response efforts.

Legal Foundations: NIS2, ENISA & EU‑CyCLONe

‍

Several core pillars of EU cybersecurity directly underpin the Blueprint:

• ENISA – The European Union Agency for Cybersecurity continues to play a central role. It supports CSIRTs' Network operations, leads EU‑CyCLONe ( European cyber crisis liaison organisation network) coordination, conducts simulation exercises, and gives training on incident management
• NIS2 Directive, particularly Article 16, is a follow-up of NIS. NIS2 mandates operators of critical infrastructure and essential services to implement appropriate security measures and report incidents to the relevant authorities. Compared to NIS, NIS2 expands its EU-wide security requirements and scope of covered organisations and sectors to improve the security of supply chains, simplify reporting obligations, and enforce more stringent measures and sanctions throughout Europe. It also formally legitimises the EU‑CyCLONe network, which is the crisis liaison mechanism bridging technical teams from member states.

‍

These modern tools, integrated with legal backing, ensure the Blueprint isn’t just theoretical; it’s operationally enforceable.

‍

What’s Inside the Blueprint?

‍

The 2025 Blueprint enhances several critical areas:

‍

1. Clear Escalation Triggers - It spells out when a national cyber incident merits EU-level attention, especially those affecting critical infrastructure across borders. Civilian Military Exchange. The Blueprint encourages structured information sharing with defence institutions and NATO, recognising that cyber incidents often have geopolitical implications 
2. Recovery & Lessons Learned – A dedicated chapter ensures systematic post-incident reviews and shared learning among member states.

‍

Adaptive & Resilient by Design

‍

Rather than a static document, the Blueprint is engineered to evolve:

• Regular Exercises: Built into the framework are simulation drills that are known as Blueprint Operational Level Exercises—to test leadership response and cross-border coordination via EU‑CyCLONe
• Dynamic Reviews: The system promotes continuous iteration- this includes revising protocols, learning from real incidents, and refining role definitions.
  
  

This iterative, learning-oriented architecture aims to ensure the Blueprint remains robust amid rapidly evolving threats, including AI-boosted hacks and hybrid cyber campaigns.

Global Implications & Lessons for Others

‍

The EU’s Cybersecurity Blueprint sets a global benchmark in cyber resilience and crisis governance:

• Blueprint for Global Coordination: The EU’s method of defined crisis stages, empowered liaison bodies (like EU‑CyCLONe), and continuous exercise can inspire other regional blocs or national governments to build their own crisis mechanisms.
• Public–Private Synergy: The Blueprint’s insistence on cooperation between governments and private-sector operators of essential services (e.g., energy, telecom, health) provides a model for forging robust ecosystems.
• Learning & Sharing at Scale: Its requirement for post-crisis lessons and peer exchange can fuel a worldwide knowledge network, cultivating resilience across jurisdictions.

Conclusion

‍

The 2025 EU Cybersecurity Blueprint is more than an upgrade; it’s a strategic shift toward operational readiness, legal coherence, and collaborative resilience. Anchored in NIS2 and ENISA, and supported by EU‑CyCLONe, it replaces fragmented guidance with a well-defined, adaptive model. Its adoption signals a transformative moment in global cyber governance as for nations building crisis frameworks, the Blueprint offers a tested, comprehensive template: define clear stages, equip liaison networks, mandate drills, integrate lessons, and legislate coordination. In an era where cyber threats transcend borders, this proves to be an important development that can offer guidance and set a precedent.

‍

For India, the EU Cybersecurity Blueprint offers a valuable reference point as we strengthen our own frameworks through initiatives like the DPDP Act, the upcoming Digital India Act and CERT-In’s evolving mandates. It reinforces the importance of coordinated response systems, cross-sector drills, and legal clarity. As cyber threats grow more complex, such global models can complement our national efforts and enhance regional cooperation.

‍

References

• https://industrialcyber.co/expert/the-eus-cybersecurity-blueprint-and-the-future-of-cyber-crisis-management/
• https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/06/06/eu-adopts-blueprint-to-better-manage-european-cyber-crises-and-incidents/ 
• https://www.enisa.europa.eu/topics/eu-incident-response-and-cyber-crisis-management 
• https://www.enisa.europa.eu/news/new-cyber-blueprint-to-scale-up-the-eu-cybersecurity-crisis-management 
• https://www.isc2.org/Insights/2025/01/EU-Cyber-Solidarity-Act 
• https://www.enisa.europa.eu/topics/eu-incident-response-and-cyber-crisis-management/eu-cyclone 
• https://nis2directive.eu/what-is-nis2/ 

‍

Introduction

Global cybersecurity spending is expected to breach USD 210 billion in 2025, a ~10% increase from 2024 (Gartner). This is a result of an evolving and increasingly critical threat landscape enabled by factors such as the proliferation of IoT devices, the adoption of cloud networks, and the increasing size of the internet itself.  Yet, breaches, misuse, and resistance persist. In 2025, global attack pressure rose ~21% Y-o-Y ( Q2 averages) (CheckPoint) and confirmed breaches climbed ~15%( Verizon DBIR). This means that rising investment in cybersecurity may not be yielding proportionate reductions in risk. But while mechanisms to strengthen technical defences and regulatory frameworks are constantly evolving, the social element of trust and how to embed it into cybersecurity systems remain largely overlooked.   

‍

Human Error and Digital Trust  (Individual Trust) 

‍

Human error is consistently recognised as the weakest link in cybersecurity. While campaigns focusing on phishing prevention, urging password updates and using two-factor authentication (2FA) exist, relying solely on awareness measures to address human error in cyberspace is like putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. Rather, it needs to be examined through the lens of digital trust. As Chui (2022) notes, digital trust rests on security,  dependability, integrity, and authenticity. These factors determine whether users comply with cybersecurity protocols. When people view rules as opaque, inconvenient, or imposed without accountability, they are more likely to cut corners, which creates vulnerabilities. Therefore, building digital trust means shifting from blaming people to design: embedding transparency, usability, and shared responsibility towards a culture of cybersecurity so that users are incentivised to make secure choices. 

‍

Organisational Trust and Insider Threats (Institutional Trust)

At the organisational level, compliance with cybersecurity protocols is significantly tied to whether employees trust employers/platforms to safeguard their data and treat them with integrity. Insider threats, stemming from both malicious and non-malicious actors, account for nearly 60% of all corporate breaches (Verizon DBIR 2024). A lack of trust in leadership may cause employees to feel disengaged or even act maliciously.  Further, a 2022 study by Harvard Business Review finds that adhering to cybersecurity protocols adds to employee workload. When they are perceived as hindering productivity, employees are more likely to intentionally violate these protocols.  The stress of working under surveillance systems that feel cumbersome or unreasonable, especially when working remotely, also reduces employee trust and, hence, compliance.  

‍

Trust, Inequality, and Vulnerability (Structural Trust)

Cyberspace encompasses a social system of its own since it involves patterned interactions and relationships between human beings. It also reproduces the social structures and resultant vulnerabilities of the physical world. As a result,  different sections of society place varying levels of trust in digital systems.  Women, rural, and marginalised groups often distrust existing digital security provisions more, and with reason. They are targeted disproportionately by cyber attackers, and yet are underprotected by systems, since these are designed prioritising urban/ male/ elite users.  This leads to citizens adopting workarounds like password sharing for “safety” and disengaging from cyber safety discourse, as they find existing systems inaccessible or irrelevant to their realities. Cybersecurity governance that ignores these divides deepens exclusion and mistrust.

‍

Laws and Compliances (Regulatory Trust)

Cybersecurity governance is operationalised in the form of laws, rules, and guidelines. However, these may often backfire due to inadequate design, reducing overall trust in governance mechanisms. For example, CERT-In’s mandate to report breaches within six hours of “noticing” it has been criticised as the steep timeframe being insufficient to generate an effective breach analysis report. Further, the multiplicity of regulatory frameworks in cross-border interactions can be costly and lead to compliance fatigue for organisations. Such factors can undermine organisational and user trust in the regulation’s ability to protect them from cyber attacks, fuelling a check-box-ticking culture for cybersecurity.  

‍

Conclusion 

Cybersecurity is addressed primarily through code, firewall, and compliance today. But evidence suggests that technological and regulatory fixes, while essential, are insufficient to guarantee secure behaviour and resilient systems. Without trust in institutions, technologies, laws or each other, cybersecurity governance will remain a cat-and-mouse game.  Building a trust-based architecture requires mechanisms to improve accountability, reliability, and transparency.  It requires participatory designs of security systems and the recognition of unequal vulnerabilities. Thus, unless cybersecurity governance acknowledges that cyberspace is deeply social,  investment may not be able to prevent the harms it seeks to curb. 

‍

References 

• https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-07-29
• https://blog.checkpoint.com/research/global-cyber-attacks-surge-21-in-q2-2025
• https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/reports/2024-dbir-executive-summary.pdf 
• https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/reports/2025-dbir-executive-summary.pdf 
• https://insights2techinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Building-Digital-Trust-Challenges-and-Strategies-in-Cybersecurity.pdf 
• https://www.coe.int/en/web/cyberviolence/cyberviolence-against-women 
• https://www.upguard.com/blog/indias-6-hour-data-breach-reporting-rule 

‍

On March 02, 2023, the Biden-Harris Administration unveiled the National Cybersecurity Plan to ensure that all Americans can enjoy the advantages of a secure digital environment. In this pivotal decade, the United States will reimagine cyberspace as a tool to achieve our goals in a way that is consistent with our values. These values include a commitment to economic security and prosperity, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, faith in our democracy and its institutions, and a commitment to creating a fair and diverse society. This goal cannot be achieved without a dramatic reorganisation of the United States’ cyberspace responsibilities, roles, and resources.

VISION- AIM

A more planned, organised, and well-resourced strategy to cyber protection is necessary for today’s rapidly developing world. State and non-state actors alike are launching creative new initiatives to challenge the United States. New avenues for innovation are opening up as next-generation technologies attain maturity and digital interdependencies are expanding. Thus, this Plan lays forth a plan to counter these dangers and protect the digital future. Putting it into effect can safeguard spending on things like infrastructure, clean energy, and the re-shoring of American industry.

The USA will create its digital environment by:

• Defensible if the cyber defence is comparatively easier, more effective, cheaper
• Resilient, where the impacts of cyberattacks and operator mistakes are lasting and little widespread.
• Values-aligned, where our most cherished values shape—and are in turn reinforced by— our digital world.

Already, the National Security Strategy, Executive Order 14028 (Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity), National Security Memorandum 5 (Improving Cybersecurity for Critical Infrastructure Control Systems), M-22-09 (Moving the U.S. Government Toward Zero-Trust Cybersecurity Principles), and National Security Memorandum 10 (Improving Cybersecurity for Federal Information Systems) have all been issued to help secure cyberspace and our digital ecosystem (Promoting United States Leadership in Quantum Computing While Mitigating Risks to Vulnerable Cryptographic Systems). The Strategy builds upon previous efforts by acknowledging that the Internet serves not as an end in itself but as a means to a goal—the achievement of our highest ideals.

There are five key points that constitute the National Cybersecurity Strategy:

1. Defend Critical Infrastructure –

Defend critical infrastructure by, among other things: i) enacting cybersecurity regulations to secure essential infrastructure; (ii) boosting public-private sector collaboration; (iii) integrating federal cybersecurity centres; (iv) updating federal incident response plans and processes; and (v) modernising federal systems in accordance with zero trust principles.

2. Disrupt and Dismantle Threat Actors

Disrupt and dismantle threat actors, including by i) integrating military, diplomatic, information, financial, intelligence, and law enforcement competence, (ii) strengthening public-private sector collaborations, (iii) increasing the speed and scale of intelligence sharing and victim information, (iv) preventing the abuse of U.S.-based infrastructure, and (v) increasing disruption campaigns and other endeavours against ransomware operators;

3. Shape Market Forces to Drive Security and Resilience

The federal government can help shape market forces that drive security and resilience by doing the following: i) supporting legislative efforts to limit organisations’ ability to collect, use, transfer, and maintain personal information and providing strong protections for sensitive data (such as geolocation and health data), (ii) boosting IoT device security via federal research, development, sourcing, risk management efforts, and IoT security labelling programs, and (iii) instituting legislation establishing standards for the security of IoT devices. (iv) strengthening cybersecurity contract standards with government suppliers, (v) studying a federal cyber insurance framework, and (vi) using federal grants and other incentives to invest in efforts to secure critical infrastructure.

4. Invest in a Resilient Future

Invest in a resilient future by doing things like i) securing the Internet’s underlying infrastructure, (ii) funding federal cybersecurity R&D in areas like artificial intelligence, cloud computing, telecommunications, and data analytics used in critical infrastructure, (iii) migrating vulnerable public networks and systems to quantum-resistant cryptography-based environments, and (iv) investing hardware and software systems that strengthen the resiliency, safety, and security of these areas, (v) enhancing and expanding the nation’s cyber workforce; and (vi) investing in verifiable, strong digital identity solutions that promote security, interoperability, and accessibility.

5. Forge International Partnerships to Pursue Shared Goals

The United States should work with other countries to advance common interests, such as i) forming international coalitions to counter threats to the digital ecosystem; (ii) increasing the scope of U.S. assistance to allies and partners in strengthening cybersecurity; (iii) forming international coalitions to reinforce global norms of responsible state behaviour; and (v) securing global supply chains for information, communications, and operational technologies.

Conclusion:

The Strategy results from months of work by the Office of the National Cyber Director (“ONCD”), the primary cybersecurity policy and strategy advisor to President Biden and coordinates cybersecurity engagement with business and international partners. The National Security Council will oversee the Strategy’s implementation through ONCD and the Office of Management and Budget.

In conclusion, we can say that the National Cybersecurity Plan of the Biden administration lays out an ambitious goal for American cybersecurity that is to be accomplished by the end of the decade. The administration aims to shift tasks and responsibilities to those organisations in the best position to safeguard systems and software and to encourage incentives for long-term investment in cybersecurity to build a more cyber-secure future.

It is impossible to assess the cyber strategy in a vacuum. It’s critical to consider the previous efforts and acknowledge the ones that still need to be made. The implementation specifics for several aspects of the approach are left up to a yet-to-be-written plan.

Given these difficulties, it would be simple to voice some pessimism at this stage regarding the next effort that will be required. Yet, the Biden administration has established a vision for cybersecurity oriented towards the future, with novel projects that could fundamentally alter how the United States handles and maintains cybersecurity. The Biden administration raised the bar for cybersecurity by outlining this robust plan, which will be challenging for succeeding administrations to let go. Also, it has alerted Congress to areas where it will need to act.

References:

• https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/03/02/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-national-cybersecurity-strategy/
• https://www.huntonprivacyblog.com/2023/03/02/white-house-releases-national-cybersecurity-strategy/
• https://www.lawfareblog.com/biden-harris-administration-releases-new-national-cybersecurity-strategy