China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Loopholes in IoT Security Services
Published in Syed Rameem Zahra, Mohammad Ahsan Chishti, Security and Privacy in the Internet of Things, 2020
Shafalika Vijayal, Salim Qureshi
A vulnerability assessment is a way toward distinguishing, measuring, and organizing (or positioning) the vulnerabilities in a framework. Examples where vulnerability assessments are performed include, but are not restricted to: information technology systems, energy supply systems, water supply systems, transportation systems, and communication systems. Such assessments may be conducted on behalf of a range of different organizations, from small businesses up to large regional infrastructures such as IP Security Cameras, Virtual Assistants, HVAC systems, Smart TVs etc.
Security in Smart Grids
Published in Hongjian Sun, Chao Wang, Bashar I. Ahmad, From Internet of Things to Smart Cities, 2017
Julia. Sánchez, Agustín Zaballos, Ramon. Martin de Pozuelo, Guiomar. Corral, Alan. Briones
A vulnerability is a condition of a missing or ineffectively administered safeguard or control that allows a threat to occur with a greater impact or frequency (or both) [7] and which could be exploited directly by an attacker or indirectly through automated attacks [71]. Vulnerability assessment must be an important part of a security audit to identify and quantify vulnerabilities in a system (a computer, a communications infrastructure or a whole data network).
Vulnerability
Published in Michael L. Madigan, Handbook of Emergency Management Concepts, 2017
A vulnerability assessment is the process of identifying, quantifying, and prioritizing (or ranking) the vulnerabilities in a system. Examples of systems for which vulnerability assessments are performed include, but are not limited to, information technology (IT) systems, energy supply systems, water supply systems, transportation systems, and communication systems.
Assessment of risks on a territorial scale for archaeological sites in İzmir
Published in International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 2018
Sibel Yıldırım Esen, Ayşe Güliz Bilgin Altınöz
Vulnerability is defined as susceptibility or exposure to hazards (UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS, IUCN 2010). Vulnerability assessment is a critical aspect of risk prevention and mitigation strategies. When assessing the vulnerabilities of a large number of assets to multiple hazards, a methodology for rapid assessment in the territory is needed to manage risks through upstream decision-making. In ICR’s nationwide territorial risk assessment method, in which the minimum unit of analysis is ‘municipality’ (Accardo et al. 2003; Accardo, Giani, and Giovagnoli 2003), vulnerability assessment is based on data regarding the number of assets in each municipality. In this study, the proposed territorial-level vulnerability assessment approach involves the assessment of each site and allows producing general classifications and comparisons of a large number of sites in terms of their vulnerabilities to multiple natural and human-induced hazards.
A simplified method for seismic assessment of unreinforced masonry buildings
Published in Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 2022
I. Capanna, F. Di Fabio, M. Fragiacomo
Generally, vulnerability assessment methods are sorted into three different categories based on their level of detail and scale of evaluation (Vicente et al. 2013). The first level is only based on qualitative information. The second level requires a characterisation in terms of geometrical and mechanical properties of the structure. The third level requires an in-depth knowledge of the structure. Due to the reasons explained above, the methods belonging to the first and the second level, also called predictive methods, represent a simplified and quick tool to estimate seismic performance on a large-scale application, although with reduced accuracy of the results. A number of predictive methods have been proposed in the literature. In the 1980s, Benedetti and Petrini (1984), within the research activity of the G.N.D.T. (Italian National Group Against Earthquakes), developed a vulnerability function with a deterministic correlation between the seismic action and the damage level, based on detailed information and a geometrical survey of the buildings. The method provided a screening tool, called G.N.D.T. Chart (G.N.D.T. 1994, 2001a, 2001b), based on vulnerability parameters classified by assigned weights (for the relative importance among the parameters on the global behaviour of the building) and scores (for the increasing vulnerability of each parameter), aimed to yield an index representative of the buildings’ vulnerabilities. The methodology was extensively used in earthquake-prone areas. Other authors (Formisano et al. 2015; Formisano 2017) implemented the G.N.D.T. form with five parameters to consider the structural interaction among adjacent structural units of building aggregates. Maio et al. (2015) arranged the parameters of G.N.D.T. chart into four groups to emphasise their differences and relative importance. Other authors (Brando, De Matteis, and Spacone 2017; Rapone et al. 2018) proposed predictive methods based on identification of parameters only requiring a visual inspection of buildings. Furthermore, a reliable prediction of the vulnerability level of a building could consider the expected seismic damage. Under an earthquake ground motion, masonry buildings can show two very different seismic responses: out-of-plane collapse of wall piers or in-plane collapse of wall piers and spandrel beams. Out-of-plane collapse of wall piers may be the governing failure condition in the case of lack of wall-to-wall or wall-to-floor connections: the exterior walls may be involved in local mechanisms, like overturning. Conversely, in the case of a strong wall-to-wall and wall-to-floor connections or anti-seismic devices preventing the trigger of local out-of-plane mechanisms, masonry buildings show a global behaviour characterised by in-plane response of masonry walls, which may fail due to shear or bending.