EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 680 (2025) E3S Web Conf., 680 (2025) 00082 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 680, 2025
The 4th International Conference on Energy and Green Computing (ICEGC’2025)
Article Number 00082
Number of page(s) 8
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202568000082
Published online 19 December 2025
  1. Akbar, K. A., Rahman, F. I., Singhal, A., Khan, L., & Thuraisingham, B. (2023). The Design and Application of a Unified Ontology for Cyber Security. In Lecture notes in computer science (p. 23). Springer Science+Business Media. [Google Scholar]
  2. AlGhamdi, S., Win, K. T., & Vlahu‐Gjorgievska, E. (2020). Information security governance challenges and critical success factors: Systematic review. Computers & Security, 99, 102030. [Google Scholar]
  3. Alomari, Z., Wong, W., Lee, S., & Satti, M. I. (2024). Knowledge Graph to Facilitate Cloud SecurityCompliance with NIST Cybersecurity Framework. Research Square (Research Square). [Google Scholar]
  4. Amara, O. B., Nicola, A. D., Kamissoko, D., & Benaben, F. (2022). Towards an Ontological Approach to Business Continuity Assessment. In Communications in computer and information science (p. 322). Springer Science+Business Media. [Google Scholar]
  5. Antariksa, M. D. S., Angin, M. P., & Widodo, A. P. (2025). COBIT 2019 Framework in IT Governance: A Systematic Literature Review of Implementation Challenges and Benefits Across Various Industry Sectors. Journal of Renewable Energy Electrical and Computer Engineering, 5(1), 99 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barbhuiya, I. A., Laroiya, S., & Singh, R. (2024). Holistic Cybersecurity Risk Management Framework. SSRN Electronic Journal. [Google Scholar]
  7. Barlybayev, A., Sharipbay, A., Shakhmetova, G., & Zhumadillayeva, A. (2024). Development of a Flexible Information Security Risk Model Using Machine Learning Methods and Ontologies. Applied Sciences, 14(21), 9858. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14219858 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bonar, J. R., & Hastings, J. D. (2024). Transforming Information Systems Management: A Reference Model for Digital Engineering Integration. arXiv (Cornell University). [Google Scholar]
  9. Dairo, M., Adekola, J., Apostolopoulos, C., & Tsaramirsis, G. (2021). Benchmarking strategic alignment of business and IT strategies: opportunities, risks, challenges and solutions. International Journal of Information Technology, 13(6), 2191. [Google Scholar]
  10. Disterer, G. (2013). ISO/IEC 27000, 27001 and 27002 for Information Security Management. Journal of Information Security, 4(2), 92. [Google Scholar]
  11. Faizi, S. M., & Rahman, S. M. (2019). Securing Cloud Computing Through IT Governance. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3360869 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fenz, S., & Neubauer, T. (2018). Ontology-based information security compliance determination and control selection on the example of ISO 27002. Information and Computer Security, 26(5), 551. [Google Scholar]
  13. Gerek, Y., & Aydın, M. N. (2025). Management Frameworks and Management System Standards in the Context of Integration and Unification: A Review and Classification of Core Building Blocks for Consilience [Review of Management Frameworks and Management System Standards in the Context of Integration and Unification: A Review and Classification of Core Building Blocks for Consilience]. Systems, 13(4), 234. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute. [Google Scholar]
  14. Haes, S. D., Grembergen, W. V., & Debreceny, R. (2013). COBIT 5 and Enterprise Governance of Information Technology: Building Blocks and Research Opportunities. Journal of Information Systems, 27(1), 307 [Google Scholar]
  15. Ko, D., & Fink, D. (2010). Information technology governance: an evaluation of the theory‐practice gap. Corporate Governance, 10(5), 662. [Google Scholar]
  16. Loonam, J., Zwiegelaar, J., Kumar, V., & Booth, C. (2020). Cyber-Resiliency for Digital Enterprises: A Strategic Leadership Perspective. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 69(6), 3757. [Google Scholar]
  17. Martins, B. F., Gil, L. J. S., Reyes, J. F., Panach, J. I., Pastor, Ó., & Rochwerger, B. (2020). Conceptual Characterization of Cybersecurity Ontologies. In Lecture notes in business information processing (p. 323). Springer Science+Business Media. [Google Scholar]
  18. McIntosh, T. R., Liu, T., Sušnjak, T., Alavizadeh, H., Ng, A., Nowrozy, R., & Watters, P. (2023). Harnessing GPT-4 for generation of cybersecurity GRC policies: A focus on ransomware attack mitigation. Computers & Security, 134, 103424. [Google Scholar]
  19. McIntosh, T. R., Sušnjak, T., Liu, T., Watters, P., Xu, D., Liu, D., Nowrozy, R., & Halgamuge, M. N. (2024). From COBIT to ISO 42001: Evaluating cybersecurity frameworks for opportunities, risks, and regulatory compliance in commercializing large language models. Computers & Security, 144, 103964. [Google Scholar]
  20. Melaku, H. M. (2023). A Dynamic and Adaptive Cybersecurity Governance Framework. Journal of Cybersecurity and Privacy, 3(3), 327. [Google Scholar]
  21. Meriah, I., & Rabai, L. B. A. (2019). Comparative Study of Ontologies Based ISO 27000 Series Security Standards. Procedia Computer Science, 160, 85. [Google Scholar]
  22. Narayanan, sundaraparipurnan, & Vishwakarma, S. K. (2024). GUARD-D-LLM: An LLM-Based Risk Assessment Engine for the Downstream uses of LLMs. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2406.11851 [Google Scholar]
  23. Nguyen, T. N. (2024). Ollabench: Evaluating LLMs’ Reasoning for Human-centric Interdependent Cybersecurity. arXiv (Cornell University). [Google Scholar]
  24. Orakzai, T. (2014). COBIT, ITIL and ISO 27002 Alignment for Information Security Governance in Modern Organisations. SSRN Electronic Journal. [Google Scholar]
  25. Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Computer Science and Intelligence Systems (FedCSIS). (2024). Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, 39. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ross, R. S., Katzke, S., Johnson, L. A., Swanson, M., Stoneburner, G., & Rogers, G. O. (2006). Recommended security controls for federal information systems and organizations. [Google Scholar]
  27. Sánchez-Zas, C., Villagrá, V. A., Vega-Barbas, M., Larriva-Novo, X., Moreno, J. I., & Berrocal, J. (2022). Ontology-based approach to real-time risk management and cyber-situational awareness. Future Generation Computer Systems, 141, 462. [Google Scholar]
  28. Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations. (2013). [Google Scholar]
  29. Shariffuddin, N., & Mohamed, A. (2020). IT Security and IT Governance Alignment. [Google Scholar]
  30. Sieber, M. R., Malý, M., & Liška, R. (2022). Conceptualizing organizational culture and business-IT alignment: a systematic literature review. SN Business & Economics, 2(9). [Google Scholar]
  31. Slim, A. M., Sarah, O. S., Kadhim, K. G., Ali, B. J., Hammood, A. M., & Othman, B. (2020). he effect of information technology business alignment factors on performance of SMEs. Management Science Letters, 833. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.10.019 [Google Scholar]
  32. Tete, S. B. (2024). Threat Modelling and Risk Analysis for Large Language Model (LLM)-Powered Applications. arXiv (Cornell University). [Google Scholar]
  33. Ullah, A., & Lai, R. (2013). A Systematic Review of Business and Information Technology Alignment [Review of A Systematic Review of Business and Information Technology Alignment]. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems, 4(1), 1. Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2445560.2445564 [Google Scholar]
  34. Wen, S.-F., & Katt, B. (2023). Exploring the role of assurance context in system security assurance evaluation: a conceptual model. Information and Computer Security, 32(2), 159 [Google Scholar]
  35. Zhang, J., Bu, H., Wen, H., Liu, Y., Fei, H., Xi, R., Li, L., Yang, Y., Zhu, H., & Meng, D. (2025). When LLMs meet cybersecurity: a systematic literature review. Cybersecurity, 8(1). [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.