CY공공기관
Cybermalveillance.gouv.fr
Assistance and awareness resources for French audiences.
국제 사이버 포털 / DIRECTORY
세계의 전문 지식을 연결합니다.
공공기관, 대응팀, 기업과 연구기관. 국가와 과제에 맞는 자료를 찾아보세요.
FIRST 프로필 분포 · 883
스냅샷의 프로필 수 : 883 ·
- Government, Private and Public sectors
252 / 883 252 - Other commercial
207 / 883 207 - Industrial sector
95 / 883 95 - Financial sector
94 / 883 94 - ICT vendor customer base
57 / 883 57 - 분야 미기재
50 / 883 50 - Government & military
46 / 883 46 - Research & education
45 / 883 45 - ISP customer base
37 / 883 37
국가와 분야만으로 서비스 범위를 판단할 수 없습니다. 공식 프로필에서 조건을 확인하세요. FIRST ↗
IN연구 및 교육
Inria
Research in digital science and technology.
NC공공기관
NCSC · United Kingdom
Technical guidance, alerts and protection resources.
IN공공기관
INCIBE
Cybersecurity resources for businesses and citizens.
CE공공기관
CERT.br
Incident response and security awareness in Brazil.
IP공공기관
IPA · Japan
Information security, software and digital skills.
NA국방
NATO CCDCOE
Cyber defence research, training and exercises.
IT공공기관
ITU · Cybersecurity
International cooperation and digital capacity building.
OW커뮤니티 및 표준
OWASP Foundation
Open projects for application and AI security.
AR연구 및 교육
arXiv
Scientific preprints; peer review is not guaranteed.
HU민간기업
Hugging Face
AI models, datasets and open tools.
PO민간기업
PortSwigger Web Security Academy
Web security learning in authorised labs.
BE커뮤니티 및 표준
Bellingcat
Open-source verification methods and resources.
FI커뮤니티 및 표준
FIRST · CVSS
Vulnerability severity specification and calculators. A score alone does not describe organisation-specific risk.
참고 자료 상세
- 확인된 데이터 또는 기준
- CVSS 4.0 scores run from 0.0 to 10.0. Base, Threat, Environmental and Supplemental metric groups serve different purposes.
- 사용 방법
- Retain the score version, vector and date. Compare it with the installed version, access paths and business consequences before ordering remediation.
- 유지해야 할 한계
- A high score is not evidence of exploitation; a low score does not mean a service has no risk.
문서 검토일
CVSS, EPSS, KEV 및 VEX
What is the technical severity under the assessed metrics?
The score proves neither exploitation nor consequences for your service.
Read the CVSS, EPSS, KEV and VEX reference →
Primary sources and scope
- FIRST · CVSS 4.0 Specification · CVSS 4.0 · document 1.2 · reviewed 2026-10-22
Overview · Assessment · Nomenclature · Supplemental Metrics
Sources checked on
CV커뮤니티 및 표준
CVE Program
Public vulnerability identifiers and records. Check products, affected versions and links to original advisories.
참고 자료 상세
- 확인된 데이터 또는 기준
- A JSON schema defines the CVE record format. An identifier and the published contents of its record are distinct things.
- 사용 방법
- Open the record and references; check its state, described affected versions and supplier information. Keep the identifier in action tracking.
- 유지해야 할 한계
- A CVE identifier is neither a severity score nor proof that your installation is affected.
문서 검토일
NI공공기관
NIST · National Vulnerability Database
Vulnerability database and technical enrichment. Cross-check records against vendor advisories and the deployed configuration.
NI공공기관
NIST · AI Risk Management Framework
Voluntary framework and resources for documenting AI risks. Check the version and status of consulted documents.
참고 자료 상세
- 확인된 데이터 또는 기준
- The AI RMF Core is organised around Govern, Map, Measure and Manage. It is a voluntary risk-management framework.
- 사용 방법
- Define intended use, affected people and error consequences. Connect each risk to an evaluation, owner and stop or recovery mechanism.
- 유지해야 할 한계
- The framework certifies neither a model nor an application. Using it does not remove the need to examine applicable requirements.
문서 검토일
OW커뮤니티 및 표준
OWASP · GenAI Security Project
Open risk reference for LLM and generative AI applications, including prompt injection, disclosure and excessive permissions.
참고 자료 상세
- 확인된 데이터 또는 기준
- The 2025 edition includes Prompt Injection, Sensitive Information Disclosure and Excessive Agency.
- 사용 방법
- Turn a risk into an observable scenario: hostile document, restricted data or out-of-scope tool. Record expected behaviour and evidence of refusal.
- 유지해야 할 한계
- A risk list is not a complete assessment. Input filtering alone does not establish authorisation for every action.
문서 검토일
RAG: 접근 권한, 인용 및 캐시
An accurate answer can disclose a forbidden document. Retrieval relevance, citation validity and access authorisation are separate checks. The service providing passages must enforce the current identity’s rights before exposing them to the model.
- OWASP · LLM08:2025 Vector and Embedding Weaknesses · 2025
- OWASP · LLM01:2025 Prompt Injection · 2025
- OWASP · LLM06:2025 Excessive Agency · 2025
- OWASP · LLM05:2025 Improper Output Handling · 2025
- OWASP · LLM07:2025 System Prompt Leakage · 2025
- OWASP · LLM10:2025 Unbounded Consumption · 2025
- OWASP · API1:2023 Broken Object Level Authorization · 2023
Explore the RAG access matrix and replay cases →
References consulted on
W3커뮤니티 및 표준
W3C · Web Accessibility Initiative
Standards, evaluation methods and web accessibility resources. Supports complete journey testing beyond automated checks.
GO민간기업
Google · Search Central
Official documentation on crawling, indexing and AI features in Google Search. Does not guarantee rankings or citations.
IA커뮤니티 및 표준
IANA · Protocol Registries
Internet protocol parameter registries and related references. Use to check codes and numbers against their standardised context.
MI연구 및 교육
MITRE · Common Weakness Enumeration
Name classes of software and hardware weakness.
참고 자료 상세
- 확인된 데이터 또는 기준
- A CWE describes a weakness that can contribute to vulnerabilities. It does not represent a particular incident.
- 사용 방법
- Connect the weakness to the observed mechanism: input, processing and missing control. Use it to fix the cause and plan regression tests.
- 유지해야 할 한계
- A keyword in a report alone does not establish the correct CWE classification.
문서 검토일
W3커뮤니티 및 표준
W3C · WCAG 2.2
Evaluate accessibility criteria for web content.
참고 자료 상세
- 확인된 데이터 또는 기준
- WCAG 2.2 is a W3C Recommendation. Success criteria have A, AA and AAA levels.
- 사용 방법
- Define tasks, pages and states, then combine inspection, keyboard, zoom and relevant assistive technology. Keep reproduction steps for barriers.
- 유지해야 할 한계
- An automated scanner does not establish conformity of a complete journey. Evaluation must cover interactive states and actual content.
문서 검토일
GO민간기업
Google · Core Web Vitals
Distinguish loading, responsiveness and visual stability.
참고 자료 상세
- 확인된 데이터 또는 기준
- Good thresholds are LCP ≤ 2.5 s, INP ≤ 200 ms and CLS ≤ 0.1 at the 75th percentile, segmented by mobile and desktop.
- 사용 방법
- Separate field measurement from laboratory tests. Record period, URL, device, population and sample size before comparing changes.
- 유지해야 할 한계
- These thresholds are not measured results for this site. A good lab score alone does not establish visitor experience.
문서 검토일