# Cyber Ranges and TestBeds for Education, Training, and Research
## 4 Analysis of Results
The results of the research were produced by 10 different systems located in nine different countries and two continents. The countries are the USA, the United Kingdom, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Finland, the Czech Republic, Belgium and Austria. The first question was about the objective of the Cyber Range and, as expected, participants answered that their main objective is training. The largest percentage of the participants use CR systems for research, training and security exercises [16; 18]. No participant has developed their system exclusively to cover a single objective, and, more specifically, 80% of participants cover at least two, as shown in Figure 1.  
Question 2. The questionnaire was sent to the CR system providers covering all four key areas [14] Academic, Government, Military, and Private Enterprise. We have covered this requirement due to the feedback from all areas, Figure 2.  
Of course, the majority of the answers as shown in the figure supporting sector are mainly from the Academic sector. This is because military and Private Enterprise providers do not disclose details about their systems due to confidentiality, and the existing literature is limited. However, we have managed to cover all areas, even for the military and Private Enterprise sectors, and draw useful conclusions about technologies, implementations, and development tools as shown in the next questions. Figure 1: Objectives of the Cyber Range. In question 3, we have another categorization of a cyber range, which is the domain that the systems operate. Another area that is flourishing is the conduct of cybersecurity exercises [62; 63; 64]. As expected, the results of the domain cybersecurity competition are very high, Figure 3, about 80%, as well as in SCADA, reach 60%. An interesting conclusion from the analysis of the results is that 30% of the systems are focused only on conducting security exercises, and 20% only on SCADA. Mainly after the incident of Iran's nuclear program, and the attack of the Ukraine power grid, a great development in cyber range systems aimed at improving the security of SCADA and ICS and OT generally was observed. By correlating questions 3, 4, and 5, we observe that cyber ranges do not focus only on only one domain as before but have evolved by adding new components and managed to cover many domains like business, banking, telecom, health, and transport. Question 4 describes the security challenges that occur in Cyber Range platforms. The most popular challenge is web security that is provided by all responders. In addition, as shown in Figure 4, the Forensics come first with 80% and Exploitation and Malware analysis follows with 70%. Additionally, one of the responders stated that they can create any challenge based on specific demands. The content of security challenges [17] varies and depends on the type of cybersecurity competition or curriculum of the university/research center. Cyber security exercises allow students to gain hands-on experiences while immersed in environments that mimic real-world operational systems. Highly realistic training allows students to gain valuable experience that employers are looking for [65]. A very interesting approach is the inclusion of challenges like Risk Management, Information Security Economics, Cyber Crisis Management, and Cyber Policy Analysis. These are hot areas and we suggest other universities to add these kinds of challenges to their cyber range platforms. Figure 3: Domains of the Cyber Range. Figure 2: Sectors of the Cyber Range. A key motivation of our research is the development and implementation of a CR platform for the University of West Attica that covers three areas of research, education and conducting security exercises. Wanting to more deeply cover the educational side, we sought to find out if the CR platform is also used for educational purposes. All responders answered positively.