## 2 Literature Review
### Smart Government
#### 2.1.1 Cyber Threats or Attacks  
These difficulties will endure as long as regulatory oversight and information security risks exist. Improving the information security culture inside these firms will most certainly aid in the safety of governance information, transactions, and personal information and the continuing performance of essential governance processes [16]. For example, risk identification and mitigation must occur at intersections and in separate domains in the governance system. The designation from the inter-sector dimension considers the linkages of the national or municipal sector and the interdependence of the other domestic and foreign sectors. Furthermore, the intersectoral extent indicates how risk is distributed throughout interrelated systems (contagion risk) because of parallels in concentration risk and connectivity. Meanwhile, the inter-time dimension specifies how hazards in the planned system rise over time, primarily risk caused by procedural behavior shifting from one sector to another [17]. In a smart governance scenario (as depicted in Figure 1), municipal authorities and local administrations strive to structure and arrange city-wide interventions across various IoT systems/applications to build an all-in-one and coordinated IoT ecosystem for the full smart city [18]. However, the administration of a whole smart city requires a significant degree of responsibility for the many tasks to be completed, such as managing IoT systems (e.g., credential access and control of sensitive data). In addition, technology is necessary to handle these IoT systems in a coordinated and well-managed manner. The technical background required to carry out know-how is not recognized by city authorities but by professionals in the field [14]. As a result, municipal governments need ICT-based solutions that offer the elements necessary for the smart governance of the smart city, emphasizing the following desirable features [10; 11; 17]:  
1. Permission hierarchy model. Upper-tier authorities need a multilevel governance solution to distribute and transfer authority and duties across various levels of government (top-down governance) [19]. 2. Keeping track of duties. Because of the variety of IoT systems and functions supplied in a smart city, the various authorities must administer a role-based access control system to allocate and monitor duties. Figure 1: Smart governance scenario. 3. Inclusion. An integrated strategy to accommodate heterogeneity within the same ICT-based solution is required to facilitate data interchange--third-party API (application programming interface) deployment, sharing credentials and permissions, and so forth. 4. Support for new systems. A suitable solution that allows the integration of new IoT systems over time, independent of the technology on which they are based, is necessary for a dynamic smart municipal, integrating the latest IoT system into the ICT-based solution offered by the city authorities. 5. Safety and privacy. It is critical to include security methods in the elements outlined above. For example, only authorized and authenticated users may manage permissions using well-tested and robust processes. Several ICT-based solutions are needed to address these aspects. For different entities to cover these features, a common infrastructure that provides ICT-based tools and mechanisms is required, ensuring that the same rules and regulations guide IoT systems that belong to a smart city in terms of smart governance [20]. From this perspective, governance systems must be based on ISO 27001:2013, a global standard for designing and evaluating an information security management system. This is important for any governance transaction service provider because transactions as part of a governance process must be secure and easy to complete. Other references that are often used for security requirements in technology-based services include the following [21,22]:  
1.