## 5 Discussion
### What Are the Advantages and Disadvantages of Existing Studies?
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Study** & **Pros** & **Cons** \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [60] & A cost-efficient solution for vulnerability assessment. & Limited to restricted sectors. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [61] & Offers practical recommendations for establishing countermeasures in diminishing risk events in railway. & A risk mitigation strategy is not presented. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [62] & Efficient in diagnosing of main factors, which may put threats to rail transport. & Threat actors are not specified. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [63] & High efficiency in autonomous quarry mitigation associated with signal interference. & Cannot protect from all high impact attacks. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [64] & Improved malicious detection in vehicular networks, due to inclusion of perception and reasoning in the decision building process. & Results are still preliminary. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [65] & Continuous evaluation of possible incident frequencies and outcomes by providing unique risk awareness. & Conditional probability tables are not presented. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [66] & The casual diagnostic analysis in complex and uncertain environments. More accurate than fault tree analysis. & Complex data collection process, an automatic technology for collecting required information, is not considered. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [67] & Capability to recognize malicious threats and differentiate them from safety-critical activities. & The developed model is still preliminary. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [68] & Failure analysis from different prospects, such as topology, functional restriction, environmental, and dynamic. & There needs an improvement for analyzing network measurements and results of unit failures. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [69] & Accurate quantitative estimation of attack success probability and for the classification of the more hazardous escalation situations. & Lacks in performing a quantitative evaluation of the credibility of attack success. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [70] & An efficient quantitative risk assessment for finding security weaknesses. & The results need to be verified based on real-time scenarios. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [71] & A generic approach toward monitoring and mitigating security and safety risks. & This study is conducted for a specific sector. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [72] & This study efficiently resolves uncertainties in the failure probability of elements and the temporal classification of occurrences. & The developed model is still preliminary. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [73] & Using multiple BN models to accurately assess vulnerabilities. & The developed model is still preliminary. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [74] & New recommendations for resilience in socio-technical systems. & Lacks in presenting real-time analysis. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [75] & A systematic procedure for vulnerability assessment against outside threats. & Insider threats are not considered in this study. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [76] & An experiential analysis that effectively exhibits the safety status for the navigation environment. & Threats are not specified. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [77] & Increase awareness in vulnerability management for the chemical industry. & This study is conducted for a specific sector. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [78] & Robustly monitoring of unmodeled and unexpected failures. & This study does not robustly manage unexpected and unmodeled failures. \\ \hline [PERSON] [79] & Efficiently evaluate vulnerabilities and crucial devices of the system. & The simulation results still need to be modified. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: _Cont._