# A Systematic Review of Cyber Range Taxonomies: Trends, Gaps, and a Proposed Taxonomy
## 3 Proposed Taxonomy
### Phase I: Taxonomy Reviews, Systematic Literature Reviews, and Baseline Taxonomy
#### 3.1.3 Observed Trends and Gaps  
Over the past few years, research has moved toward integrating cyber-physical elements (e.g., specialized hardware, IoT, mobile devices) to offer more realistic training scenarios. This integration of cyber-physical systems introduces new vectors of vulnerability, including side-channel attacks via wireless charging, the manipulation of sensors and voice assistants, and electromagnetic side-channel exploitation. Consequently, emerging defence mechanisms now utilize advanced approaches such as dynamic magnetic authentication, unsupervised anomaly detection, and continuous biometric verification (e.g., vibration or voice liveness detection) to counteract these threats. Recent studies [42; 43; 44; 45; 46; 47; 48; 49] highlight these advancements, emphasizing the complexity and evolving nature of realistic cyber-physical scenarios relevant to cyber range implementations. Exercise design--especially the au  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline
**Authors/Title** & **Focus/Contribution** \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [2] (2021) & Explored rising demand for cybersecurity professionals; surveyed ten cyber ranges (2011–2021) to examine design, implementation, and operations. \\ \hline [PERSON] and [PERSON] [32] (2021) & SLR reinforced exercise design and gamification practices for IT/OT staff in the energy sector; collaboration with NC-Spectrum. \\ \hline [PERSON] [33] (2021) & Assessed EU regulatory context; proposed how federated ranges integrate into academic curricula. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [34] (2022) & Marine-system focus: evaluated cyber-physical testbeds for navigation hardware and emerging security solutions. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [35] (2022) & Analyzed 45 architectures; introduced a three-dimension requirements framework (Purpose, Scope, Constraints) to match designs to organizational needs. \\ \hline [PERSON] and [PERSON] [36] (2022) & Concluded that manufacturing contexts need dedicated cyber–physical range; contrasted with broader taxonomy of [11]. \\ \hline [PERSON] [37] (2023) & Showed that pre-assessment of participant goals improves exercise design and learning outcomes. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [38] (2023) & Classified traffic generators (model, trace, hybrid) and critiqued validation practices across 30 studies. \\ \hline [PERSON] and [PERSON] [39] (2023) & Built an IoT penetration-testing environment and conducted an SLR on national cyber range infrastructures; offered building guidance. \\ \hline [PERSON] and [PERSON] [40] (2023) & Conducted SLR plus expert interviews; proposed a five-step process (selection, implementation, automation, deployment, evaluation) for realistic attack scenarios. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [41] (2023) & Focused on cyber–physical range architectures; identified design challenges and research gaps. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Overview of reviewed studies on cyber ranges.  
tomation of attack/defense lifecycles--has also emerged as a key theme. However, some authors note a lack of comprehensive support for smaller or mobile devices. This gap is being addressed through enhancements like those discussed by [PERSON] et al. [PERSON] et al. (2018). The SLRs illustrate a growing sophistication in cyber range conceptualization, from purely virtual simulations to robust, hardware-integrated platforms capable of emulating real-world attacks and defence strategies.  
In the final step of Phase I, we formulated our own baseline taxonomy, incorporating findings from both the taxonomy-oriented studies and the SLR-focused research.