ACM/IEEE CSEC2017
Cybersecurity Curricula 2017
pedagogy
global
At a glance
| Steward | Joint Task Force on Cybersecurity Education (ACM, IEEE-CS, AIS, IFIP) |
| Canonical page | Cybersecurity Curricula 2017 |
| Version | 2017 v1.0 |
| Released | 2017-12-31 |
| Source format | |
| License | Copyright 2017 ACM/IEEE/AIS/IFIP, with permission granted for educational-materials development |
framework_summary slug |
csec2017-v1 |
Structure in cybed: terms
Counts
| Measure | Value |
|---|---|
| Knowledge Areas | 8 |
| Strict elements (topics) | 40 |
| With-examples elements | 40 |
| Topics per Knowledge Area | 5.0 |
The Knowledge Area / Topic structure is the framework’s coarse-grained surface. Beneath each topic, CSEC2017 defines further sub-elements (Essentials and supplementary content) that the current ingestion captures only at the topic level. Element counts are therefore a lower bound on what CSEC2017 specifies.
Provenance
Source
CSEC2017 curricular guidelines (the Joint Task Force report from ACM, IEEE-CS, AIS SIGSEC, and IFIP WG 11.8).
Ingestion
scripts/010-ingest-csec2017.R parses the structure into the cybed schema.
License
Subject to ACM/IEEE licensing terms. The package does not bundle the source text. Users stage it locally.
Caveats
- CSEC2017’s KAs are curricular thought-model groupings, not workforce roles or competency clusters. Cross-framework comparisons that equate KAs with roles misrepresent the framework’s intent.
- Per-topic Essentials and supplementary content are not materialized as RDF triples. The strict count reflects only the top-level topic enumeration per Knowledge Area, so headline element-density figures should be read as a floor rather than a ceiling.
- CSEC2017 is a curricular guideline for university programs, not a hiring specification. The framework does not encode workforce roles or proficiency levels, so it sits on a different axis from NICE, DCWF, and ECSF in any cross-framework comparison.
Reuse
ACM/IEEE educational use