Optimization path of network security governance system under the background of digital transformation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/qfznfj42Keywords:
Digital transformation, Network security governance, Collaborative governance model, Zero trust architecture, Compliance integrationAbstract
Digital transformation not only releases the efficiency dividend of enterprises, but also significantly expands the network attack surface, which makes the traditional network security governance model face severe challenges. This paper systematically analyzes the four core pain points in the current governance system and the dilemma of governance logic reconstruction in zero trust transformation. Through the comparative study of mainstream governance paradigms such as NIST CSF 2.0, ISO 27001:2022 and zero trust architecture, this paper proposes a three-tier collaborative governance model covering strategic layer, operational layer and technical layer, emphasizing the horizontal integration of business-security-compliance. An empirical study of Group A shows that the model can shorten the decision-making period of cross-departmental security policy by 71.9%, reduce the time-consuming of new business security assessment by 84.9%, reduce the cost of multi-jurisdiction compliance integration by 50%, and reduce the response time of unauthorized access incident detection by 91.3%. The research provides a theoretical framework and practical path for the optimization of network security governance of digital transformation enterprises.
Downloads
References
[1] Hammouri, M. M. G., Aljawarneh, M. N., Alazzam, F. A. F., & Alhyasat, W. (2026). Cybersecurity spending and IT capability development: The mediating role of IT governance effectiveness. EDPACS, 71(5), 82-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/07366981.2025.2564773
[2] Shoaib, M., & Alharbi, A. (2025). Convergence of cybersecurity governance, risk management and compliance (GRC) for IT and OT environments: Context of KSA. Journal of Computer and Communications, 13(12), 9-27. https://doi.org/10.4236/JCC.2025.1312002
[3] Bhandari, R. (2026). AI and cybersecurity: Opportunities, challenges, and governance. EDPACS, 71(4), 29-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/07366981.2025.2544363
[4] Falschau, A. R. K., Lamzihri, O., & Gagnon, S. (2026). Do governance determinants contribute to effective management of cybersecurity threats posed by misleading information? Evidence from Canadian organizations. International Journal of Accounting & Information Management, 34(2), 385-411. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJAIM-12-2024-0467
[5] Makhamreh, Z. H., Alhyasat, W., & Alhyasat, E. (2026). Global research frontiers in cyber security governance: A bibliometric and thematic analysis. EDPACS, 71(3), 51-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/07366981.2025.2536224
[6] Hossain, E., Bashir, M., Rashed, M. A. R., & Rahman, M. S. (2025). An integrated MIS–cybersecurity governance framework for risk-adaptive IT project management in critical infrastructure systems. Frontiers in Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, 4(2), 13-25. https://doi.org/10.32996/FCSAI.2025.4.2.2
[7] Liu, C., & Babar, A. M. (2026). Corporate cybersecurity risk and data breaches: A systematic review of empirical research. Australian Journal of Management, 51(1), 62-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/03128962241293658
[8] Enam, M., Singh, N., & Das, N. (2026). Do cybersecurity policies influence the effectiveness of corporate governance on bank performance? Insights from Quad countries. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 28(1), 92-110. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-03-2024-0043
[9] Cai, Y. (2026). Research on the collaborative promotion path of network ideology security risk early warning and resilience governance in the new era. Journal of International Social Science, 3(4), 103-106. https://doi.org/10.62639/SSPJISS16.20260304
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Computing and Electronic Information Management

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.








