A December 10, 2025, CyberScoop opinion article by Franklin D. Kramer, Robert J. Butler, and Melanie J. Teplinsky proposes ten ways to improve U.S. cybersecurity. The recommendations span critical-infrastructure priorities, safer software, stronger recovery and coordination, and efforts to disrupt adversaries. They are the authors’ proposals—not an enacted or government-approved plan.
What are the ten proposed cybersecurity reforms?
The proposals are best understood as complementary measures: some aim to prevent weaknesses, others to detect or recover from attacks, and several focus on how organizations and government coordinate. The authors do not rank them.
1. Prioritize systems whose failure could have severe consequences
Focus cybersecurity resources on critical infrastructure and government services where a compromise could seriously affect national security, economic security, public health, or safety. The authors name the electrical grid, water systems, ports, rail and air transportation, and national, state, and local governments. The central change is to prioritize by the potential consequences of failure, rather than treating every system as equally consequential.
2. Use memory-safe languages in key systems
Adopt memory-safe programming languages, such as Rust, for software in systems where compromise could have broad effects. Memory safety addresses a class of coding errors; it does not guarantee that software is free of every vulnerability. The opinion article says memory-safety errors are estimated to account for nearly 70% of software vulnerabilities, but does not identify the estimate’s original source or year. Treat that figure as the article’s attribution, not as an independently verified current statistic. The authors also describe a federal roadmap intended to help companies transition; their article does not establish its current implementation status.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
#1 Best Overall
3. Apply formal methods to critical software
Use mathematical reasoning to establish that software satisfies specified properties, alongside memory-safe languages. These approaches address different problems: memory-safe languages help prevent certain coding errors, while formal methods seek to demonstrate that a system meets defined requirements. The article cites a DARPA effort involving a military helicopter flight-control computer and use of formal methods in technology and high-assurance settings; those examples are reported by the authors, not independently verified here.
4. Build resilient, zero-trust architectures
Design networks so that access is verified rather than granted merely because a user or device is inside a trusted perimeter. The article summarizes this approach as “never trust, always verify.” The authors call for congressional action or federal regulation to promote resilient, zero-trust architectures in key critical infrastructure. Zero trust is an architectural principle, not a single product or a guarantee against compromise.
5. Keep essential data available and intact
Make sure important data can still be accessed and has not been corrupted during an attack. The authors recommend cloud backups and point to Ukraine’s relocation of government data before Russia’s invasion as an example. The policy aim is broader than making copies: organizations need data resilience so essential information remains usable when primary systems are disrupted.
6. Hunt for threats before alerts reveal them
Threat hunting means proactively searching networks for threats that automated systems or existing monitoring have not detected. The authors propose regular threat-hunting coverage for key networks, potentially supported by baseline requirements and public funding, such as tax credits or dedicated budgets. For port infrastructure, they suggest Coast Guard involvement. These are policy options in the opinion article, not current requirements established by it.
Rank #3
7. Coordinate government and private-sector action
Create a central coordinating body overseen by the National Cyber Director to guide cybersecurity efforts across sectors. In the authors’ proposal, this body would improve coordination without taking over day-to-day operations from organizations responsible for their own systems. The distinction matters: central direction is meant to help align activity, while operational responsibility stays with capable organizations.
8. Pilot regional resilience districts
Test cross-sector cybersecurity coordination in regions where a disruption could affect interconnected organizations and services. The authors propose “Regional Resilience Districts,” with Charleston, South Carolina, and the Houston Ship Channel as possible examples because of their major military installations or infrastructure. The intended gains are stronger protection across sectors, fewer cascading effects, and better recovery—not a new national authority replacing local operators.
9. Include disruption of adversaries in cyber campaigns
Assess how government and private companies can interfere with adversarial activity, rather than focusing only on defending systems after an attack. The authors identify enforcement of network terms of service and actions against criminal or state-linked actors as possible avenues, and urge consideration of disruption beyond asset seizure. The proposal is to evaluate such options as part of cyber campaigns; it does not specify a universal action or establish that any particular intervention is appropriate in every case.
10. Put emerging technology to work
Make better use of innovation from industry, government, federal research centers, national laboratories, and academia. The authors include artificial intelligence among technologies that could support both offensive and defensive cybersecurity missions. Their recommendation is to capitalize on emerging capabilities, not a claim that AI by itself resolves cybersecurity weaknesses.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Best Value
How the proposals fit together
The list connects measures at different levels. Safer software and formal methods target weaknesses in code; zero-trust architecture and threat hunting address how systems are accessed and monitored; data resilience and regional coordination support continuity and recovery. The prioritization proposal identifies where these efforts matter most, while central coordination, adversary disruption, and emerging technology broaden how government and private organizations might organize their work.
The source is an opinion article published by CyberScoop on December 10, 2025. It presents the ten items as recommendations and does not verify whether they were subsequently adopted or implemented.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
