In the past, whenever there was a major security incident, the government proposed strong measures, but many times these fizzled out over time. For this measure to be effective, several preconditions must be met.

First, consistent determination and continuous monitoring are needed. The government stated that this measure focuses on short-term tasks that can be implemented immediately. However, even short-term tasks are useless if not properly executed. A cross-government implementation inspection system must be established, the progress should be disclosed quarterly, and clear accountability must be imposed on departments or agencies that fail to comply. A control tower, centered around the National Security Office, must have practical authority to enforce compliance by each department.

Second, there must be a balance between regulation and support. Especially for small and medium-sized enterprises, imposing excessive regulatory burdens could result in merely formal compliance. While introducing an information protection grading system, substantial improvement support should also be provided to companies with lower grades.

Expanding regional information protection support centers is a good starting point, but instead of simply increasing the number of centers, they must be equipped with capabilities for practical technical support, personnel dispatch, and consulting services.

In particular, many small manufacturing companies lack the capacity to hire security specialists, so it is necessary to consider forming a public expert pool for rotational support.

Collaborating with verified private security companies can also be an effective approach, as areas like penetration testing or vulnerability assessment can be more efficiently handled by private experts with real-world experience.

Third, training security personnel should not be about merely filling numbers but ensuring quality standards. The plan to train 500 white hat hackers annually is good, but it should not end with just acquiring formal certifications.

Mock hacking programs, industry-linked internships, and exchanges with advanced foreign institutes should also happen simultaneously to provide hands-on experience.

It is also important to actively utilize already verified high-level private security experts and white hat hackers. Government-led education alone won't keep up with rapidly evolving attack techniques. Experienced private offensive security experts should be involved in public institution mock hacking, incident response, and expert training to enhance practical capabilities. While regional specialization of Information Protection Featured Universities and Integrated Security Graduate Schools is good, it is crucial to establish a network for nationwide personnel circulation, not limited to specific regions.

Fourth, international cooperation and alignment with global standards must be ensured. Cyber threats cross borders. Institutionalizing SBOM or improving cloud security requirements aligns with global trends. We should actively adopt international standards like NIST and ISO, strengthen information-sharing systems with major countries, and enhance the global competitiveness of K-Security.

Fifth, companies should be encouraged to instill a voluntary security culture. Simply focusing on regulation and punishment has its limits. There must be a spread in the recognition that security investments can actually increase company value and enhance customer trust. For companies with high security ratings, incentives such as extra points in public bidding, financial preferences, and tax benefits should be provided, and excellent cases should be actively promoted to create a virtuous cycle. Education and campaigns should also be conducted to make CEOs and boards recognize security not just as an IT issue but as a core aspect of business strategy.