Research on the Cyberspace Map and Its Conceptual Model

Abstract

The cyberspace map, as one of the important tools for describing cyberspace, provides a visual representation of the dynamic and elusive nature of cyberspace. It has become a research hotspot in multiple disciplinary fields. Compared with traditional maps, cyberspace maps lack the guidance of cartography theory and have not yet formed a unified understanding. Clarifying the concept of the cyberspace map and developing a conceptual model of it could enhance people’s unified understanding of cyberspace. Drawing from the perspective of cartography, this paper analyzes the current situation of cyberspace map research, first discussing the characteristics and definition of the cyberspace map and then proposing the conceptual model of a cyberspace map. This model elaborates on the types of map elements and their specific composition, the strength of their element–space association, the mapping of relationships between elements, element symbolization, and map expression. Then, based on the model proposed in this paper, typical maps are compared and analyzed, and design suggestions are provided. Finally, the entire article is summarized. This paper aims to adapt the development trend of cartography to the ternary space, clarify the basic concept of the cyberspace map, promote the development of cyberspace mapping theory, and lay the foundation for future research.

1. Introduction

With the development of information technology, cyberspace has become one of five domains after air, land, maritime, and space, bringing profound changes to human production and life. The description and characterization of cyberspace is the foundation for people to recognize, understand, and utilize cyberspace. As one of the most effective tools for the human understanding of cyberspace, the cyberspace map has gradually become a research hotspot in the fields of computers, cyberspace security, and so on, and a new type of space has gradually attracted the attention of the geoscience field [1,2,3]. The understanding of cyberspace has undergone a progression from a narrow to a broad sense [4]. In terms of network types, its narrow sense [5] primarily refers to the virtual information space created through the Internet. However, in its broad sense, cyberspace encompasses a wide range of interconnected networks, including the Internet, broadcasting networks, telecommunication networks, the Internet of Things (IoT), various computer systems, and embedded processors and controllers in industrial systems. In terms of space types, its narrow sense mainly refers to virtual cyberspace, that is, the cyberspace within the information space, while its broad sense encompasses real geographical space, virtual information space, and social space, collectively referred to as multi-types of space [6,7]. The data and information within cyberspace belong to the realm of information space, while the underlying communication infrastructure exists within the geographical space. As for the participants, the attributes and relationships of individuals and various organizations exist within the social space. Consequently, the object space of the cyberspace map has transitioned from the traditional binary space of geography and society to a hybrid ternary space that includes geographical, social, and information spaces. The cyberspace described in this paper refers to the broad and comprehensive understanding of cyberspace in terms of both the network and space type.

With the increasing types and scale of networks, their impact on human production and life has sharply increased. In order to understand this new space, maps, as the most powerful tool for cognition in geographical space, were naturally borrowed for cyberspace, and cyberspace maps were born, breaking the barriers of traditional cartography. According to Binjiang et al. [8], cyberspace maps are special maps for cyberspace. Due to different understandings of cyberspace, maps with representations of the Earth as a base map, maps of topological relationships, and general-purpose maps for virtual worlds have been generated [9]. Taylor proposed the idea of cybercartography [10], which takes the Internet as the carrier while the object of map expression is still geographical space, which is what Martin called “maps in cyberspace” [11]. Under the trend of map generalization, cyberspace maps are classified as a type of pan map [12], and progress has been made in the map content, symbols, and expression design [13,14,15,16]. Li Xiang et al. [17] classified the methods of cyberspace map expression according to the strength of their geographical correlation, and Zhang Lan et al. [18] summarized the methods of cyberspace map expression into map, topology, and knowledge maps.

However, current research on cyberspace maps has the problems of cognitive disunity and a lack of standardization. In terms of concept, there are still ambiguities. For example, some scholars regard the cyberspace map as a map spread and used by the network [10]. In terms of terminology, there is no unity at present. In addition to the “cyberspace map”, there is also the “network map”, “cybermap”, etc. [8,19] Most importantly, as a member of the map family, cyberspace maps have produced various map products driven by practical needs, for example, cyberspace maps produced by enterprises in the network security field such as Norse, Threatcloud, and Kaspersky [19,20]; however, standardized suggestions on cartography theories and methods have not been received. At present, the design of cyberspace maps mostly relies on the metaphor of map concepts from scholars in the field of cyberspace security, which is the subjective understanding of cartographers. It lacks the theoretical guidance of cartography and does not form a unified understanding. To solve this problem, this paper, from the perspective of cartography, takes the conceptual model of the cyberspace map as the research object and tries to answer the following basic questions: (1) What is the cyberspace map? (2) What are the content elements of the cyberspace map? (3) Additionally, how can the map of cyberspace be expressed? We hope that the research of this paper can promote the standardization of the cyberspace map and lay a theoretical foundation for the follow-up research of cyberspace maps.

This paper is organized as follows: To understand the contribution of this paper, the relevant research is described (Section 1). Subsequently, the characteristics and concepts of cyberspace maps are discussed, and a conceptual model is proposed (Section 2). Then, (Section 3) a comparative analysis is made based on the model, and design suggestions are provided. Finally, the paper is summarized with an elaboration on follow-up work (Section 4).

2. Conceptual Model of Cyberspace Map

The conceptual model is “the mathematical/logical/verbal representation (mimic) of the problem entity developed for a particular study” [21]. In order to better understand cyberspace, this section constructs the conceptual model of a cyberspace map from the aspects of concept and characteristics, element composition, element correlation and mapping, symbol specification, and map expression.

2.1. Concept and Characteristics

The fundamental difference between the cyberspace map and the traditional map lies in the shift from traditional geographical space to cyberspace. This change determines that cyberspace maps have the following characteristics that are different from traditional maps, as summarized in Table 1.

• (1). Complex space types.

The expression space of a traditional map is the real geographical world, while the expression space of a cyberspace map is extended to the ternary space, including real and virtual.

• (2). The coexistence of virtual and real elements.

The elements of the cyberspace map include both tangible elements in real space and intangible elements in virtual space. The cyberspace map needs to give virtual elements a real sensory image.

• (3). The spatial framework varies greatly.

It is mainly reflected in three aspects: position, distance, and direction. The concept of location exists in both real and virtual environments and refers to the spatial position occupied by a specific target. In the cyberspace map, we encounter both the real geographical location and the virtual network location. The network location encompasses Internet Protocol Address (IP) addresses, uniform resource locators (URLs), user login locations, information release locations, and more [22]. In the virtual information space, geographical distance has lost its meaning, and the measurement of distance has expanded to information distance, social distance [23], and so on. Similarly, the absolute direction (south, east, north, west) and relative direction (up, down, left, right) used in real space are not applicable to virtual space, where the direction of motion is from one node to another. Cyberspace maps need to map elements within different frameworks in both virtual and real spaces.

• (4). Highly dynamic.

In cyberspace, data mobility is strong, and connectivity changes rapidly; therefore, cyberspace maps need to express highly dynamic content changes in real time.

• (5). Diverse expressions.

It is extremely difficult to express the vastly different virtual and real spaces on a single map, and it is difficult to meet the needs of different users and different application scenarios. Cyberspace maps need to break away from traditional map design conventions and use diverse expression methods to achieve the effective expression of complex applications and spaces.

Through the above comparative analysis, the cyberspace map is a collection of expression forms that use elements within cyberspace as the object of expression, interweaving ternary space and requiring complex requirements. In this paper, the cyberspace map is defined as follows: a cyberspace map is a tool for the information transmission from the cyberspace environment with the elements of cyberspace as the object of expression, and the structure, elements or attributes of cyberspace, and their temporal and spatial relations as well as the phenomena and processes occurring within the cyberspace described in various methods of expression. The cognitive style that people form in the real world is difficult to carry over to the virtual space.

Multi-types of space are beyond the range of people’s habitual cognitive space. Especially in virtual space, elements have no concrete form, and the spatial reference frame is also very different from the real space. High dynamics, that is, the temporary nature of maintaining a certain structure or state in cyberspace, is not conducive to the formation of mental maps. Therefore, in order to better understand cyberspace, this paper breaks down the conventional expression of traditional maps, integrates cyberspace map products, and proposes a conceptual model of the cyberspace map, as shown in Figure 1.

For multi-types of space, the cyberspace map is based on the integration of geospatial space, humanities and social space, and virtual information space. According to the multi-types of elements, the elements of a cyberspace map are divided into seven categories: geographical elements, physical elements, logical elements, data elements, activity elements, cyber-persona elements, and entity-persona elements. In view of the great differences within the spatial framework, the correlation intensity between the elements and the ternary space is analyzed, and the spatial location is expanded from the geographical location to the general location, that is, virtual location. In view of the high dynamics of cyberspace, element-mapping relationships are constructed. The basic forms of the cyberspace map can be divided into a geographical map, topological map, and thematic map, and the basic form of maps can be combined into multilayer maps as needed.

2.2. Element Composition

In terms of the composition of cyberspace, it initially consisted only of the infrastructure and the data it carried and later added the subjects and behaviors that were active in it. The literature [24] briefly summarizes cyberspace as facilities, data, persona, and operation. In addition, the concept of “cyberspace can be viewed as three layers (physical, logical, and social) made up of five components (geographic, physical network, logical network, cyber persona, and persona)” [25], as proposed by the U.S. military has gained wide recognition. The framework has been adjusted but is continued in the report by Defence Research and Development Canada [26]. The literature [2] also divides cyberspace into layers. Additionally, the literature [22] argues that cyberspace is a hierarchical space that encompasses people, machines, and objects and includes real physical space, virtual information space, and knowledge space. The literature [17] classifies the elements of cyberspace into seven categories (Figure 2). It can be seen that this division has become mainstream, and it is essentially a clustering of the elements of cyberspace. Therefore, this article also continues this approach by classifying the elements of the cyberspace map, the specific composition of which is shown in Table 2.

• (1). Basic elements

Geographical elements, physical elements, and logical elements are the basic elements of the cyberspace map that describe the material and structural relationship of the basis of cyberspace. Geographical elements encompass fundamental geospatial information and can be directly designed and produced using the fundamental theories and methods of traditional cartography. Additionally, they include the peripheral environments associated with the network, which can be considered as thematic maps representing the physical environment surrounding the network in geographical space. This encompasses elements from the natural environment, such as geological soil, temperature, humidity, and the electromagnetic environment, which can influence the infrastructure’s layout and operation. Artificial environmental elements comprise power stations, power supply dispatching centers, and other human-made facilities that are closely related to network operations.

Physical elements include various network equipment, communication links, and other objective substances that exist in the real environment. They can be divided according to functional attributes, materials, etc.

Logical elements are abstractions of physical elements consisting of nodes and links. They represent the logical connection between elements and the functional attributes of loaded systems, services, and programs.

Some codes (such as viruses) can also engage in activities in cyberspace (copy, delete, and tamper with data or device configuration), which are similar to persona elements. However, their activities lack subjective initiative and are subject to the configuration of the subject; therefore, they are not considered persona elements. Due to their malicious nature, they are classified as logical elements.

• (2). Data elements

Data elements describe the distribution of data assets in cyberspace. They mainly include business data (divided into industrial data, telecommunication data, financial data, etc., based on industry) and system data (machine data, log data, application data, statistical data, etc.).

• (3). Persona elements

Persona elements are the main actors in cyberspace activities and primarily represent a social aspect. They may be individuals or organizations or groups. They have a subjective initiative and carry out purposeful activities in cyberspace through the operation of physical devices. Entity-persona elements refer to individuals or entities that exist in the physical environment, such as users, managers, and construction entities. These entity-persona elements actively engage in cyberspace through cyber-persona elements. Cyber-persona elements, on the other hand, represent entities that exist in the virtual environment and take on virtual forms. These include websites, user accounts, and other virtual entities.

• (4). Activity elements

Activity elements represent the specific operations, means, and methods that are employed by personas in cyberspace. These activities in cyberspace expand human actions from social and geographical spaces into the information space. They encompass both regular activities and network attack and defense.

Normal activities can be classified into two categories: information behavior and technical behavior [27]. Information behavior involves activities that are related to information, such as visiting and browsing web content, downloading and uploading information, and creating, storing, modifying, and transmitting data, among others. On the other hand, technical behaviors primarily encompass network technology development, maintenance, and program upgrading. Network attack and defense encompass activities such as intrusion by harmful programs, network attacks, and information destruction, among others.

These activities occur not only in the virtual information space but also in real geographical space. In the real geographical space, activities such as disasters affecting the physical security of hardware equipment, electronic interference, countermeasures, and electromagnetic radiation [28], as well as acts of intentional destruction or normal damage that affect network operations, also fall under this category. These activities in real geographical space are easily understandable and can be represented using event maps in traditional maps. Therefore, the primary focus of attention in the cyberspace map is on activities in the virtual information space.

2.3. Element Correlation and Mapping

As multi-types of space are interwoven by geography, society, and information, the elements in cyberspace exhibit varying degrees of correlation with different spaces. All phenomena and entities, including human activities, occur within a specific space and time [29]. Thus, in a broader sense, all elements can be considered to have a relationship with geographical space. Even virtual data elements have physical devices that are associated with them, which also possess geographical coordinates. However, we place different emphasis on different elements. For instance, virtual data elements primarily embody characteristics within the information space, thus appearing more relevant to that particular space. Additionally, ternary space is not entirely separated but continuously integrated. Hence, we could not assume that certain elements solely belonged to one space; rather, they predominantly reflected the characteristics of a specific space while also weakly relating to other spaces. This paper posits that geographical elements and physical elements strongly correlate with geographical space, logical elements, data elements, activity elements, and virtual role elements, which strongly correlate with information space, and entity-persona elements strongly correlate with humanities and social space. While these elements also have connections to other spaces, their degree of correlation is weaker. As shown by the arrows in Figure 1, the red represents the correlation degree with humanities and social space, the yellow represents the correlation degree with real geographical space, and the blue represents the correlation degree with virtual information space.

There are mapping relations between elements. As for the basic elements, we collect data through cyberspace surveying and mapping techniques. By employing technologies such as network resource detection, topology analysis, and entity positioning, we acquire the attributes of elements, including their geographical locations, network locations, and topology connectivity. This allows us to deeply understand and correlate multiple types of locations, thereby establishing a mapping relationship between virtual-world locations and real-world locations. This builds a foundation for establishing spatial relationships. To obtain the ownership information of the persona and other elements, additional methods such as social network analysis and social engineering are required. Furthermore, network detection and other technologies can be utilized to gather network activity information. The establishment of mapping between persona elements and basic elements can be achieved through the relationship between humans and machines. The mapping between persona elements and data elements is established through the ownership relationship. The mapping between persona elements and activity elements is established based on triggering or causal events. The cyber-persona and entity-persona are mapped to each other through an ownership relationship. Based on the foregoing information, the relationship between the elements of a cyberspace map can be summarized as shown in Table 3 [30]. The mapping of the relationship between elements can realize the linkage between changes in these elements in a highly dynamic cyberspace and lay the foundation for their subsequent expression.

2.4. Map Symbol Specification

Cyberspace map symbols can be abstracted into point, line, and area symbols, which also require symbols to be locatable, general, easy to feel, combined, logical, and systematic [31] while also paying attention to the characteristics of abstract cyberspace elements. The symbol design of the cyberspace map is described below according to the category of elements. Some symbol examples are shown in Table 4.

• (1). Basic elements

Geographical elements can be designed according to traditional map symbols, and no examples are given. The elements of the natural environment are usually abstracted into area symbols according to their distribution range. Soil symbols are commonly depicted through land-type boundaries, explanatory symbols, background colors, and explanatory notes or through mutual coordination. The electromagnetic environment, temperature, and humidity are often represented using isolines [32]. Artificial environmental elements are usually depicted as dot symbols representing independent features.

Among the physical elements, server terminals, client terminals, IoT devices, switching devices, etc., are represented by dot symbols. These symbols typically take the form of patterned representations based on specific images, using top- or side-view graphics. The communication link represented using linear symbols makes distinctions based on the transmission medium through color or shape. Additionally, bandwidth and link load are often displayed, and hierarchical representation can be achieved using size and color.

Logical elements should be represented in a more concise manner compared with physical elements. Nodes are represented as dot symbols, and different types of nodes are distinguished using shape variables. For example, a rectangle is used to represent the client, and a circle is used to represent the server. Links symbols, on the other hand, are similar to transmission lines; however, the emphasis is on depicting the connectivity between the nodes. Specific attributes such as media and bandwidth cannot be distinguished in detail.

The system, service, and program symbolize the status and functions of the network and are abstracted as dot symbols. Words are often used to represent specific service content, such as “Web”, “email”, “DNS”, and so on, or symbols and numbers/text notes are used. When describing only their composition and functions, they are presented in the form of charts or graphs.

Malware is typically represented by dot symbols and designed with destructive and terrifying graphics, such as viruses, demons, or skulls. When representing a specific malware, words or specific graphic combinations can be added based on its own characteristics, such as Trojan viruses and Ladybug viruses.

• (2). Data elements

Data elements can be abstracted as dot symbols, and different shapes are used to represent different categories. The expression of statistical information in data elements is a key aspect of symbolization. Typically, the fixed-point symbol method is used and combined with histograms, pie charts, etc., to represent the data volume and proportion of various types of data in traffic.

• (3). Persona elements

Persona elements are abstracted by point-shaped symbols, and visualized graphics can be used although, in most cases, they can be abstracted as geometric shapes. Websites typically use their own logos or names as text symbols. When representing the account of a specific application, symbols can be designed in combination with the application’s icon.

The relationship between personae and other elements is crucial for expression and is represented by linear symbols to convey the semantic relationship. This relationship encompasses subordination and cooperation, as well as ownership, with other elements, such as the cyber-persona. These relationships can vary and depend on specific needs. Typically, size and color variables are utilized to indicate the strength of the relationship and to differentiate between different relationship types.

• (4). Activity elements

Activity elements are designed according to their characteristics. Most of them use dot symbols, while linear symbols are used for interactions between nodes, such as user-browsing trajectories and cyber-attacks. If an activity affects nodes or devices within a range, an area symbol can be used to indicate the range. Attack and defense activities can be designed using military symbols as a reference.

2.5. Map Representation

The elements of a cyberspace map are drawn according to their generalized location, specifically including the geographic location, network location, and semantic location. Therefore, the basic forms of cyberspace maps are cyberspace geographical maps, cyberspace topological maps, and cyberspace thematic maps (as shown in Figure 1).

The geographical map provides an external perspective on cyberspace by focusing on the physical infrastructure of cyberspace in geographical space. It presents the spatial distribution of various elements and their attribute information by overlaying them on a basic geographical framework. This type of map encompasses the geographical representations of elements, such as geographical elements, physical elements, activity elements, data elements, and entity-persona elements, among others.

The topological map describes cyberspace from within and illustrates the logical connectivity and node attributes. It primarily includes topological maps of various elements, such as logic, activity, data and cyber-persona elements, among others. Due to the dynamic nature of cyberspace, the topological map depicts the changing connectivity and data flow. For instance, while the external physical connections between devices typically remain unchanged, the connectivity between devices can change due to variations in virtual ports. This phenomenon cannot be represented on geographical maps but can be effectively showcased on topological maps.

Thematic maps also provide an internal description of cyberspace, primarily including thematic maps of data and entity-persona elements, among others. They focus on expressing the internal semantic characteristics of these elements, employing more flexible and diverse forms. Thematic maps select relevant semantics to establish the coordinate system based on specific requirements and construct spatial relationships through virtualization. Spatial relationships are a key distinguishing feature between maps from information graphics. In the context of cyberspace, thematic maps extract the semantic information of elements according to the map requirements and translate them into spatial relationships, including adjacency, association, inclusion, connectivity, and more [33].

Various elements can be separately mapped as needed, or multiple elements can be simultaneously represented in a single map. The basic topological structure map is composed of nodes and links in logical elements, and the physical element geographical map can describe the objective environment of cyberspace and serve as the basic map. Other elements need to be overlaid on the basic map to create a geographical map or topological map of one or multiple categories of elements. The three fundamental forms of the cyberspace maps undergo transformations by extracting topology information and semantic information. They progressively depict cyberspace, transitioning from external descriptions to internal descriptions and internal characteristics. The logical composition of the cyberspace map is shown in Figure 3 [18,34,35,36]. In essence, the three basic forms of the map are the information extraction and layer-by-layer mapping of objectively existing physical devices, data resources, activities, and the main body in real geographical space; virtual cyberspace; and semantic space.

In order to provide a comprehensive depiction of cyberspace, according to the mapping relationship in Section 2.3, the aforementioned basic form maps can be selected as needed and combined to create multilayer maps. Two examples are presented below: the persona elements multilayer map and the physical–logical elements multilayer map (as shown in Figure 1, Example 1, and Example 2). The persona elements multilayer map is divided into three levels. The first level is the entity-persona geographical layer, which represents the entity-persona based on its geographical location. The second level is the entity–cyber-persona mapping layer, which is situated above the entity-persona geographical layer and depicts the mapping relationship between the entity-persona and the cyber-persona. The third level is the cyber-persona relationship layer, positioned at the top level, which illustrates the semantic relationships among cyber-personae. Similarly, the physical–logical element multilayer map consists of three layers from bottom to top, namely, the physical elements geographic layer, the physical–logical elements mapping layer, and the logical elements topology layer. The multilayer map spans different types of space, offering a comprehensive depiction of cyberspace.

These two sets of relationships, both virtual and real, reflect the extension of the real geographical space and the humanities and social space in cyberspace, as well as the integration of the ternary space. The entity-persona represents the presence of individuals or organizations as physical entities in the real geographical world. The cyber-persona serves as the “spokesperson” of entity-persona in the virtual part of cyberspace. Similarly, physical elements exist as physical entities in the real geographical world and carry the virtual elements of cyberspace. Logical elements can be seen as the “spokesperson” of physical elements in the virtual part of cyberspace. Physical elements and logical elements are more important because they carry the basic environment of cyberspace. Analogous to books are intellectual products, where the text content is bound to the paper: virtual and physical spaces are unified within books [37]. Physical elements serve as the “unity” between the virtual and physical aspects of cyberspace, connecting the two worlds, and are of the utmost significance. This is also why people naturally begin by representing physical devices when studying cyberspace maps. Furthermore, achievements in this field are particularly noteworthy.

3. Analysis and Application

3.1. Typical Map Analysis Based on the Conceptual Model

Based on the conceptual model proposed in this paper, the typical forms of existing cyberspace maps can be compared and analyzed from the aspects of expressing object space, the correlation degree between elements and space, mapping between elements, and usage forms, as shown in Table 5.

By comparison, this paper holds that the typical forms of the existing cyberspace map respectively express a type of space in cyberspace, which are separated and unrelated to each other. The cyberspace map proposed in this paper, starting from the basis of the expression object—cyberspace is multi-types of space—establishes the correlation between elements and spaces, maps relationships between elements, expounds the logical relationship of basic maps, and, finally, achieves the goal of a comprehensive and multi-dimensional description of cyberspace.

3.2. Cyberspace Map Design

When designing a cyberspace map, as mentioned earlier, a single basic form map only describes a certain space, while a multilayer map extends to multi-types of space. Usually, it is challenging to fulfill the requirements using a single cyberspace map. In order to address this, the three basic forms of maps and combined multilayer maps can be utilized together in a multi-view format, depending on the needs. This means that two or more basic form maps or multilayer maps can be simultaneously employed to express the same object or theme. A multi-view approach depicts multi-types of space from multiple various perspectives (as shown in Figure 4).

In terms of representation design, this is determined according to the correlation degree between the elements and the space. This paper asserts that a strong relation with the geographical space is best suited for traditional map methods, particularly when complemented by other methods. Likewise, a strong relation between the information space and the social space is more suitable for topological and knowledge map methods, particularly when complemented by other methods. At the element level, this model can provide a comprehensive foundation for expression design based on the strength of its relationship with the ternary space. It can be observed that the model considers the attribute characteristics of elements in the ternary space, offering an advantage to facilitate the subsequent expression design.

An example of a cyberspace map made based on this paper is shown in Figure 5. The whole map is divided into two views. In view 1, a multilayer map is used. From bottom to top: The first level is the geographical map, using geographical location to express the spatial position and the relationship of physical elements in the geographical space. The second level is the mapping layer, which correlates the physical elements with logical nodes in their projected information space. The third level is a topological map, using network location to express the logical connectivity between nodes. The fourth level is a mapping layer to correlate the logical nodes with thematic maps. The thematic map of the fifth layer analyzes the attributes of the node, such as the type and amount of data stored. The red curve and arrow represent the flow path of data between these two devices. Using the geographic map alone, it is easy to mistakenly assume that data are transmitted directly through the network cables between two nodes. By combining the connectivity relationship of the nodes in the topological map, the correct data transmission path can be conveyed to the reader (logically, the two points are not directly connected, and the transit node is needed). In view 2, a small-scale topological map is used to represent the position of the target node in the overall network.

4. Conclusions

To enhance the utilization of cyberspace maps to understand cyberspace, it is crucial to establish a shared understanding of the basic concepts. This paper first analyzed the research status of the cyberspace map. Then, the basic concept of the cyberspace map was proposed, and the conceptual model of the cyberspace map was constructed. The conceptual model describes the composition and symbolization of the elements of the cyberspace map, analyzes the correlation degree of elements and spaces, maps the relationship between elements, and puts forward three basic forms of the cyberspace map and a multilayer map. The development of this model incorporates not only current research findings on cyberspace maps but also draws from technical ideas and experiences in location-based pan-information maps, pan-maps, visualizations, and more. This ensures the model’s progressiveness and feasibility. The research of this paper clarifies the concept, elements, and forms of expression of the cyberspace map, and promotes its cognitive unity and standardization. In addition, it also promotes the expansion of cartography into the virtual space.

The weaknesses of the research mainly include the following aspects. First, in terms of element composition, the classification and grading standards need to be further refined. Second, in terms of element symbolization, it has carried on the general discussion, which needs to be refined, especially regarding the symbolic nature of the virtual elements. Third, in terms of map expression, there is a lack of demand analysis, that is, there is a need to further clarify which forms of cyberspace maps are used under what circumstances and which elements should be expressed in the maps.

In order to improve the model, future research should mainly include the following aspects. First, deepen the model in terms of its element classification. Establish a grading boundary of elements to lay a foundation for the selection of elements in multi-scale expression. Develop grading standards according to the characteristics of cyberspace elements. For example, logical nodes are quantitatively graded according to their degree centrality, betweenness centrality, and so on. Second, deepen the model in terms of its element symbolization. Conduct research on the symbolization of virtual elements to address the lack of specific physical shapes as a design basis for virtual elements. The research achievements of cognitive linguistics, semiotics, and other fields can be used for reference. For example, metaphor theory can be used to study the design of virtual element symbols according to the similarity of function, relationship, structure, and so on. Third, further extend the model to establish the mapping relationship between demand and expression, that is, to form the expression model. By considering the actual needs of cyberspace security, including cyberspace operations, navigation, and other aspects, the purpose of map utilization can be further refined. Then, construct the correspondence relationship between the cartographic task and map expression form, content, etc. Make the model extend upward to the source of demand and downward to the product system, which effectively expands the application field of the map.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft, writing—review, editing, and conceptualization, Lan Zhang; supervision, Guangxia Wang and Xiong You; editing, Zhiyong Liu; methodology, writing—review and editing, Jiangpeng Tian; providing important suggestions, Lin Ma and Mingzhan Su. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Conceptual model of a cyberspace map.

Figure 2. Composition of cyberspace.

Figure 3. Logical composition of the basic form cyberspace maps.

Figure 4. Cyberspace map design.

Figure 5. Elements of the cyberspace map.

Table 1

Comparison of characteristics between the traditional map and the cyberspace map.

Characteristic	Traditional Map	Cyberspace Map
Space type	Real space	Ternary space including real and virtual
Element form	Entity element	Entity element and virtual element
Location	Geographical location	Including virtual and real space locations, that is, geographical and network locations, etc.
Distance	Geographical distance	Expanded from a single geographical distance to three categories: geographical distance, information distance, and social distance
Direction	North, south, east, and westUp and down, left and right	In the virtual space, there is no south, east, north, and west, or up, down, left, and right. It is a non-linear direction with node jumps as the direction of motion.
Status	Relatively stable	Highly dynamic
Expression	Method of traditional map	Traditional map, topology and knowledge map [17]

Table 2

Elements of the cyberspace map.

Element Category		Major Category	Subcategory
Basicelement	Geographical element	Natural environment	Electromagnetic environment, temperature, humidity, etc.
		Artificial environment	Power station, power supply dispatching center, Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS), etc.
		Basic geospatial information	Residential area and facility, traffic, water area, etc.
	Physical element	Server terminal	Domain Name System (DNS) server, email server, File Transfer Protocol (FTP) server, etc.
		Client terminal	Desktop computer, notebook computer, tablet computer, etc.
		Communication links	Optical fiber, twisted-pair cable, etc.
		Switching device	Gateway, router, switch, etc.
		IOT device	Printer, fax, camera, etc.
		And so on	And so on
	Logical element	Basic structure	Node, link, etc.
		Functional attribute	System, service, program, etc.
		And so on	And so on
Dataelement		Business data	Industrial data, telecommunication data, financial data, traffic data, etc.
		System data	Machine data, log data, application data, statistical data, etc.
		And so on	And so on
Activityelement		Normal activity	Create data, store data, change data, transmit data, etc.
		Attack and defense	Harmful program intrusion attack, information destruction, software/hardware damage, etc.
		And so on	And so on
Persona element	Entity-persona element	User	Ordinary user, specialist user, hacker, etc.
		Management and construction entity	International organization and alliance, government department, cyber force, service provider, etc.
		And so on	And so on
	Cyber-persona element	Website	Government website, commercial website, entertainment website, etc.
		Personal account	System account, social media account, email account, etc.
		And so on	And so on

Table 3

Relationships of cyberspace map elements.

Type of Relationship	Relationship Name
Spatial relationship	Distance (geographical, informational, social), orientation, topology (physically accessible, logically accessible)
Organizational relationship	Subordination, inclusion
Virtual and real relationship	Dependency, carrying
Other relationship	Humans and machines, ownership, triggering/causal

Table 4

Examples of cyberspace map symbols.

Element	Example
Physical element	[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]	[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]	[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]		[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]
	Server	Notebook computer	Router		Camera
	[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]Physical communication linkSize indicates bandwidth		[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]The color indicates the level of link traffic, transitioning from purple to green and finally to white. The purple represents maximum traffic (based on actual measurements), while white represents 0 bytes [14].
Logical element	[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]	[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]	[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]		[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]
	client	server	web service [15]		Trojan virus
Data element	[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]		[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]	[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]	[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]
	safety data		statistical data	financial data	Log data
Activityelement	[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]		[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]	[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]	[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]
	download		program upgrading	credential-based access	scan detection [15]
Persona element	[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]	[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]	[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]	[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]
	individual	group organization	hacker	Apple Pay account [13]

Table 5

Analysis of a typical cyberspace map [38,39].

Typical Cyberspace Map	Object Space	Correlation	Mapping	Usage
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]	Real geographic space only; single and fragmented	Regardless of the correlation degree, all are depicted based on geographical location	No mapping between elements	External description only, analyzing the distribution of elements in the geographical space
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]	Virtual information space only; single and fragmented	Regardless of the correlation degree, all are depicted based on network location	No mapping between elements	Internal description only, analyzing the logical connectivity of elements
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]	Virtual information space only; single and fragmented	Regardless of the correlation degree, all are depicted based on semantic location	No mapping between elements	Internal description only, analyzing the characteristics of elements

References

1. Bakis, H. Understanding the geocyberspace: A major task for geographers and planners in the next decade. Netw. Commun. Stud. Netcom Assoc.; 2001; 15, pp. 9-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3406/netco.2001.1499]

2. Gao, C.D.; Guo, Q.Q.; Jiang, D.; Wang, Z.B.; Fang, C.L.; Hao, M.M. Theoretical basis and technical methods of cyberspace geography. J. Geogr. Sci.; 2019; 29, pp. 1949-1964. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11442-019-1698-7]

3. Zhou, Y.; Xu, Q.; Luo, X.Y.; Liu, F.L.; Zhang, L.; Hu, X.F. Research on Definition and Technological System of Cyberspace Surveying and Mapping. Comput. Sci.; 2018; 45, pp. 1-7.

4. Sun, Z.W.; Lu, Z.; Wang, Y. The Geography of Cyberspace: Review and Prospect. Adv. Earth Sci.; 2007; 22, pp. 1005-1011. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:1001-8166.2007.10.003]

5. Aharon, K. Cyberspace Classification and Cognition-Information and Communications Cyberspaces. J. Urban Technol.; 2008; 14, pp. 5-32. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10630730801923110]

6. Shen, Y.J. Analysis on The Security of Cyberspace Cognitive Domain in China. Southeast Commun.; 2017; 7, pp. 84-85. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13556/j.cnki.dncb.cn35-1274/j.2017.07.028]

7. Fang, B.X. Define Cyberspace Security. Chin. J. Netw. Inf. Secur.; 2018; 4, pp. 1-5. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.11959/j.issn.2096-109x.2018002]

8. Jiang, B.; Ormeling, F.J. Cybermap: The Map for Cyberspace. Cartogr. J.; 1997; 34, pp. 111-116. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1179/000870497787758472]

9. Jiang, B.; Ormeling, F.J. Mapping Cyberspace: Visualizing, Analysing and Exploring Virtual Worlds. Cartogr. J.; 2000; 37, pp. 117-122. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1179/0008704.37.2.p117]

10. Taylor, D.R.F. Cybercarotgraphy: Maps and mapping in the information era. Proceedings of the 18th ICA/ACI International Cartographic Conference; Stockholm, Sweden, 23–27 June 1997; pp. 23-27. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3138/U631-37k3-3NL6-4136]

11. Dodge, M. Understanding Cyberspace Cartographies: A Critical Analysis of Internet Infrastructure Mapping. Ph.D. Thesis; University College London: London, UK, April 2008.

12. Guo, R.Z.; Chen, Y.B.; Ying, S.; Lv, G.N.; Li, Z.L. Geographic Visualization of Pan-Map with the Context of Ternary Space. Geomat. Inf. Sci. Wuhan Univ.; 2018; 43, pp. 1603-1610. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13203/j.whugis20180373]

13. Zhang, L. Research on the Technologies of Expression and Analysis for the Cyberspace Surveying and Mapping. Master’s Thesis; Information Engineering University: Zhengzhou, China, June 2018.

14. Wang, Y.X. Research on the Method and Technology of Cyberspace Relation and Node Map Information Visualization. Master’s Thesis; Information Engineering University: Zhengzhou, China, June 2020.

15. Zhang, Z. The Research on Theory of Cybermap. Master’s Thesis; Information Engineering University: Zhengzhou, China, June 2012.

16. McCroskey, E.D.; Mock, C.A. Operational Graphics for Cyberspace. Jt. Force Q.; 2017; 85, pp. 42-49.

17. Li, X.; Yang, F.; Wang, L.N.; Yu, X.K.; Fei, T.; Jiang, N. A Survey of Mapping Methods for Cyberspace. J. Geomat. Sci. Technol.; 2019; 36, 620–626+631

18. Zhang, L.; Wang, G.X.; Jiang, B.C.; Zhang, L.T.; Ma, L. A Review of visualization methods of Cyberspace Map. Geomat. Inf. Sci. Wuhan Univ.; 2022; 47, pp. 2113-2122. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13203/j.whugis20220244]

19. Cyberthreat Real-Time Map. Available online: https://cybermap.kaspersky.com/cn (accessed on 24 July 2020).

20. Live Cyber Threat Map. Available online: https://threatmap.checkpoint.com/ (accessed on 24 July 2020).

21. Sargent, R.G. An Overview of Verification and Validation of Simulation Models. Proceedings of the 1987 Winter Simulation Conference; Atlanta, GA, USA, 14–16 December 1987; pp. 33-79. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/318371.318379]

22. Zhu, X.Y.; Zhou, C.H.; Wo, W.; Hu, T.; Liu, H.Q.; Gao, X.W. Preliminary Study on Conception and Key Technologies of the Location-based Pan-Information Map. Geomat. Inf. Sci. Wuhan Univ.; 2015; 40, pp. 285-295. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13203/j.whugis20140462]

23. Zhu, X.Q.; Zhu, C.; Ding, Z.Y.; Liu, B.; Liu, Y. Map Modeling and Intelligence Terrain Analysis Method for Cyberspace. J. Command Control; 2022; 8, pp. 294-302.

24. Fang, B.X. Research on the Cyberspace Sovereignty; 1st ed. Science Press: Beijing, China, 2017; pp. 33-34. ISBN 9787030542557

25. U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. The United States Army’s Cyberspace Operations Concept Capability Plan 2016–2028; US Army Training and Doctrine Command Pamphlet, 2010(525); Department of the Army United States of America: Monterey, CA, USA, 2010; pp. 1-72. Available online: http://www.tradoc.army.mil/tpubs/regndx.htm (accessed on 14 December 2020).

26. Dillabaugh, C.; Bennett, D. CyberCOP: Cyber Situational Awareness Demonstration Tool. Ottawa, Canada, Defence Research and Development Canada. 2019; Available online: http://www.solananetworks.com (accessed on 14 December 2020).

27. Chen, T.M. General Course on Cyberspace Security; 1st ed. Post & Telecom Press: Beijing, China, 2019; 3. ISBN 9787115507754

28. Wang, Q.; Li, F.J.; Zhou, Q. Architecture and Key Technologies of Cyberspace Security. J. Nanjing Univ. Sci. Technol.; 2019; 43, pp. 495-504. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14177/j.cnki.32-1397n.2019.43.04.017]

29. Wang, J.Y. Cartography in the Age of Spatiotemporal Big Data. Acta Geod. Cartogr. Sin.; 2017; 46, pp. 1226-1237. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.11947/j.AGCS.2017.20170308]

30. Liu, J.X.; Guo, J.X.; Song, L.Y. Study on Cyberspace Situation Ontology for Situation Awareness. Fire Control Command Control; 2020; 45, pp. 90-94. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-0640.2020.03.016]

31. Wang, J.Y.; Sun, Q.; Wang, G.X.; Jiang, N.; Lv, X.H. Principles and Methods of Cartography; 1st ed. Science Press: Beijing, China, 2006; pp. 168-170. ISBN 7030164989

32. He, Z.Y.; Song, Y.; Li, L.Y. Cartography; 1st ed. Wuhan University Press: Wuhan, China, 2016; 173. ISBN 9787307181847

33. Guo, R.Z.; Chen, Y.B.; Zhao, Z.G.; Han, D.Z.; Ma, D.; Ying, S.; Di, P.; Ke, W.Q.; Fan, Y. Scientific Concept and Representation Framework of Maps in the ICT Era. Geomat. Inf. Sci. Wuhan Univ.; 2022; 47, pp. 1978-1987. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13203/j.whugis20220534]

34. Dodge, M.; Kitchin, R. Atlas of Cyberspace; 1st ed. Pearson Education Limited: London, UK, 2001; pp. 104-118. ISBN 0-201-74575-5

35. Pv4 AS Core: Visualizing IPv4 Internet Topology at a Macroscopic Scale in 2020. Available online: https://www.caida.org/projects/as-core/2020/ (accessed on 24 July 2020).

36. The Internet Map. Available online: http://internet-map.net/ (accessed on 25 July 2020).

37. Wang, X.L. On Social Space. Ph.D. Thesis; Huazhong University of Science and Technology: Wuhan, China, May 2010.

38. Submarine Cable Map 2019. Available online: https://submarine-cable-map-2019.telegeography.com/ (accessed on 24 July 2020).

39. An Atlas of Cyberspace. Available online: https://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/m.dodge/cybergeography/atlas/ (accessed on 24 July 2020).