Cybersecurity in Indian Ports: Legal Frameworks, Risks and Practical Measures for Resilience

• Discuss legal duties and operational practices for cybersecurity in Indian ports, with practical steps for asset mapping, segmentation and incident response.
• Explain how CERT-In directions and DG Shipping guidance affect port operations and reporting obligations.
• Analyze peer-reviewed evidence and international standards to deliver action points that reduce disruption risks in Indian ports.

Cyber security in Indian ports: legal frameworks and practices

Ports host critical systems for trade, logistics and national security. Digital systems run navigation, cargo handling, customs clearance and terminal operations. Those systems now expose ports to cyber threats. Global research shows maritime systems face rising attacks on navigation, communications and industrial control systems (Martínez, 2024). SpringerLink

Digitalisation and exposure
Indian ports adopted automation to speed processing and lower costs. Terminal operating systems, remote piloting, electronic data interchange and cloud services now link ships, terminals and hinterlands. That linkage raises dependency on networks and software. Research on port ecosystems frames ports as “systems of systems” where compromise of a single node can halt operations across multiple actors (Pöyhönen and Lehto, 2023). Frontiers

Write My Essay: Instant Help With Assignments

Submit a "do my paper" request and proceed to do whatever your heart desires.

Get Help Now!

Academic reviews catalogue the most frequent maritime attacks. DDoS, ransomware, GPS spoofing, AIS manipulation and supply chain intrusions dominate incident lists (Clavijo Mesa et al., 2024). Ports show particular vulnerability to DDoS and to attacks that target OT components used in cranes, gate systems and power distribution (Clavijo Mesa et al., 2024). MDPI

International baseline obligations
The International Maritime Organization established baseline expectations for maritime cyber risk management in 2017 by linking cyber risk to the International Safety Management regime (Resolution MSC.428(98)). Flag states received encouragement to require cyber risk measures within Safety Management Systems by 2021 (IMO, 2017). That instrument serves as the global minimum for port actors and shipowners alike. International Maritime Organization

Indian regulatory architecture
National law sits across cyber law, sector rules and agency directions. The Information Technology Act 2000 supplies the statutory base for cyber incident response and for CERT-In powers. In April 2022 CERT-In issued directions on incident reporting, data retention and cooperation for cyber incidents. The directive shortened reporting timelines and expanded the list of reportable incidents, increasing obligations for service providers and infrastructure operators (CERT-In, 2022). Cert-In

Maritime authorities responded with sector guidance. The Directorate General of Shipping published draft guidance to include cyber measures inside Ship Security Plans and Ship Security Assessments. That document frames cyber risk as part of safety and of port-ship interface design. The circular pushes masters and security officers to gain cyber awareness and to map sensitive ship systems alongside shore systems (Directorate General of Shipping, 2022). Directorate General of Shipping

Port governance in India divides responsibilities among port trusts, private terminal operators, the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways and state bodies. This split complicates unified implementation of cyber measures. The national CERT operates at central level and issues technical directions. Ports operate under local authorities whose procurement, staffing and security regimes differ by port. This mismatch widens enforcement gaps and raises compliance costs for smaller terminals. Evidence from risk assessments of Indian ports highlights heterogeneity in capacity and preparedness (Sajith, Raju and Aswani, 2024). Directory of Open Access Journals

Operational practices and common gaps
Operational practice in many Indian ports shows strong automation in gate and yard systems, alongside legacy OT for cranes and power. Operators often run OT and ICT on linked networks for efficiency. This practice reduces segmentation between business networks and control networks. International studies identify poor network segregation, weak patching on ICS devices, lack of vendor controls and insufficient logging as recurring problems in ports (Pöyhönen and Lehto, 2023; Martínez, 2024). Frontiers+1

Human factors act as force multipliers for technology risk. Port staff lack consistent cyber training. Contract labour and multiple subcontractors expand the threat surface through third party access to operational systems. Recent literature frames training gaps and weak incident playbooks as major obstacles to a credible defence posture in ports (Clavijo Mesa et al., 2024). MDPI

Incident reporting and transparency
Public incident reporting in maritime networks remains thin. Parties often withhold breach information to avoid reputational and commercial harm. Academic reviews find underreporting of maritime incidents worldwide, which limits learning across operators and regulators (Clavijo Mesa et al., 2024). MDPI

CERT-In directions sought to change that culture by imposing strict timelines for reporting and by empowering the national agency to request technical details and assistance. The directions include six hour notification requirements for some incident types. Those requirements place heavy operational demands on port operators and vendors. Port actors often struggle with the technical means to meet those timelines, especially for incidents in OT environments where forensic extraction proves complex (CERT-In, 2022). Cert-In

Risk profile across Indian ports
An empirical assessment of risks across India’s 12 major ports placed natural hazards and operational bottlenecks near the top of the risk list. Cyber and security risks appeared in the analysis as significant operational threats through their capacity to disrupt processes and to amplify other risks. The study ranked Mumbai, Kolkata and JNPT among the more exposed facilities due to traffic volume, infrastructure complexity and gateway roles (Sajith et al., 2024). Those findings align with global observations that high-volume ports create attractive targets for attackers seeking maximal disruption. Directory of Open Access Journals

Regulatory adequacy and enforcement challenges
Legal instruments exist to impose incident reporting and to encourage cyber risk management. The challenge lies in enforcement across a fragmented governance model and in aligning maritime actors with general cyber obligations. CERT-In directions address reporting and some technical hygiene. The DG Shipping circular addresses safety integration for ships. The IMO standards provide a compliance baseline. Those three layers form a workable mix. Gaps appear when rules overlap, when responsibilities remain unclear or when operators lack capacity to implement controls or to respond during incidents. Academic analyses and policy reviews identify gaps in enforcement resources, audit capacity and in harmonised sectoral guidance for ports (Martínez, 2024; Pöyhönen and Lehto, 2023). SpringerLink+1

Practical, prioritized measures for ports
Priorities must be small in number and high in impact. Choose measures that lower exposure quickly and cost-effectively.

Risk mapping of assets
Map digital and physical assets. Identify systems that affect navigation, cargo handling, gate access and power. Use asset classification to set protection levels for each asset. Recent frameworks adapt industrial guidance such as IEC 62443 to maritime OT environments. Ports that map assets reduce the chance of uncontrolled vendor access and hidden dependencies (Martínez, 2024). SpringerLink

Network segmentation and OT hardening
Enforce strict network segmentation between business systems and control systems. Replace default credentials on ICS devices and deploy patch management for firmware where feasible. Use passive monitoring to detect anomalies for legacy devices that cannot be patched. These steps reduce lateral movement and help meet CERT-In reporting needs by making forensic capture simpler. Research shows network segmentation yields rapid declines in cross-domain spillovers during incidents (Pöyhönen and Lehto, 2023). Frontiers

Incident playbooks and tabletop exercises
Draft concise incident playbooks that match port roles and contractor chains. Run frequent tabletop exercises with terminals, shipping agents and customs. Exercises improve coordination and shorten response times for live incidents, easing obligations under CERT-In directions. Frontline drills also expose assumptions about vendor SLAs and about data access during incidents (Clavijo Mesa et al., 2024). MDPI

Vendor controls and contractual hygiene
Require suppliers to show baseline cyber practices before granting access. Contracts must include incident notification clauses, data handling rules and audit rights. Ports that set clear procurement standards reduce third party risk quickly. International frameworks stress vendor assurance as central to port cyber hygiene (Martínez, 2024). SpringerLink

Training and role clarity
Invest in short, role-based training for operational staff, security officers and senior managers. Train shore teams on OT incident response procedures. Define responsibility matrices for incident escalation, including when to notify CERT-In and when to publish stakeholder advisories. Research on maritime training finds measurable benefits from periodic, focused training modules aligned to role needs (Clavijo Mesa et al., 2024). MDPI

Policy alignment and institutional steps
Regulators need aligned guidance for ports. That alignment requires a single sectoral playbook tying CERT-In directions to DG Shipping requirements and to port trust governance structures. A practical path uses phased compliance steps: baseline hygiene, midterm segmentation and long term resilience measures such as redundant systems for navigation and supply chain continuity. International models propose similar staged approaches under a sectoral cybersecurity architecture (Martínez, 2024). SpringerLink

Cost and capacity considerations
Smaller terminals face budgetary constraints. National programs can help by providing shared services such as central threat intelligence feeds and joint SOC arrangements. Government exercises such as the national cybersecurity exercise program supply practice in crisis coordination. Policy instruments that subsidise audits for small terminals produce large returns when compared to the economic cost of a prolonged port outage. The central agency role in issuing incident directions increases recovery speed when operators coordinate with national assets. Recent government statements emphasise integrated frameworks and exercises across sectors to improve resilience (Government of India, 2025). Press Information Bureau

Conclusion
Ports require a pragmatic blend of law, standards and operational practice. The law sets obligations but does not remove operational work. You should prioritise asset mapping, network segmentation, vendor controls and regular exercises. Those steps lower exposure, speed detection and ease regulatory compliance. An aligned national approach that links CERT-In directives to maritime safety rules reduces overlap and clarifies responsibilities. Peer-reviewed research and international guidance provide tested frameworks for ports to adopt and adapt. Directory of Open Access Journals+2Frontiers+2

References
Clavijo Mesa, M.V., et al., 2024. Cybersecurity at Sea: A Literature Review of Cyber-Attack Impacts and Defenses in Maritime Supply Chains. Information, 15(11), p.710. MDPI

Martínez, F., 2024. Maritime cybersecurity: protecting digital seas. International Journal of Information Security. SpringerLink

Pöyhönen, J. and Lehto, M., 2023. Comprehensive cyber security for port and harbor ecosystems. Frontiers in Computer Science. Frontiers

Sajith, S., Raju, T.B. and Aswani, R.S., 2024. Are Indian ports safe? Identifying, analysing and prioritizing the risks affecting India’s major ports. Maritime Transport Research, 6, p.100108. Directory of Open Access Journals

Directorate General of Shipping, 2022. Inclusion of Cyber Security measures in Ship Security Plan, draft circular, 23 May 2022. Government of India. Directorate General of Shipping

Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In), 2022. Directions under sub-section (6) of section 70B of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 28 April 2022. Government of India. Cert-In

International Maritime Organization, 2017. Resolution MSC.428(98) Maritime Cyber Risk Management in Safety Management Systems. IMO. International Maritime Organization

Supplementary sources used for policy context
Press Information Bureau, Government of India, 28 March 2025. Government initiatives on cybersecurity for critical infrastructure. Press Information Bureau

The post Cybersecurity in Indian Ports: Legal Frameworks, Risks and Practical Measures for Resilience appeared first on Essays Bishops.