You are presented with multiple paper abstracts, alongside the associated literature review and chapter titles. Given the provided information, you are going to do a literature review. Please generate a coherent literature review that synthesizes the content, draws connections between different works, highlights major findings, and identifies any gaps in the existing research.

Literature Review Title: Improving Interdisciplinary Communication With Standardized Cyber Security Terminology: A Literature Review 
Chapter Title:  A. PUBLIC 
1. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB001):  This paper presents cyber resilience as key strand of national security. It establishes the importance of critical national infrastructure protection and the growing vicarious nature of remote, well-planned, and well executed cyber attacks on critical infrastructures. Examples of well-known historical cyber attacks are presented, and the emergence of 'internet of things' as a cyber vulnerability issue yet to be tackled is explored. The paper identifies key steps being undertaken by those responsible for detecting, deterring, and disrupting cyber attacks on critical national infrastructure in the United Kingdom and the USA. 
2. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB002):  Whether carried out by individuals or states, cyberattacks are both growing in number and becoming more sophisticated. Since the attack on Estonian cyber infrastructure in 2007, many other examples of massive attacks have been reported. The use of spyware and malware—such as with Stuxnet, DuQu or Flames—to disrupt critical infrastructure has made headlines, questioning the ability of governments and private actors to respond to cyber threats. A broad array of potential threats poses a substantial challenge to existing governance structures, which are often behind the curve in comparison with the dynamically evolving cyberspace. Using existing literature and recent foresight studies, the article analyses the trends in the governance of cyberspace and their implications for governments and global regulatory regimes.

Literature Review:
This category includes issues of concern to the government sphere of society. It includes work regarding norms, laws, and national security. Organizations such as ICANN and W3C, while often specifying norms, also create many technical standards. Such technology is not a part of this category, but we instead place it in the Infrastructure category. Also not in this category are topics like business operations and supply chain management, even if government services benefit from these topics. Instead, we discuss those topics in category C. BIB002 give a short summary of cyber security efforts in the UK and the US, attempting to assess their protection measures, some of which address information sharing between entities on such topics as vulnerabilities and ''cyber'' incidents BIB002 . This includes a list of recommendations used by the UK Center for Protection of National Infrastructure (CPNI) to ensure security, and describes a number of UK efforts to help businesses and the nation address cyber security. They go on to describe the state of US cyber security such as the NIST cybersecurity [sic] framework BIB001 . They also list the critical national infrastructure sectors of the two countries. BIB003 analyze advances in threat evolution and government security, and compares them, concluding that governments need to do more to defend themselves and their states, starting with basic capacity building BIB003 . They say that nations are in danger of severely lagging behind trends in cyberspace. They also note, based on another study, eight innovations that will shape the future cyber security risk landscape: the cloud, big data, the internet of things, mobile internet, the neuronal interface, contactless payments, mobile robots, quantum computing, and the militarization of cyberspace. Lastly, they call for researchers to create a model of how exactly public and private spheres will collaborate in the future.  come up with cartographic terms for cyberspace and apply the concept of cyber-geography to military operations. They also suggest that research might be able to use their ontology to shed light on the attribution problem of being unable to expediently identify malicious actors through cyberspace  . describe the state of Internet jurisdiction law and the problem of assigning legal authority to a particular forum when a suit traverses multiple states. They propose four potential formulations that might clearly and fairly define the controlling jurisdiction in cases  . These formulations are choice-of-law rules based on either: the citizenship of the subject of the offending information, data, or system; the location where the harm has taken place; the citizenship of the data creator; or the citizenship of the data holder or custodian. Lin (2015) compares nuclear and cyber technology and regulation, listing a host of differences, and a few similarities, between potential problems these two technologies create, which he places into categories of strategy, operations, acquisition, and arms control  . Common to all these papers, including the ones not mentioned here, is a notion of a system of governments that is lagging behind technology and that may not even be equipped to manage it well at all. They serve as a call to researchers and the global multistakeholder community alike to unite in search of solutions. They also point out a dangerous threat to governments and nations, not only in the form of cyber-attacks, but also in the form of other entities taking over to manage traditionally government-regulated matters, such as international communication, national security, and even control over borders and international law. These problems foreshadow many other problems to come for national governments, all of which are exacerbated by the existence of the Internet and widespread computing.