{
  "title": "Central Bankers’ New Cybersecurity Challenge",
  "sourceUrl": "https://www.imf.org/en/publications/fandd/issues/2022/09/central-bankers-new-cybersecurity-challenge-fanti-lipsky-moehr",
  "canonical": "https://www.imf.org/en/publications/fandd/issues/2022/09/central-bankers-new-cybersecurity-challenge-fanti-lipsky-moehr",
  "overlayPath": "/en/publications/fandd/issues/2022/09/central-bankers-new-cybersecurity-challenge-fanti-lipsky-moehr/index.md",
  "summary": "CBDCs may pose security risks, but responsible design can turn them into opportunities",
  "sections": [
    {
      "heading": "Overview",
      "content": "- Topic: cybersecurity and privacy implications of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs).\n- Publication: F&D Magazine article by GIULIA FANTI and OLE MOEHR, September 2022.\n- Contextual findings:\n  - \"105 countries and currency unions are currently exploring the possibility of launching a CBDC.\"\n  - \"That’s up from an estimated 35 as recently as 2020.\"\n  - \"19 Group of Twenty (G20) countries are considering issuing CBDCs, and the majority have already progressed beyond the research stage.\"\n  - Example deployed retail CBDC: \"Nigeria’s eNaira, launched in October 2021.\"\n  - Regulatory threshold example: \"cash-like privacy up to a specific threshold (for example, $10,000).\"\n  - Time reference on decision dynamics: \"Over the past 18 months some central banks have prematurely decided that a CBDC poses too many cybersecurity and privacy risks.\""
    },
    {
      "heading": "Main cybersecurity and privacy risks identified",
      "content": "- Centralized data accumulation:\n  - CBDC designs (particularly retail CBDCs) often involve \"the centralized collection of transaction data,\" increasing privacy and security risks.\n  - Risks include: surveillance of payment activity, accumulation of sensitive data in one place, use of data to spy on citizens, obtain security-sensitive details, and theft of funds.\n- Distributed-ledger risks:\n  - Distributed ledger–based retail CBDCs may require third-party validators, introducing dependency on \"the integrity and availability of third-party validators.\"\n  - Central bank control limitations: \"the central bank may not have direct control\" over third-party validators unless all validators are controlled by the central bank, which \"largely defeats the purpose of using the technology.\"\n- Regulatory-transparency trade-offs:\n  - Privacy-preserving designs can reduce regulator visibility needed to detect money laundering, terrorism financing, and other illicit activities.\n- Amplification of existing threats:\n  - Without proper security protocols, a CBDC \"could substantially amplify the scope and scale of many of the security and privacy threats that already exist in today’s financial system.\""
    },
    {
      "heading": "Mitigation strategies and design options",
      "content": "- Design variety:\n  - CBDC design variants include \"centralized databases,\" \"distributed ledgers,\" and \"token-based systems\"—each with different trade-offs for performance, security, and privacy.\n- Data minimization and compartmentalization:\n  - Avoid collecting centralized transaction data where possible or use a \"validation architecture in which each component sees only the amount of information needed for functionality.\"\n  - Example architecture: Project Hamilton separates \"transaction validation into phases, and each phase requires access to different parts of the transaction data.\"\n- Cryptographic techniques:\n  - Use of zero-knowledge proofs to \"authenticate private information without revealing it\" and cryptographic hashing techniques.\n  - Systems can be built that \"verify transaction validity with only encrypted access to transaction details like sender, receiver, or amount.\"\n  - Precedents: privacy-preserving cryptocurrencies such as Zcash have tested these tools.\n- Regulatory and auditing controls for distributed ledgers:\n  - Mitigation options include \"auditing requirements and stringent breach disclosure requirements\" for third-party validators.\n- Balanced transparency:\n  - Cryptographic designs can enable \"cash-like privacy up to a specific threshold (for example, $10,000) while allowing government authorities to exercise sufficient regulatory oversight.\"\n  - The article notes similarity to current U.S. reporting norms: \"allows reduced reporting for transactions under $10,000.\""
    },
    {
      "heading": "Policy recommendations and governance priorities",
      "content": "- Do not preemptively reject CBDCs:\n  - \"CBDCs are not inherently more or less secure than existing systems.\" Responsible design should be evaluated rather than abandoning CBDC exploration.\n- Tailor design to national needs:\n  - \"Governments should choose a design option based on a country’s needs and policy priorities.\"\n- International coordination:\n  - Warns of \"fragmented international efforts\" leading to \"interoperability challenges and cross-border cybersecurity risks.\"\n  - Recommends leadership and standard-setting by major actors: \"the Federal Reserve should help lead the charge toward development of global CBDC regulations in standard-setting bodies.\"\n  - Calls for roles for international forums: \"Bank for International Settlements, IMF, and G20 have a similarly critical role to play.\"\n- Knowledge sharing:\n  - Emphasizes the need for \"more knowledge sharing between banks\" and international standard-setting given rapid development and adoption."
    },
    {
      "heading": "Key takeaways",
      "content": "- CBDC adoption is accelerating: \"105 countries and currency unions\" exploring CBDCs, up from \"35\" in 2020, including \"19 Group of Twenty (G20) countries.\"\n- Cybersecurity and privacy risks are real but addressable with careful design, cryptographic tools, and regulatory frameworks.\n- Trade-offs exist across designs (centralized vs distributed vs token-based); no design is universally superior—choices depend on national priorities.\n- International coordination, standard-setting, and oversight frameworks are essential to manage interoperability and cross-border cyber risks.\n\nGIULIA FANTI and OLE MOEHR, F&D Magazine, September 2022.\n\n---\n\n Content in this bundle\n\n- Central Bankers' New Cybersecurity Challenge\n  - Central Bankers' New Cybersecurity Challenge (Markdown version){rel=\"alternate\" type=\"text/markdown\"}\n  - Central Bankers' New Cybersecurity Challenge (PDF){rel=\"external\" type=\"application/pdf\"}\n\n---\n\nSource: https://www.imf.org/en/publications/fandd/issues/2022/09/central-bankers-new-cybersecurity-challenge-fanti-lipsky-moehr"
    }
  ],
  "bullets": [
    "[Markdown version](/en/publications/fandd/issues/2022/09/central-bankers-new-cybersecurity-challenge-fanti-lipsky-moehr/index.md)",
    "[Structured JSON version](/en/publications/fandd/issues/2022/09/central-bankers-new-cybersecurity-challenge-fanti-lipsky-moehr/index.json)",
    "[Bundle manifest](/en/publications/fandd/issues/2022/09/central-bankers-new-cybersecurity-challenge-fanti-lipsky-moehr/bundle-manifest.json)",
    "Authors: GIULIA FANTI, OLE MOEHR",
    "Published: September 1, 2022",
    "Topic: cybersecurity and privacy implications of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs).",
    "Publication: F&D Magazine article by GIULIA FANTI and OLE MOEHR, September 2022.",
    "Contextual findings:",
    "Centralized data accumulation:",
    "Distributed-ledger risks:",
    "Regulatory-transparency trade-offs:",
    "Amplification of existing threats:",
    "Design variety:",
    "Data minimization and compartmentalization:",
    "Cryptographic techniques:",
    "Regulatory and auditing controls for distributed ledgers:",
    "Balanced transparency:",
    "Do not preemptively reject CBDCs:",
    "Tailor design to national needs:",
    "International coordination:",
    "Knowledge sharing:",
    "CBDC adoption is accelerating: \"105 countries and currency unions\" exploring CBDCs, up from \"35\" in 2020, including \"19 Group of Twenty (G20) countries.\"",
    "Cybersecurity and privacy risks are real but addressable with careful design, cryptographic tools, and regulatory frameworks.",
    "Trade-offs exist across designs (centralized vs distributed vs token-based); no design is universally superior—choices depend on national priorities.",
    "International coordination, standard-setting, and oversight frameworks are essential to manage interoperability and cross-border cyber risks.",
    "**Central Bankers' New Cybersecurity Challenge**"
  ],
  "related": [
    {
      "title": "Central Bankers' New Cybersecurity Challenge",
      "role": "document",
      "sourceUrl": "https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/fandd/article/2022/september/fanti.pdf",
      "summary": {
        "path": "/-/media/files/publications/fandd/article/2022/september/fanti.pdf.md",
        "mime": "text/markdown"
      },
      "binary": {
        "path": "/-/media/files/publications/fandd/article/2022/september/fanti.pdf",
        "mime": "application/pdf"
      }
    }
  ],
  "alternates": {
    "markdown": "/en/publications/fandd/issues/2022/09/central-bankers-new-cybersecurity-challenge-fanti-lipsky-moehr/index.md",
    "json": "/en/publications/fandd/issues/2022/09/central-bankers-new-cybersecurity-challenge-fanti-lipsky-moehr/index.json",
    "bundleManifest": "/en/publications/fandd/issues/2022/09/central-bankers-new-cybersecurity-challenge-fanti-lipsky-moehr/bundle-manifest.json"
  },
  "generatedAtUtc": "2026-09-15T18:05:00.463Z"
}