Summary:We have examined Canada, Estonia and Netherlands in terms of cyber security threats. Each country has threats which are prioritized as the top level threats of security issues in national risk assessment in the last decade. Netherlands have plan out the cyber security issues but without any commitment like setting up fixed budget to resolve cybersecurity threats. Other countries such as Canada and Estonia, they have defined cyber security as the protection of IT infrastructure which will further protect the information society. So each country has different prioritization levels of cybersecurity threats according to their cultures and strategic interests.The governments of different regions relates cyber threats to other areas. Canada and Netherlands analyzed the movement of foreign state espionage to cyber space and hence taking actions in responses. Besides, as far as effect we have distinguished examples where governments know about the interdependencies between basic national and the course impact coming about because of, for instance, Canada faced cyber-attack during natural disasters.Nations by and large perceive a typical arrangement of risk actors,but the refinement of the typologies of these performers shift by state. The Netherlands have given more full characterisations of risk performing artists’ inspirations and targets. Furthermore, nations put diverse accentuation on the ability and plan of these actors.Each country have settled on a inter-departmental model of reaction to digital security, keeping up existing ‘true’ transmits in the cyberworld: for instance, police overseeing cybercrime examinations, and security administrations handling surveillance. policy administration is ordinarily distributed to an organizing body to unite departmental reactions and guarantee deconfliction. In a few occasions these are ‘new’ organizing bodies like in estonia; in others they are darted on to existing administrative offices such as Canada. Generally speaking, there is little consistency in the office appointed this part over the comparators. The body responsible for driving or organizing strategy changes from bureau workplaces to inside services, and resistance or national security directorates. There might be suggestions as far as universal participation because of this unevenness and confound in initiative bodies.I suggest that mapping in detail the ‘centers’ of institutional cyber-policy decision making in every nation would be a profitable research work out, with a specific end goal to give knowledge into global participation on cyber.NATO and UN contributions in cyber-security:Cyber threats and assaults are ending up more typical, advanced and harming. The Alliance is looked with a developing complex danger condition. In late occasions, cyber attacks have been a part of combined struggle. NATO and its Allies depend on solid and versatile digital defense to satisfy the Alliance’s center undertakings of aggregate protection, emergency management and helpful security.NATO and the European Union (EU) are actualizing a Technical Arrangement on cyber resistance collaboration that was marked in February 2016. In light of basic challenges, NATO and the EU are fortifying their collaboration on cyber guard, remarkably in the regions of data exchange, preparing, research and activities.“In September 2017 cyber security gained new momentum for the EU, with the adoption of the Joint Communication “Resilience, Deterrence and Defence: Build Strong Cybersecurity for the EU. The new Communication foresees the increase of cyber defence capabilities within the EU to mitigate the growing cyber risk and adequately respond to new threats,” told by Pawel Herczynski, who is the Director for Security Policy from European External Action Service.Cyber barrier is one of the regions where NATO and the EU are working nearer together than any time in recent memory. Prior this week, NATO and EU Ministers consented to venture up collaboration between the two associations in various zones, including cyber-security and barrier. Examination of cyber threats and coordinated effort between occurrence reaction groups is one zone of further participation; another is the trading of good works on concerning the cyber aspects and ramifications of crises administration.