In this article by Dhanya Thakkar, the author of the book Preventing Digital Extortion, explains how often we make the mistake of relying on the past for predicting the future, and nowhere is this more relevant than in the sphere of the Internet and smart technology. People, processes, data, and things are tightly and increasingly connected, creating new, intelligent networks unlike anything else we have seen before. The growth is exponential and the consequences are far reaching for individuals, and progressively so for businesses. We are creating the Internet of Things and the Internet of Everything.
(For more resources related to this topic, see here.)
It has become unimaginable to run a business without using the Internet. It is not only an essential tool for current products and services, but an unfathomable well for innovation and fresh commercial breakthroughs. The transformative revolution is spillinginto the public sector, affecting companies like vanguards and diffusing to consumers, who are in a feedback loop with suppliers, constantly obtaining and demanding new goods.
Advanced technologies that apply not only to machine-to-machine communication but also to smart sensors generate complex networks to which theoretically anything that can carry a sensor can be connected. Cloud computing and cloud-based applications provide immense yet affordable storage capacity for people and organizations and facilitate the spread of data in more ways than one.
Keeping in mind the Internet’s nature, the physical boundaries of business become blurred, and virtual data protection must incorporate a new characteristic of security: encryption.
In the middle of the storm of the IoT, major opportunities arise, and equally so, unprecedented risks lurk. People often think that what they put on the Internet is protected and closed information. It is hardly so. Sending an e-mail is not like sending a letter in a closed envelope. It is more like sending a postcard, where anyone who gets their hands on it can read what's written on it.
Along with people who want to utilize the Internet as an open business platform, there are people who want to find ways of circumventing legal practices and misusing the wealth of data on computer networks by unlawfully gaining financial profits, assets, or authority that can be monetized.
Being connected is now critical. As cyberspace is growing, so are attempts to violate vulnerable information gaining global scale. This newly discovered business dynamic is under persistent threat of criminals. Cyberspace, cyber crime, and cyber security are perceptibly being found in the same sentence.
Cyber crime –under defined and under regulated
A massive problem encouraging the perseverance and evolution of cyber crime is the lack of an adequate unanimous definition and the under regulation on a national, regional, and global level. Nothing is criminal unless stipulated by the law. Global law enforcement agencies, academia, and state policies have studied the constant development of the phenomenon since its first appearance in 1989, in the shape of the AIDS Trojan virus transferred from an infected floppy disk.
Regardless of the bizarre beginnings, there is nothing entertaining about cybercrime. It is serious. It is dangerous.
Significant efforts are made to define cybercrime on a conceptual level in academic research and in national and regional cybersecurity strategies. Still, as the nature of the phenomenon evolves, so must the definition. Research reports are still at a descriptive level, and underreporting is a major issue. On the other hand, businesses are more exposed due to ignorance of the fact that modern-day criminals increasingly rely on the Internet to enhance their criminal operations.
Case in point: Aaushi Shah and Srinidhi Ravi from the Asian School of Cyber Laws have created a cybercrime list by compiling a set of 74 distinctive and creativelynamed actions emerging in the last three decades that can be interpreted as cybercrime. These actions target anything from e-mails to smartphones, personal computers, and business intranets: piggybacking, joe jobs, and easter eggs may sound like cartoons, but their true nature resembles a crime thriller.
The concept of cybercrime
Cyberspace is a giant community made out of connected computer users and data on a global level. As a concept, cybercrime involves any criminal act dealing withcomputers andnetworks, including traditional crimes in which the illegal activities are committed through the use of a computer and the Internet.
As businesses become more open and widespread, the boundary between data freedom and restriction becomes more porous. Countless e-shopping transactions are made, hospitals keep record of patient histories, students pass exams, and around-the-clock payments are increasingly processed online. It is no wonder that criminals are relentlessly invading cyberspace trying to find a slipping crack.
There are no recognizable border controls on the Internet, but a business that wants to evade harm needs to understand cybercrime's nature and apply means to restrict access to certain information.
Instead of identifying it as a single phenomenon, Majid Jar proposes a common denominator approach for all ICT-related criminal activities. In his book Cybercrime and Society, Jar refers to Thomas and Loader’s working concept of cybercrime as follows:
“Computer-mediated activities which are either illegal or considered illicit by certain parties and which can be conducted through global electronic network.”
Jar elaborates the important distinction of this definition by emphasizing the difference between crime and deviance. Criminal activities are explicitly prohibited by formal regulations and bear sanctions, while deviances breach informal social norms. This is a key note to keep in mind. It encompasses the evolving definition of cybercrime, which keeps transforming after resourceful criminals who constantly think of new ways to gain illegal advantages.
Law enforcement agencies on a global level make an essential distinction between two subcategories of cybercrime:
Advanced cybercrime or high-tech crime
Cyber-enabled crime
The first subcategory, according to Interpol, includes newly emerged sophisticated attacks against computer hardware and software.
On the other hand, the second category contains traditional crimes in modern clothes,for example crimes against children, such as exposing children to illegal content; financial crimes, such as payment card frauds, money laundering, and counterfeiting currency and security documents; social engineering frauds; and even terrorism.
We are much beyond the limited impact of the 1989 cybercrime embryo. Intricate networks are created daily. They present new criminal opportunities, causing greater damage to businesses and individuals, and require a global response. Cybercrime is conceptualized as a service embracing a commercial component.Cybercriminals work as businessmen who look to sell a product or a service to the highest bidder.
Critical attributes of cybercrime
An abridged version of the cybercrime concept provides answers to three vital questions:
Where are criminal activities committed and what technologies are used?
What is the reason behind the violation?
Who is the perpetrator of the activities?
Where and how – realm
Cybercrime can be an online, digitally committed, traditional offense. Even if the component of an online, digital, or virtual existence were not included in its nature, it would still have been considered crime in the traditional, real-world sense of the word. In this sense, as the nature of cybercrime advances, so mustthe spearheads of lawenforcement rely on laws written for the non-digital world to solve problems encountered online. Otherwise, the combat becomesstagnant and futile.
Why – motivation
The prefix "cyber" sometimes creates additional misperception when applied to the digital world. It is critical to differentiate cybercrime from other malevolent acts in the digital world by considering the reasoning behind the action. This is not only imperative for clarification purposes, but also for extending the definition of cybercrime over time to include previously indeterminate activities.
Offenders commit a wide range of dishonest acts for selfish motives such as monetary gain, popularity, or gratification. When the intent behind the behavior is misinterpreted, confusion may arise and actions that should not have been classified as cybercrime could be charged with criminal prosecution.
Who –the criminal deed component
The action must be attributed to a perpetrator. Depending on the source, certain threats can be translated to the criminal domain only or expanded to endanger potential larger targets, representing an attack to national security or a terrorist attack.
Undoubtedly, the concept of cybercrime needs additional refinement, and a comprehensive global definition is in progress. Along with global cybercrime initiatives, national regulators are continually working on implementing laws, policies, and strategies to exemplify cybercrime behaviors and thus strengthen combating efforts.
Types of common cyber threats
In their endeavors to raise cybercrime awareness, the United Kingdom'sNational Crime Agency (NCA) divided common and popular cybercrime activities by affiliating themwith the target under threat. While both individuals and organizations are targets of cyber criminals, it is the business-consumer networks that suffer irreparable damages due to the magnitude of harmful actions.
Cybercrime targeting consumers
Phishing
The term encompasses behavior where illegitimate e-mails are sent to the receiver to collect security information and personal details
Webcam manager
A webcam manager is an instance of gross violating behavior in which criminals take over a person's webcam
File hijacker
Criminals hijack files and hold them "hostage" until the victim pays the demanded ransom
Keylogging
With keylogging, criminals have the means to record what the text behind the keysyou press on your keyboard is
Screenshot manager
A screenshot manager enables criminals to take screenshots of an individual’s computer screen
Ad clicker
Annoying but dangerous ad clickers direct victims’ computer to click on a specific harmful link
Cybercrime targeting businesses
Hacking
Hacking is basically unauthorized access to computer data. Hackers inject specialist software with which they try to take administrative control of a computerized network or system. If the attack is successful, the stolen data can be sold on the dark web and compromise people’s integrity and safety by intruding and abusing the privacy of products as well as sensitive personal and business information. Hacking is particularly dangerous when it compromises the operation of systems that manage physical infrastructure, for example, public transportation.
Distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks
When an online service is targeted by a DDoS attack, the communication links overflow with data from messages sent simultaneously by botnets. Botnets are a bunch of controlled computers that stop legitimate access to online services for users. The system is unable to provide normal access as it cannot handle the huge volume of incoming traffic.
Cybercrime in relation to overall computer crime
Many moons have passed since 2001, when the first international treatythat targeted Internet and computer crime—the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime—was adopted. The Convention’s intention was to harmonize national laws, improve investigative techniques, and increase cooperation among nations. It was drafted with the active participation of the Council of Europe's observer states Canada, Japan, South Africa, and the United States and drawn up by the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, France. Brazil and Russia, on the other hand, refused to sign the document on the basis of not being involved in the Convention's preparation.
In The Understanding Cybercrime: A Guide to Developing Countries(Gercke, 2011), Marco Gercke makes an excellent final point:
“Not all computer-related crimes come under the scope of cybercrime. Cybercrime is a narrower notion than all computer-related crime because it has to include a computer network. On the other hand, computer-related crime in general can also affect stand-alone computer systems.”
Although progress has been made, consensus over the definition of cybercrime is not final. Keeping history in mind, a fluid and developing approach must be kept in mind when applying working and legal interpretations. In the end, international noncompliance must be overcome to establish a common and safe ground to tackle persistent threats.
Cybercrime localized – what is the risk in your region?
Europol’s heat map for the period between 2014 and 2015 reports on the geographical distribution of cybercrime on the basis of the United Nations geoscheme. The data in the report encompassed cyber-dependent crime and cyber-enabled fraud, but it did not include investigations into online child sexual abuse.
North and South America
Due to its overwhelming presence, it is not a great surprise that the North American region occupies several lead positions concerning cybercrime, both in terms of enabling malicious content and providing residency to victims in the regions that participate in the global cybercrime numbers.
The United States hosted between 20% and nearly 40% of the total world's command-and-control servers during 2014. Additionally, the US currently hosts over 45% of the world's phishing domains and is in the pack of world-leading spam producers. Between 16% and 20% percent of all global bots are located in the United States, while almost a third of point-of-sale malware and over 40% of all ransomware incidents were detected there. Twenty EU member states have initiated criminal procedures in which the parties under suspicion were located in the United States. In addition, over 70 percent of the countries located in the Single European Payment Area have been subject to losses from skimmed payment cards because of the distinct way in which the US, under certain circumstances, processes card payments without chip-and-PIN technology.
There are instances of cybercrime in South America, but the scope of participation by the southern continent is way smaller than that of its northern neighbor, both in industry reporting and in criminal investigations. Ecuador, Guatemala, Bolivia, Peru, and Brazil are constantly rated high on the malware infection scale, and the situation is not changing, while Argentina and Colombia remain among the top 10 spammer countries. Brazil has a critical role in point-of-sale malware, ATM malware, and skimming devices.
Europe
The key aspect making Europe a region with excellent cybercrime potential is the fast, modern, and reliable ICT infrastructure. According to The Internet Organised Crime Threat Assessment (IOCTA) 2015, Cybercriminals abuse Western European countries to host malicious content and launch attacks inside and outside the continent. EU countries host approximately 13 percent of the global malicious URLs, out of which Netherlands is the leading country, while Germany, the U.K., and Portugal come second, third, and fourth respectively. Germany, the U.K., the Netherlands, France, and Russia are important hosts for bot C&C infrastructure and phishing domains, while Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Russia, and Spain are among the top sources of global spam. Scandinavian countries and Finland are famous for having the lowest malware infection rates.
France, Germany, Italy, and to some extent the U.K. have the highest malware infection rates and the highest proportion of bots found within the EU. However, the findings are presumably the result of the high population of the aforementioned EU countries. A half of the EU member states identified criminal infrastructure or suspects in the Netherlands, Germany, Russia, or the United Kingdom. One third of the European law enforcement agencies confirmed connections to Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Spain, or Ukraine.
Asia
China is the United States' counterpart in Asia in terms of the top position concerning reported threats to Internet security. Fifty percent of the EU member states' investigations on cybercrime include offenders based in China. Moreover, certain authorities quote China as the source of one third of all global network attacks. In the company of India and South Korea, China is third among the top-10 countries hosting botnet C&C infrastructure, and it has one of the highest global malware infection rates. India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Japan host serious bot numbers, too.
Japan takes on a significant part both as a source country and as a victim of cybercrime. Apart from being an abundant spam source, Japan is included in the top three Asian countries where EU law enforcement agencies have identified cybercriminals. On the other hand, Japan, along with South Korea and the Philippines, is the most popular country in the East and Southeast region of Asia where organized crime groups run sextortion campaigns.
Vietnam, India, and China are the top Asian countries featuring spamming sources. Alternatively, China and Hong Kong are the most prominent locations for hosting phishing domains. From another point of view, the country code top-level domains (ccTLDs) for Thailand and Pakistan are commonly used in phishing attacks. In this region, most SEPA members reported losses from the use of skimmed cards. In fact, five (Indonesia, Philippines, South Korea, Vietnam, and Malaysia) out of the top six countries are from this region.
Africa
Africa remains renowned for combined and sophisticated cybercrime practices. Data from the Europol heat map report indicates that the African region holds a ransomware-as-a-service presence equivalent to the one of the European black market. Cybercriminals from Africa make profits from the same products. Nigeria is on the list of the top 10 countries compiled by the EU law enforcement agents featuring identified cybercrime perpetrators and related infrastructure. In addition, four out of the top five top-level domains used for phishing are of African origin: .cf, .za, .ga, and .ml.
Australia and Oceania
Australia has two critical cybercrime claims on a global level:
First, the country is present in several top-10 charts in the cybersecurity industry, including bot populations, ransomware detection, and network attack originators.
Second, the country-code top-level domain for the Palau Islands in Micronesia is massively used by Chinese attackers as the TLD with the second highest proportion of domains used for phishing.
Cybercrime in numbers
Experts agree that the past couple of years have seen digital extortion flourishing. In 2015 and 2016, cybercrime reached epic proportions. Although there is agreement about the serious rise of the threat, putting each ransomware aspect into numbers is a complex issue. Underreporting is not an issue only in academic research but also in practical case scenarios. The threat to businesses around the world is growing, because businesses keep it quiet. The scope of extortion is obscured because companies avoid reporting and pay the ransom in order to settle the issue in a conducive way. As far as this goes for corporations, it is even more relevant for public enterprises or organizations that provide a public service of any kind. Government bodies, hospitals, transportation companies, and educational institutions are increasingly targeted with digital extortion. Cybercriminals estimate that these targets are likely to pay in order to protect drops in reputation and to enable uninterrupted execution of public services.
When CEOs and CIOs keep their mouths shut, relying on reported cybercrime numbers can be a tricky question. The real picture is not only what is visible in the media or via professional networking, but also what remains hidden and is dealt with discreetly by the security experts.
In the second quarter of 2015, Intel Security reported an increase in ransomware attacks by 58%. Just in the first 3 months of 2016, cybercriminals amassed $209 million from digital extortion.
By making businesses and authorities pay the relatively small average ransom amount of $10,000 per incident, extortionists turn out to make smart business moves. Companies are not shaken to the core by this amount. Furthermore, they choose to pay and get back to business as usual, thus eliminating further financial damages that may arise due to being out of business and losing customers.
Extortionists understand the nature of ransom payment and what it means for businesses and institutions. As sound entrepreneurs, they know their market. Instead of setting unreasonable skyrocketing prices that may cause major panic and draw severe law enforcement action, they keep it low profile. In this way, they maintain the dark business in flow, moving from one victim to the next and evading legal measures.
A peculiar perspective – Cybercrime in absolute and normalized numbers
“To get an accurate picture of the security of cyberspace, cybercrime statistics need to be expressed as a proportion of the growing size of the Internet similar to the routine practice of expressing crime as a proportion of a population, i.e., 15 murders per 1,000 people per year.”
This statement by Eric Jardine from the Global Commission on Internet Governance (Jardine, 2015) launched a new perspective of cybercrime statistics, one that accounts for the changing nature and size of cyberspace.
The approach assumes that viewing cybercrime findings isolated from the rest of the changes in cyberspace provides a distorted view of reality. The report aimed at normalizing crime statistics and thus avoiding negative, realistic cybercrime scenarios that emerge when drawing conclusions from the limited reliability of absolute numbers.
In general, there are three ways in which absolute numbers can be misinterpreted:
Absolute numbers can negatively distort the real picture, while normalized numbers show whether the situation is getting better
Both numbers can show that things are getting better, but normalized numbers will show that the situation is improving more quickly
Both numbers can indicate that things are deteriorating, but normalized numbers will indicate that the situation is deteriorating at a slower rate than absolute numbers
Additionally, the GCIG (Global Commission on Internet Governance) report includes some excellent reasoning about the nature of empirical research undertaken in the age of the Internet. While almost everyone and anything is connected to the network and data can be easily collected, most of the information is fragmented across numerous private parties. Normally, this entangles the clarity of the findings of cybercrime presence in the digital world. When data is borrowed from multiple resources and missing slots are modified with hypothetical numbers, the end result can be skewed.
Keeping in mind this observation, it is crucial to emphasize that the GCIG report measured the size of cyberspace by accounting for eight key aspects:
The number of active mobile broadband subscriptions
The number of smartphones sold to end users
The number of domains and websites
The volume of total data flow
The volume of mobile data flow
The annual number of Google searches
The Internet’s contribution to GDP
It has been illustrated several times during this introduction that as cyberspace grows, so does cybercrime. To fight the menace, businesses and individuals enhance security measures and put more money into their security budgets.
A recent CIGI-Ipsos (Centre for International Governance Innovation - Ipsos) survey collected data from 23,376 Internet users in 24 countries, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey, and the United States.
Survey results showed that 64% of users were more concerned about their online privacy compared to the previous year, whereas 78% were concerned about having their banking credentials hacked. Additionally, 77% of users were worried about cyber criminals stealing private images and messages. These perceptions led to behavioral changes: 43% of users started avoiding certain sites and applications, some 39% regularly updated passwords, while about 10% used the Internet less (CIGI-Ipsos, 2014).
GCIC report results are indicative of a heterogeneous cyber security picture. Although many cybersecurity aspects are deteriorating over time, there are some that are staying constant, and a surprising number are actually improving. Jardine compares cyberspace security to trends in crime rates in a specific country operationalizing cyber attacks via 13 measures presented in the following table, as seen in Table 2 of Summary Statistics for the Security of Cyberspace(E. Jardine, GCIC Report, p. 6):
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Deviation
New Vulnerabilities
4,814
6,787
5,749
781.880
Malicious Web Domains
29,927
74,000
53,317
13,769.99
Zero-day Vulnerabilities
8
24
14.85714
6.336
New Browser Vulnerabilities
232
891
513
240.570
Mobile Vulnerabilities
115
416
217.35
120.85
Botnets
1,900,000
9,437,536
4,485,843
2,724,254
Web-based Attacks
23,680,646
1,432,660,467
907,597,833
702,817,362
Average per Capita Cost
188
214
202.5
8.893818078
Organizational Cost
5,403,644
7,240,000
6,233,941
753,057
Detection and Escalation Costs
264,280
455,304
372,272
83,331
Response Costs
1,294,702
1,738,761
1,511,804
152,502.2526
Lost Business Costs
3,010,000
4,592,214
3,827,732
782,084
Victim Notification Costs
497,758
565,020
565,020
30,342
While reading the table results, an essential argument must be kept in mind. Statistics for cybercrime costs are not available worldwide. The author worked with the assumption that data about US costs of cybercrime indicate costs on a global level. For obvious reasons, however, this assumption may not be true, and many countries will have had significantly lower costs than the US. To mitigate the assumption's flaws, the author provides comparative levels of those measures. The organizational cost of data breaches in 2013 in the United States was a little less than six million US dollars, while the average number on the global level, which was drawn from the Ponemon Institute’s annual Cost of Data Breach Study (from 2011, 2013, and 2014 via Jardine, p.7) measured the overall cost of data breaches, including the US ones, as US$2,282,095.
The conclusion is that US numbers will distort global cost findings by expanding the real costs and will work against the paper's suggestion, which is that normalized numbers paint a rosier picture than the one provided by absolute numbers.
Summary
In this article, we have covered the birth and concept of cyber crime and the challenges law enforcement, academia, and security professionals face when combating its threatening behavior. We also explored the impact of cyber crime by numbers on varied geographical regions, industries, and devices.
Resources for Article:
Further resources on this subject:
Interactive Crime Map Using Flask [article]
Web Scraping with Python [article]
Read more
United States
Great Britain
India
Germany
France
Canada
Russia
Spain
Brazil
Australia
Singapore
Canary Islands
Hungary
Ukraine
Luxembourg
Estonia
Lithuania
South Korea
Turkey
Switzerland
Colombia
Taiwan
Chile
Norway
Ecuador
Indonesia
New Zealand
Cyprus
Denmark
Finland
Poland
Malta
Czechia
Austria
Sweden
Italy
Egypt
Belgium
Portugal
Slovenia
Ireland
Romania
Greece
Argentina
Netherlands
Bulgaria
Latvia
South Africa
Malaysia
Japan
Slovakia
Philippines
Mexico
Thailand
