Study Makes Less of Hack Threat

from the not-as-big-a-deal dept

Thu, Nov 14th 2002 7:25am — Mike Masnick

This discussion keeps popping up around here: how big of a threat is "cyberterrorism" really? A new study suggests that attempted hack attacks on government machines this year is actually down from previous years, despite all the scary talk you hear from government officials who are getting ready to throw hackers into jail for life. While some question the numbers (the study only counts attacks that were admitted to publicly), it certainly does raise the question of how big a threat cyberterrorism really is.

2 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Saygin?, 14 Nov 2002 @ 9:08am

No Subject Given
Your point about undisclosed hacks deserves a little more exploration. Two interrelated factors could skew the numbers in this study. First, the general public, and stockholders in particular are much more aware of the critical role that computer networks play in the health of enterprises. I would argue that a large corporation admitting to being hacked in the top 5 DON'Ts of investor relations.

Secondly, and related to the first point, The FBI and CIA have learned that what corporations most desire from law enforcement during these events, is discretion. The FBI and CIA joint computer crime outfits take great pains to reassure corporate executives that (to the extent the law will allow) their breaches will remain in confidence. FBI and CIA Agents (CIA is charged with investigating these crimes - an extension of their counterfeiting investigation duties) are more likely to appear on the scene in suits and ties than yellow SWAT jackets. The point is, with greater public awareness, and better cooperation of law enforcement in protecting corporate images, a study like this doesn't tell us much at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 14 Nov 2002 @ 9:28am

Re: No Subject Given
Excellent points. I definitely agree, and probably should have said something like that in the post. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]