"2016 will see
cybercrime finally find its place in our official statistics," says KPMG's
cyber security technical director, David Ferbrache, "extortion attacks
have been making a comeback with criminals demanding significant sums for
suspending denial of service attacks against targets; not going public with
stolen data; and of course providing a ‘service’ which grants access to a
‘client’s data which they had previously hacked and encrypted."
“While phishing attacks,
banking Trojans and large scale low value cash outs have characterised the last
10 years of cybercrime, new techniques are becoming part of the criminal
arsenal while firms invest more and more in cyber threat intelligence in the
hope of keeping up," adds Ferbrache, "in 2016 we predict that
organised crime groups will become increasingly selective in targeting high net
worth individuals, corporate treasuries and commercial bank accounts."
However
terrorism will increasingly concentrate on cyber attacks warns Ferbrache.
“Terrorist organisations are becoming more and more tech savvy exploiting the
internet for propaganda, radicalisation and communications," he says,
“2016 is likely to be the year that cyber resilience starts to matter more than
just cyber protection, as governments worry about systemic risks from cyber
attacks and critical infrastructure firms start to pay more attention to just
how resilient their business models really are to these new threats. The NIST
cyber security framework will succeed in becoming the de-facto yardstick for
cyber security amongst such firms.”
The problem with hacking is
that everyone does it - governments, bankers, companies, criminals, terrorists,
pranksters, funsters and geeks with nothing better to do. Even Q in the latest
Bond film is a hacker. So, in a world with such a morally ambivalent
attitude to hacking, how can the law decide who's a goodie and who's a baddie?
No comments:
Post a Comment