Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Cybercrime — an Epidemic?

Posted by Zonk on Fri Nov 10, 2006 01:24 PM
from the catch-it dept.
ChelleChelle writes "'Cybercrime is pervasive, nondiscriminatory, and dramatically on the increase.' So states TEAM CYMRU, an altruistic group of researchers focused on making the Internet more secure. This article is a look into the root causes of Cybercrime, its participants, and their motivations, as well as suggestions on what we can do to stop this epidemic." From the article: "Many victims do not seem to draw the correlation between their losses and cybercrime; worse, they often view it as a crime that is impossible to investigate and prosecute. For cybercrime to be acknowledged as an important issue, the victims must report such incidents to a receptive law enforcement community with a well-informed judiciary. Attempts such as the president's National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace represent a significant first step in the right direction. To have the desired impact, however, the detailed provisions delineated as action/recommendations must be implemented."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Social Networking Site Safety Questioned 73 comments
An anonymous reader writes to mention a TechNewsWorld article about social networking sites. Researchers are finding these places are goldmines for social engineering exercises. Between worm attacks and simple human observation, sites like MySpace are the perfect place to obtain saleable personal information. From the article: "The danger is real, according to a study conducted by CA and the National Cyber Security Alliance (NCSA). In October, the alliance issued its first social networking study examining the link between specific online behaviors and the potential for becoming a victim of cybercrime. Despite all the publicity about sexual predators on sites like MySpace and FaceBook, the alliance took a different approach by measuring the potential for threats such as fraud, identity theft, computer spyware and viruses. Although 57 percent of people who use social networking sites admit to worrying about becoming a victim of cybercrime, they are still divulging information that may put them at risk, as Boyd suggested. Social networkers are also downloading unknown files from other people's profiles, and responding to unsolicited instant messages that could contain worms, the NCSA reported."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Lumpy (12016) on Friday November 10 2006, @01:30PM (#16795582) Homepage
    Where there is money, there will be thieves.

    Simple as that, the internet has easy money and easy access. Coupled with the ability to steal from long distance and dramatically lowered possibility of getting caught...

    It's a no brainer, of course the level of cybercrime is increasing.
  • by GoMMiX (748510) on Friday November 10 2006, @01:36PM (#16795668)
    I've delt with cybercrime more than once. Doing the legwork and tracking the perpetrator down wasn't difficult for me - but had I not done it myself it would have never been done.

    Until law enforcement steps up to the plate and carries over on their job, people are going to continue to feel this way. Even once I had tracked the perpetrator down I had to personally go into the local prosecuting attorney's office to re-explain the case because they didn't get it either.

    People have a reason to feel like they are unprotected on the internet.

    It's because for a greater portion of incidents, they are.

    Then there is the FBI's fraud division they setup online - which seems to be there for the sole purpose of reducing phone calls they have to take, while yet ignoring the reports unless they are very large cases - something I have seen discussed here on slashdot more than once.

    I'm sure there are people with victorious memories over online criminals, but those are surely trumped by the sheer volume of cases where the victim reports the crime and the responsible law enforcement authorities do absolutely nothing if for no other reason than they simply do not know how.
    • It's a hard problem for more than one reason. The first is the issue of jurisdiction. How exactly do you hold someone responsible for theft or fraud that is in a another state, or even better--another country? And how exactly are you sure that this is the perpetrator? People in the underground have been using botnets for years to do their bidding, I'm sure they couldn't hide their tracks by some sort of proxy... Not to mention the fact that the IP address used could be dynamically changed by the ISP. See RI

    • People have a reason to feel like they are unprotected on the internet.

      It's because for a greater portion of incidents, they are.


      To a certain extent, that's true for any kind of crime. Police do only the minimum amount of detective work to qualify for the term "investigation". They are inundated with things to investigate. If you want police to work for you, you have to dig for yourself, get all the evidence together, document, photograph, and substantiate everything, and hand over a case pre-cut and ready
  • by konsole1981 (899651) on Friday November 10 2006, @01:37PM (#16795678)
    With my credit score, ID theifs will get nothing other that some collection bills...
  • I once heard that a significant percentage of computer virusses are written because of the russian mafia's influence. Is this true?

    P.s. Please limit your responses to things that are not "In Soviet russia, Virii write you!", etc.
  • by tootingbec (561955) on Friday November 10 2006, @01:51PM (#16795894)
    If so, watch out: there's been a security leek!
  • by mi (197448) <mi+slashdot@aldan.algebra.com> on Friday November 10 2006, @01:52PM (#16795910) Homepage

    And I mean, web-forms vandalism. From spammers to Wikipedia vandals. The reaction is always "clean up and forget". Or, when a particular page is too frequent a target — protect it to registered users only.

    Not enough, IMO. The vandals should by sought out and prosecuted — {RI|MP}AA style — making a few high-profile prosecutions against (semi-)randomly picked abusers to "drive it home" to others, that one's being far away does not make them immune.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      But just what is illegal about vandalising something like Wikipedia, where all the text is freely editable as per the GNU FDL? Ah, you were joking... right?

      Of course, the US government had a great opportunity to make spam a crime, but the opt-out nature of the legislation meant it was bit of a damp squib.
  • There's not a single meaningful statistic in there, just a few anecdotal IRC logs and lot of completely unsubtantiated assertions.

    By The Way #1: They seem to have found some atypically literate hax0rs. I see commas, apostrophes (used correctly!!!), mostly correct spelling.

    By The Way #2: I'm looking forward to all the hello_world.pl'ists ranting about how the ACM doesn't know what "hacker" properly means.

  • And their motto is: (Score:3, Informative)

    by A beautiful mind (821714) on Friday November 10 2006, @02:05PM (#16796086)
    Team Cymru [wikipedia.org]: Securing people and sheep - online.
  • Altruistic? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dunbal (464142) on Friday November 10 2006, @02:07PM (#16796112) Homepage
    an altruistic group of researchers

          Just that statement is more than enough to a) scare the crap out of me and b) doubt their "research".
  • Problem w/ cybercrime is that it is unreported. People are either 1) afraid to report, or 2) don't know how to report. Concern #1 is legitimate - some businesses don't want to have everybody know that their security is weak. Concern #2 is awareness problem - users should know what to do in case something bad happens to them. So, to play my part in user education and awareness - some ways to report cybercrime [cybercrimelaw.org].
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      And this will work better than reporting regular crimes how?

      If they are no bodies the cops don't care unless maybe you are a multichain store. The cops get no revenue from a lot of legwork, good luck. If there aren't drug profits or ticket revenue i wouldn't hold my breath.....

      An employee stole thousands in merchandise that was found in his garage and nothing happened. I have yet to have something bad happen to me or work (or the office or apt next door) that was actually solved except the one WE knew the a
  • by BeBoxer (14448) on Friday November 10 2006, @02:17PM (#16796272)
    I don't think it's unreasonable to estimate that, in aggregate, spammers and the associated fraud is costing the country billions of dollars. I think it's a travesty that they don't seem to take the problem seriously. What I would do:

    1) Stock pump scams. When one starts making the rounds (Cana Petrolium today judging by my mail), find out who made purchases of the stock in the previous week. Freeze their accounts until the individuals responsible can be dragged into an FBI office. If the FBI/SEC can't locate the individuals then it just means that the laws regulating the stock trade are jokes.

    2) Phishing. Set up fake accounts with the banks being phished and submit them to the phishing sites. I'm sure the banks will be more than happy to help. As soon as anybody tries to transfer money in our out of the account, freeze the account on the other end.

    3) Drug / Software scams. Same as #2. Set up fake accounts with Visa and MC. Submit them to the sites trying to 'sell' the stuff and wait for the account numbers to get re-used somewhere else (you didn't think any of these sites were doing anything other than harvesting CC numbers did you?). Follow the money.

    If the Feds can't do these things, then I think it indicates that we may be at risk of a fairly catastrophic economic collapse. After all, if I can buy and sell stock illegally, take money out of bank accounts fraudulently and buy stuff with credit cards without authorization, and do it all anonymously, it's safe to say the criminals are going to win. If Bush would just declare these crooks to be 'cyberterrorists' and start subjecting them to extraordinary renditions and gitmo treatment, I bet his popularity would surge. And he would be doing something good for the country with his remaining two lame duck years.
  • by gd23ka (324741) on Friday November 10 2006, @02:39PM (#16796542) Homepage
    This is a no-brainer, really. The more you criminalize people the more crime you get.
    Take the internet, and take file-sharing and then just add the two together and
    outlaw file sharing, you get an instant couple of million of additional criminals.

    Nothing to see here, move along citizens. There's a whole "Enforcement Community" to be
    built here on the net, much like the "War on Drugs" racket that criminalizes millions
    of Americans already and is the cause for more than 70% of all incarceration in this country.

    for stupidreason in Drugs War Terror; do
              echo "War on $stupidreason & profit"
    done

    But hey it's for the children and in order to keep them safe we have a billion dollar
              Corrections Industry (Corrections USA Inc. comes to mind)
              Three Letter Agencies that lap up your tax dollars
              Special Police Squads
              Drug Testing Laboratories (to test you at the workplace)
    but that's so 20th century, now with "Cybercrime" we get
    even more people in prison
    even more Three Letter Agencies
    even more Police Squads
    even more Wiretapping and spying on your home computer
    even more searches of your property at the airport (they already started copying harddrives at the AP). ...

    If you're not dumb I think you get the picture: another artificial reason to criminalize, prosecute and
    incarcerate in the making and bread and butter for thousands more of bureaucrats.
  • by chef_raekwon (411401) on Friday November 10 2006, @02:55PM (#16796770) Homepage
    what truly constitutes cybercrime? really?
      - defacing webpages?
      - password sniffing?
      - phishing?

    From my perspective, and my opinion may not always be correct -- the flood of 'cybercrime' by 'criminals' is a step in the right direction. They are forcing everyone to rethink our security models, and our plaintext connections. Far too often we neglect and abuse the passing of cleartext information ... a few will have to pay, for the rest of us to move up a few notches in security. Will you continue to use pop3 and imap over the internet? Will you continue to log into Slashdot without ssl?

    for far too long, we have been using these insecure protocols -- its time to step up and improve our security. How hard is it to use TLS, SASL and SSL? how about setting up our webservers to have a plain text portion, and a security based portion, using SSL? When will we finally learn to look at the URL when we are providing banking information to some seemingly safe site?

    I'll tell you, we will finally have learned, once people have been driven to the point where insecure is no longer acceptable as status quo. Just like Video Card manufacturers that sell their products with 'hdcp compliant' all over the packaging -- so will ISP's, banks, and whomever, about SSL TLS, and secured authentication, etc, on the internet.
  • by hypoxide (993092) on Friday November 10 2006, @04:09PM (#16797872)
    Crime history depicts both the advancement in technology developed to commit crime and that developed to prevent it.

    Ignorance toward preventative measures usually results in victimization or a greater likelihood of it. There is no epidemic here. Crime will occur on every medium available-one must simply defend themselves from it. Given, a criminal can be smart enough (or determined enough) to commit an illegal act and this is bound to happen. That is why we have executive and judicial branches of the government-to apprehend and serve justice to those who succeed in breaking the law.

    The internet is in its nascent form (and I dare say almost anarchistic), but it is no less a system effected by (human?-)entropy.
    • by b0s0z0ku (752509) on Friday November 10 2006, @01:32PM (#16795598)
      It's probably not truly a crime, but it seems sleazy at best. Why would people be allowed to base their cold-calls on someone's posted ads?

      You posted your number with the premise that you're selling a car. They're just trying to sell you a service based on that information. Now, if you would have put a disclaimer (like on Craigslist) saying something like "bona fide buyers only. No commercial services or solicitation," you might have been (in theory) entitled to recover civil damages.

      -b.

    • by Red Flayer (890720) on Friday November 10 2006, @01:36PM (#16795662) Journal
      Google is your friend. [google.com]
      By the way, this is why you never post your cell number online. Set up a temp email address instead, or ask interested buyers to post their number, not yours.
    • For the record, if anyone's interested, the phone number from which they called is: 407 515-6094.

      Yep. That's autotrader. See this thread from rec.autos.misc [google.com] and this from ripoffreport.com [ripoffreport.com]

    • I also got the first e-mail on that cell phone EVER from someone interested in buying my time share? WTF? I don't have a time share.

      I got one of those last week. I don't publish my cellphone to ANYBODY, other than my family and a few friends. Most of my friends don't even have my cell. I can only think that it is Cingular itself that has given up my number to others.

      And actually, I get no unwanted calls on my home line either, since it's a VOIP number given to me by Speakeasy.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          I guess I still think of hacking as the old definition that was not nefarious, rather than a cracker or cybercriminal. Now the mere suggestion that a hacker is not a criminal gets you labeled as a troll. Curious how far the PC police have taken over the Slashdot board.