I submitted my PhD on the 31st August 2005 (9 months before Twitter started, almost two years before the first iPhone). The easiest version to find (click here) contains the minor revisions requested by my examiners and some typographical changes to fit it into the Computer Lab’s Technical Report series.
Since it seemed like a good idea at the time, my thesis has an annotated bibliography (so you can read a brief precis of what I referenced, which could assist you in deciding whether to follow it up). I also went to some effort to identify online versions of everything I cited, because it always helpful to just click on a link and immediately see the paper, news article or other material.
The thesis has 153 references, in two cases I provided two URLs, and in three cases I could not provide any URL — though I did note that the three ITU standards documents I cited were available from the ITU bookshop and it was possible to download a small number of standards without charge. That is, the bibliography contained 152 URLs.
Continue reading A measurement of link rot: 57%
The current coronavirus pandemic has significantly disrupted all our societies and, we believe, it has also significantly disrupted cybercrime.
In the Cambridge Cybercrime Centre we collect crime-related datasets of many types and we expect, in due course, to be able to identify, measure and document this disruption. We will not be alone in doing so — a key aim of our centre is to make datasets available to other academic researchers so that they too can identify, measure and document. What’s more, we make this data available in a timely manner — sometimes before we have even looked at it ourselves!
When we have looked at the data and identified what might be changing (or where the criminals are exploiting new opportunities) then we shall of course be taking the traditional academic path of preparing papers, getting them peer reviewed, and then presenting them at conferences or publishing them in academic journals. However, that process is extremely slow — so we have decided to provide a faster route for getting out the message about what we find to be going on.
Our new series of “COVID Briefing Papers” are an ongoing series of short-form, open access reports aimed at academics, policymakers, and practitioners, which aim to provide an accessible summary of our ongoing research into the effects which the coronavirus pandemic (and government responses) are having on cybercrime. We’re hoping, at least for a while, to produce a new briefing paper each week … and you can now read the very first, where Ben Collier explains what has happened to illegal online drug markets… just click here!
I’ll be liveblogging the workshop on security and human behaviour, which is online this year. My liveblogs will appear as followups to this post. This year my program co-chair is Alice Hutchings and we have invited a number of eminent criminologists to join us. Edited to add: here are the videos of the sessions.
One would be hard pressed to find an aspect of life where networks are not present. Interconnections are at the core of complex systems – such as society, or the world economy – allowing us to study and understand their dynamics. Some of the most transformative technologies are based on networks, be they hypertext documents making up the World Wide Web, interconnected networking devices forming the Internet, or the various neural network architectures used in deep learning. Social networks that are formed based on our interactions play a central role in our every day lives; they determine how ideas and knowledge spread and they affect behaviour. This is also true for cybercriminal networks present on underground forums, and social network analysis provides valuable insights to how these communities operate either on the dark web or the surface web.
For today’s post in the series `Three Paper Thursday’, I’ve selected three papers that highlight the valuable information we can learn from studying underground forums if we model them as networks. Network topology and large scale structure provide insights to information flow and interaction patterns. These properties along with discovering central nodes and the roles they play in a given community are useful not only for understanding the dynamics of these networks but for various purposes, such as devising disruption strategies.
Continue reading Three Paper Thursday – Analysing social networks within underground forums
We have just advertised some short-term “post-doc” positions in the Cambridge Cybercrime Centre: https://www.cambridgecybercrime.uk.
We are specifically interested in extending our data collection to better record how cybercrime has changed in response the COVID-19 pandemic and we wish to mine our datasets in order to understand whether cybercrime has increased, decreased or displaced during 2020.
There are a lot of theories being proposed as to what may or may not have changed, often based on handfuls of anecdotes — we are looking for researchers who will help us provide data driven descriptions of what is (now) going on — which will feed into policy debates as to the future importance of cybercrime and how best to respond to it.
We are not necessarily looking for existing experience in researching cybercrime, although this would be a bonus. However, we are looking for strong programming skills — and experience with scripting languages and databases would be much preferred. Good knowledge of English and communication skills are important.
Since these posts are only guaranteed to be funded until the end of September, we will be shortlisting candidates for (online) interview as soon as possible (NOTE the application deadline is less than ONE WEEK AWAY) and will be giving preference to people who can take up a post without undue delay. The rapid timescale of the hiring process means that we will only be able to offer positions to candidates who already have permission to work in the UK (which, as a rough guide, means UK or EU citizens or those with existing appropriate visas).
We do not realistically expect to be permitted to return to our desks in the Computer Laboratory before the end of September, so it will be necessary for successful candidates to be able to successfully “work from home” … not necessarily within the UK.
Please follow this link to the advert to read the formal advertisement for the details about exactly who and what we’re looking for and how to apply.
Much has been made in the cybersecurity literature of the transition of cybercrime to a service-based economy, with specialised services providing Denial of Service attacks, cash-out services, escrow, forum administration, botnet management, or ransomware configuration to less-skilled users. Despite this acknowledgement of the ‘industrialisation’ of much for the cybercrime economy, the picture of cybercrime painted by law enforcement and media reports is often one of ’sophisticated’ attacks, highly-skilled offenders, and massive payouts. In fact, as we argue in a recent paper accepted to the Workshop on the Economics of Information Security this year (and covered in KrebsOnSecurity last week), cybercrime-as-a-service relies on a great deal of tedious, low-income, and low-skilled manual administrative work.
Continue reading Cybercrime is (often) boring
Jurassic Park is often (mistakenly) left out of the hacker movie canon. It clearly demonstrated the risk of an insider attack on control systems (Velociraptor rampage, amongst other tragedies…) nearly a decade ahead of the Maroochy sewage incident, it’s the first film I know of with a digital troll (“ah, ah, ah, you didn’t say the magic word!”), and Samuel L. Jackson correctly assesses the possible consequence of a hard reset (namely, everyone dying), resulting in his legendary “Hold on to your butts”. The quotable mayhem is seeded early in the film, when biotech spy Lewis Dodgson gives a sack of money to InGen’s Dennis Nedry to steal some dino DNA. Dodgson’s caricatured OPSEC (complete with trilby and dark glasses) is mocked by Nedry shouting, “Dodgson! Dodgson! We’ve got Dodgson here! See, nobody cares…” Three decades later, this quote still comes to mind* whenever conventional wisdom doesn’t seem to square with observed reality, and today we’re going to apply it to the oft-maligned world of Industrial Control System (ICS) security.
There is plenty of literature on ICS security pre-2010, but people really sat up and started paying attention when we learned about Stuxnet. Possibly the most upsetting thing about Stuxnet (for security-complacent control system designers like me) was the apparent ease with which the “air gap” was bridged over and over again. Any remaining faith in the air gap was killed by Éireann Leverett’s demonstration (thesis and S4 presentation) that thousands of industrial systems were directly connected to the Internet — no air gap jumping required. Since then, we’ve observed a steady growth in Internet-connected ICS devices, due both to improved search techniques and increasingly-connectable ICS devices. On any given day you can find about 100,000 unique devices speaking industrial protocols on Censys and Shodan. These protocols are largely unauthenticated and unencrypted, allowing an attacker that can speak the protocol to remotely read state, issue commands, and even modify programmable logic without using an actual exploit.
This sounds (and is) bad, and people have (correctly) highlighted its badness on many occasions. The attacks, however, appear to be missing: we are not aware of a single instance of industrial damage initiated via an Internet-connected ICS device. In this Three Paper Thursday we’ll look at papers showing how easy it is to find and contextualise Internet-connected ICS devices, some evidence for lack of malicious interest, and some leading indicators that this happy conclusion (for which we don’t really deserve any credit) may be changing.
*Perhaps because guys of a certain age still laugh and say “Dodson! We’ve got Dodson here!” when they learn my surname. I try to explain that it’s spelt differently, but…
Continue reading Three Paper Thursday: Vulnerabilities! We’ve got vulnerabilities here! … See? Nobody cares.
Academia, governments and industry frequently talk about the importance of IoT security. Fundamentally, the IoT environment has similar problems to other technology platforms such as Android: a fragmented market with no clear responsibilities or incentives for vendors to provide regular updates, and consumers for whom its not clear how much (of a premium) they are willing to pay for (“better”) security and privacy.
Just two weeks ago, Belkin announced to shut down one of its cloud services, effectively transforming its several product lines of web cameras into useless bricks. Unlike other end-of-support announcements for IoT devices that (only) mean devices will never see an update again, many Belkin cameras simply refuse to work without the “cloud”. This is particularly disconcerting as many see cloud-based IoT as one possible solution to improve device security by easing the user maintenance effort through remote update capabilities.
In this post, I would like to introduce three papers, each talking about different aspects of IoT security: 1) consumer purchasing behaviour, 2) vendor response, and 3) an assessment of the ever-growing literature on “best-practices” from industrial, governmental, and academic sources.
Continue reading Three Paper Thursday: Will we ever get IoT security right?
Just as in other types of victimization, victims of cybercrime can experience serious consequences, emotional or not. First of all, a repeat victim of a cyber-attack might face serious financial or emotional hardship. These victims are also more likely to require medical attention as a consequence of online fraud victimization. This means repeat victims have a unique set of support needs, including the need for counselling, and seeking support from the criminal justice system. There are also cases, such as in cyberbullying or sextortion, where victims will not speak to their family and friends. These victims feel too ashamed to share details with others and they will probably not receive any support. In such cases trauma can even lead to self-harm. Therefore, we see that online victimization can actually lead to physical harm.
As a member of the National Risk Assessment (NRA) Behavioural Science Expert Group in the UK, working on the social and psychological impact of cyber-attacks on members of the public, I have identified for years now that the actual social or psychological impact of different types of cyber-attacks to victims or society as a whole is still not explored. Governments have been slow in identifying and analysing potential events online that may negatively impact individuals. In the UK, as well as in other countries, cybercrime has been added as part of a national risk assessment exercise only a few years ago. Therefore, our knowledge about the potential impact of cyber-attacks and their cascading effects are still being under research.
This is often a very difficult area for lawyers and the courts to understand. Understanding victims’ needs and the responsibilities of the police, the judiciary and other authorities in dealing with such crimes is very important. This is why we need to further explore how and to what extent the situation and needs of victims of online crimes differ from those of traditional offline crimes. By sharing experiences and openly discussing about this issue, we will be able to engrain the cybersecurity mindset in our societies thus preventing victimization in some level.
In this post I would like to introduce recent work in this area. The first one explores the social and psychological impact of cyber-attacks to individuals as well as nations, the second one explores the differences between the situation and needs of online and offline crime victims while the third one discusses the relationship between offending and victimization online.
Continue reading Three Paper Thursday: Exploring the Impact of Online Crime Victimization
In this paper (winner of the eCrime 2019 Best Paper award), we consider the types of things that can go wrong when you intend to make things better and more secure. Consider this scenario. You are browsing through Internet and see a news headline on one of the presidential candidates. You are unsure if the headline is true. What you can do is to navigate to a fact-checking website and type in the headline of interest. Some platforms also have fact-checking bots that would update periodically on false information. You do some research through three fact-checking websites and the results consistently show that the news contains false information. You share the results as a comment on the news article. Within two hours, you receive hundreds of notifications with comments countering your resources with other fact-checking websites.
Such a scenario is increasingly common as we rely on the Internet and social media platforms for information and news. Although they are meant to increase security, these cybersecurity countermeasures can result in confusion and frustration among users due to the incorporation of additional actions as part of users’ daily online routines. As seen, fact-checking can easily be used as a mechanism for attacks and demonstration of in-group/out-group distinction which can contribute further to group polarisation and fragmentation. We identify these negative effects as unintended consequences and define it as shifts in expected burden and/or effort to a group.
To understand unintended harms, we begin with five scenarios of cyber aggression and deception. We identify common countermeasures for each scenario, and brainstorm potential unintended harms with each countermeasure. The unintended harms are inductively organized into seven categories: 1) displacement, 2) insecure norms, 3) additional costs, 4) misuse, 5) misclassification, 6) amplification and 7) disruption. Applying this framework to the above scenario, insecure norms, miuse, and amplification are both unintended consequences of fact-checking. Fact-checking can foster a sense of complacency where checked news are automatically seen as true. In addition, fact-checking can be used as tools for attacking groups of different political views. Such misuse facilitates amplification as fact-checking is being used to strengthen in-group status and therefore further exacerbate the issue of group polarisation and fragmentation.
To allow for a systematic application to existing or new cybersecurity measures by practitioners and stakeholders, we expand the categories into a functional framework by developing prompts for each harm category. During this process, we identify the underlying need to consider vulnerable groups. In other words, practitioners and stakeholders need to take into consideration the impacts of countermeasures on at-risk groups as well as the possible creation of new vulnerable groups as a result of deploying a countermeasure. Vulnerable groups refer to user groups who may suffer while others are unaffected or prosper from the countermeasure. One example is older adult users where their non-familiarity and less frequent interactions with technologies means that they are forgotten or hidden when assessing risks and/or countermeasures within a system.
It is important to note the framework does not propose measurements for the severity or the likelihood of unintended harm occurring. Rather, the emphasis of the framework is in raising stakeholders’ and practitioners’ awareness of possible unintended consequences. We envision this framework as a common-ground tool for stakeholders, particularly for coordinating approaches in complex, multi-party services and/or technology ecosystems. We would like to extend a special thank you to Schloss Dagstuhl and the organisers of Seminar #19302 (Cybersafety Threats – from Deception to Aggression). It brought all of the authors together and laid out the core ideas in this paper. A complimentary blog post by co-author Dr Simon Parkin can be found at UCL’s Benthams Gaze blog. The accepted manuscript for this paper is available here.