Internet service providers responsibilities in botnet mitigation: a Nigerian perspective

Botnet-based attack is dangerous and extremely difficult to overcome as all the primary mitigation methods are passive and limited in focus. A combine efforts of internet service providers (ISPs) are better guides since they can monitor the traffic that traverse through their networks. However, ISPs are not legally banded to this role and may not view security as a primary concern. Towards understudying the involvement of ISPs in Botnet mitigation in Nigeria, this study elicited and summarized mitigation measures from scientific literatures to create a reference model which was validated by structured interview. Although, ISPs role is seen to be voluntary and poorly incentivized, the providers still take customers security very serious but concentrate more on the preventive and notification measures

A Conceptual Framework for Addressing IoT Threats: Challenges in Meeting Challenges

The Internet of Things (IoT) is rapidly growing, and offers many economical and societal potentials and benefits. Nevertheless, the IoT also introduces new threats to our Security, Privacy and Safety (SPS). The existing work on mitigating these SPS threats often fails to address the fundamental challenges behind the mitigation measures proposed, and fails to make the relations between different mitigation measures explicit. This paper, therefore, offers a conceptual framework for understanding and approaching the challenges and obstacles that arise in addressing the SPS threats of the IoT. This contribution aims to help policymakers in adopting policies and strategies that stimulate others to develop, deploy and use IoT devices, applications and services in secure, privacy-friendly and safe ways

Measuring the changing cost of cybercrime

In 2012 we presented the first systematic study of the costs of cybercrime. In this paper, we report what has changed in the seven years since. The period has seen major platform evolution, with the mobile phone replacing the PC and laptop as the consumer terminal of choice, with Android replacing Windows, and with many services moving to the cloud. The use of social networks has become extremely widespread. The executive summary is that about half of all property crime, by volume and by value, is now online. We hypothe- sised in 2012 that this might be so; it is now established by multiple victimisation studies. Many cybercrime patterns appear to be fairly stable, but there are some interesting changes. Payment fraud, for example, has more than doubled in value but has fallen slightly as a proportion of payment value; the payment system has simply become bigger, and slightly more efficient. Several new cybercrimes are significant enough to mention, including business email compromise and crimes involving cryptocurrencies. The move to the cloud means that system misconfiguration may now be responsible for as many breaches as phishing. Some companies have suffered large losses as a side-effect of denial-of-service worms released by state actors, such as NotPetya; we have to take a view on whether they count as cybercrime. The infrastructure supporting cybercrime, such as botnets, continues to evolve, and specific crimes such as premium-rate phone scams have evolved some interesting variants. The over- all picture is the same as in 2012: traditional offences that are now technically ‘computer crimes’ such as tax and welfare fraud cost the typical citizen in the low hundreds of Eu- ros/dollars a year; payment frauds and similar offences, where the modus operandi has been completely changed by computers, cost in the tens; while the new computer crimes cost in the tens of cents. Defending against the platforms used to support the latter two types of crime cost citizens in the tens of dollars. Our conclusions remain broadly the same as in 2012: it would be economically rational to spend less in anticipation of cybercrime (on antivirus, firewalls, etc.) and more on response. We are particularly bad at prosecuting criminals who operate infrastructure that other wrongdoers exploit. Given the growing realisation among policymakers that crime hasn’t been falling over the past decade, merely moving online, we might reasonably hope for better funded and coordinated law-enforcement action

Measuring the Changing Cost of Cybercrime

In 2012 we presented the first systematic study of the costs of cybercrime. In this paper, we report what has changed in the seven years since. The period has seen major platform evolution, with the mobile phone replacing the PC and laptop as the consumer terminal of choice, with Android replacing Windows, and with many services moving to the cloud. The use of social networks has become extremely widespread. The executive summary is that about half of all property crime, by volume and by value, is now online. We hypothesised in 2012 that this might be so; it is now established by multiple victimisation studies. Many cybercrime patterns appear to be fairly stable, but there are some interesting changes. Payment fraud, for example, has more than doubled in value but has fallen slightly as a proportion of payment value; the payment system has simply become bigger, and slightly more efficient. Several new cybercrimes are significant enough to mention, including business email compromise and crimes involving cryptocurrencies. The move to the cloud means that system misconfiguration may now be responsible for as many breaches as phishing. Some companies have suffered large losses as a side-effect of denial-of-service worms released by state actors, such as NotPetya; we have to take a view on whether they count as cybercrime. The infrastructure supporting cybercrime, such as botnets, continues to evolve, and specific crimes such as premium-rate phone scams have evolved some interesting variants. The overall picture is the same as in 2012: traditional offences that are now technically ‘computer crimes’ such as tax and welfare fraud cost the typical citizen in the low hundreds of Euros/dollars a year; payment frauds and similar offences, where the modus operandi has been completely changed by computers, cost in the tens; while the new computer crimes cost in the tens of cents. Defending against the platforms used to support the latter two types of crime cost citizens in the tens of dollars. Our conclusions remain broadly the same as in 2012: it would be economically rational to spend less in anticipation of cybercrime (on antivirus, firewalls, etc.) and more on response. We are particularly bad at prosecuting criminals who operate infrastructure that other wrongdoers exploit. Given the growing realisation among policymakers that crime hasn’t been falling over the past decade, merely moving online, we might reasonably hope for better funded and coordinated law-enforcement action

Measuring the changing cost of cybercrime

In 2012 we presented the rst systematic study of the costs of cybercrime. In this paper, we report what has changed in the seven years since. The period has seen major platform evolution, with the mobile phone replacing the PC and laptop as the consumer terminal of choice, with Android replacing Windows, and with many services moving to the cloud. The use of social networks has become extremely widespread. The executive summary is that about half of all property crime, by volume and by value, is now online. We hypothesised in 2012 that this might be so; it is now established by multiple victimisation studies. Many cybercrime patterns appear to be fairly stable, but there are some interesting changes. Payment fraud, for example, has more than doubled in value but has fallen slightly as a proportion of payment value; the payment system has simply become bigger, and slightly more ecient. Several new cybercrimes are signicant enough to mention, including business email compromise and crimes involving cryptocurrencies. The move to the cloud means that system misconguration may now be responsible for as many breaches as phishing. Some companies have suered large losses as a side-eect of denial-of-service worms released by state actors, such as NotPetya; we have to take a view on whether they count as cybercrime. The infrastructure supporting cybercrime, such as botnets, continues to evolve, and specic crimes such as premium-rate phone scams have evolved some interesting variants. The overall picture is the same as in 2012: traditional oences that are now technically `computer crimes' such as tax and welfare fraud cost the typical citizen in the low hundreds of Euros/ dollars a year; payment frauds and similar oences, where the modus operandi has been completely changed by computers, cost in the tens; while the new computer crimes cost in the tens of cents. Defending against the platforms used to support the latter two types of crime cost citizens in the tens of dollars. Our conclusions remain broadly the same as in 2012: it would be economically rational to spend less in anticipation of cybercrime (on antivirus, rewalls, etc.) and more on response. We are particularly bad at prosecuting criminals who operate infrastructure that other wrongdoers exploit. Given the growing realisation among policymakers that crime hasn't been falling over the past decade, merely moving online, we might reasonably hope for better funded and coordinated law-enforcement action

Evaluating the Impact of AbuseHUB on Botnet Mitigation

This documents presents the final report of a two-year project to evaluate the impact of AbuseHUB, a Dutch clearinghouse for acquiring and processing abuse data on infected machines. The report was commissioned by the Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs, a co-funder of the development of AbuseHUB. AbuseHUB is the initiative of 9 Internet Service Providers, SIDN (the registry for the .nl top-level domain) and Surfnet (the national research and education network operator). The key objective of AbuseHUB is to improve the mitigation of botnets by its members. We set out to assess whether this objective is being reached by analyzing malware infection levels in the networks of AbuseHUB members and comparing them to those of other Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Since AbuseHUB members together comprise over 90 percent of the broadband market in the Netherlands, it also makes sense to compare how the country as a whole has performed compared to other countries. This report complements the baseline measurement report produced in December 2013 and the interim report from March 2015. We are using the same data sources as in the interim report, which is an expanded set compared to the earlier baseline report and to our 2011 study into botnet mitigation in the Netherlands.Organisation and Governanc