Is There a Hacking Epidemic?
Freakonomics asks: “Why has there been such a spike in hacking recently? Or is it merely a function of us paying closer attention and of institutions being more open about reporting security breaches?”
They posted five answers, including mine:
The apparent recent hacking epidemic is more a function of news reporting than an actual epidemic. Like shark attacks or school violence, natural fluctuations in data become press epidemics, as more reporters write about more events, and more people read about them. Just because the average person reads more articles about more events doesn’t mean that there are more events—just more articles.
Hacking for fun—like LulzSec—has been around for decades. It’s where hacking started, before criminals discovered the Internet in the 1990s. Criminal hacking for profit—like the Citibank hack—has been around for over a decade. International espionage existed for millennia before the Internet, and has never taken a holiday.
The past several months have brought us a string of newsworthy hacking incidents. First there was the hacking group Anonymous, and its hacktivism attacks as a response to the pressure to interdict contributions to Julian Assange‘s legal defense fund and the torture of Bradley Manning. Then there was the probably espionage-related attack against RSA, Inc. and its authentication token—made more newsworthy because of the bungling of the disclosure by the company—and the subsequent attack against Lockheed Martin. And finally, there were the very public attacks against Sony, which became the company to attack simply because everyone else was attacking it, and the public hacktivism by LulzSec.
None of this is new. None of this is unprecedented. To a security professional, most of it isn’t even interesting. And while national intelligence organizations and some criminal groups are organized, hacker groups like Anonymous and LulzSec are much more informal. Despite the impression we get from movies, there is no organization. There’s no membership, there are no dues, there is no initiation. It’s just a bunch of guys. You too can join Anonymous—just hack something, and claim you’re a member. That’s probably what the members of Anonymous arrested in Turkey were: 32 people who just decided to use that name.
It’s not that things are getting worse; it’s that things were always this bad. To a lot of security professionals, the value of some of these groups is to graphically illustrate what we’ve been saying for years: organizations need to beef up their security against a wide variety of threats. But the recent news epidemic also illustrates how safe the Internet is. Because news articles are the only contact most of us have had with any of these attacks.
Richard Steven Hack • July 21, 2011 9:42 AM
“But the recent news epidemic also illustrates how safe the Internet is. Because news articles are the only contact most of us have had with any of these attacks.”
Only because most people don’t have anything a (professional) hacker wants – except for the spammers and malware sellers, of course, for whom everyone is fair game.
Meanwhile, Anonymous claims they’re ripped off a GB of data from NATO which they claim most of which they can’t publish “because it would be irresponsible”. LOL!
I say, “Publish and be damned! NATO deserves it!” This “we have to support the troops” attitude is BS. “The troops” are out there bombing civilians daily. Screw ’em. No one told them to join the military and serve as hatchet men for politicians, oil companies, and the military-industrial complex.
And I say that having enlisted in 1967 and spent 3 years in the US Army including a year in Vietnam.
I wised up. Anyone who puts himself in harms way on orders from people he doesn’t know for reasons he doesn’t understand based on intelligence he doesn’t have access to is simply a moron.
Anonymous should publish every byte of that NATO data.