In its Q2 2008 Web Security Trends Report, Finjan outlines the latest developments in the cybercrime commercialization economy Farnborough, United Kingdom, July 15, 2008 – Finjan Inc., a provider of secure web gateway products, today announced the latest findings by its Malicious Code Research Center (MCRC). In its latest trends report for Q2 2008, the center identifies and analyzes the latest Crimeware business operations, and provides a first-of-its-kind insider’s look at the organizational structure of Cybercrime organizations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The report includes real documented discussions conducted by the company’s researchers with resellers of stolen data and their “bosses”, confirming it’s analysis of the current state of the cybercrime economy.<\/p>\n
“Over the course of the last 18 months we have been watching the profit-driven Cybercrime market maturing rapidly… This makes businesses today even more vulnerable for cybercrime attacks, especially considering the maturity of the cybercrime market and its well-structured cybercrime organizations,” said Yuval Ben-Itzhak, Finjan’s CTO.<\/p>\n
The report explores the trend of loosely organized clusters of hackers trading stolen data online being replaced by hierarchical cybercrime organizations. These organizations deploy sophisticated pricing models, Crimeware business models refined for optimal operation, Crimeware drop zones, and campaigns for optimal distribution of the Crimeware. These cybercrime organizations consist of strict hierarchies, in which each cybercriminal is rewarded according to his position and task. Directly under him is the “underboss”, acting as the second in command and managing the operation. This individual provides the Trojans for attacks and manages the Command and Control (C&C) of those Trojans.<\/p>\n
As a preventative measure, businesses should look closely at their security practices to make sure they are protected.<\/p>\n
http:\/\/www.security-industry-today.com\/news\/news_all.asp?ID_key=381<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2206","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-trends"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2206","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2206"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2206\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4693,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2206\/revisions\/4693"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2206"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2206"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2206"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}