Hackers often engage in website defacement early in their criminal careers to establish a reputation. Some hackers become increasingly prolific and launch a large number of attacks against their targets, whereas others only launch a few attacks before eventually desisting from a life of crime. A better understanding of why some hackers launch a large number of attacks, while others do not, will assist in the implementation of targeted intervention strategies. Therefore, the current study, using a sample of 119 active hackers, seeks to answer two research questions: (1) Are there different groups of website defacers based on attack volume? (2) Which observed hacker-level characteristics can be used to predict latent class membership? We find that two unique groups of website defacers exist: low-volume defacers (69%) and high-volume defacers (31%). Social media presence, the content of the defacement, and the type of defacement are all predictive of latent class membership. Policy implications are discussed.
AslanÇ. B.LiS.ÇelebiF. V.TianH. (2020). The world of defacers: Looking through the lens of their activities on Twitter. IEEE Access, 8, 204132–204143.
2.
Babko-MalayaO.CatheyR.HintonS.MaimonD.GladkovaT. (2017, December11–14). Detection of hacking behaviors and communication patterns on social media. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) (pp. 4636–4641). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData.2017.8258508
3.
BendovschiA. (2015). Cyber-attacks–trends, patterns and security countermeasures. Procedia Economics and Finance, 28, 24–31.
4.
BurrussB. W.HowellC. J.BosslerA. M.HoltT. J. (2019). Self-perceptions of English and Welsh constables and sergeants’ preparedness for online crime: A latent class analysis. Policing: An International Journal, 42, 105–119.
5.
ChantlerN. (1996). Profile of a computer hacker. Infowar.
6.
FoxB. H.FarringtonD. P. (2012). Creating burglary profiles using latent class analysis: A new approach to offender profiling. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(12), 1582–1611.
7.
FoxB. H.FarringtonD. P. (2015). An experimental evaluation on the utility of burglary profiles applied in active police investigations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(2), 156–175.
8.
FruhwirthS. S. (2006). Finite mixture and Markov switching models. Springer.
9.
FurnellS. (2003, July14–18). Cybercrime: vandalizing the information society. In International conference on web engineering (pp. 8–16). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45068-8_2
10.
GeersK. (2008). Cyberspace and the changing nature of warfare. SC Magazine, p. 27.
11.
GottfredsonD. M. (1987). Prediction and classification in criminal justice decision making. Crime and Justice, 9, 1–20.
12.
HollingerR. C. (1988). Computer hackers follow a Guttman-like progression. Sociology and Social Research, 72(3), 199–200.
13.
HoltT. J.KilgerM.ChiangL.YangC. S. (2017). Exploring the correlates of individual willingness to engage in ideologically motivated cyberattacks. Deviant Behavior, 38(3), 356–373.
14.
HoltT. J.LeukfeldtR.Van De WeijerS. (2020). An examination of motivation and routine activity theory to account for cyberattacks against Dutch web sites. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(4), 487–505.
15.
HoltT. J.StonhouseM.FreilichJ.ChermakS. M. (2019). Examining ideologically motivated cyberattacks performed by far-left groups. Terrorism and Political Violence, (January), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2018.1551213
16.
HoltT. J.StrumskyD.SmirnovaO.KilgerM. (2012). Examining the social networks of malware writers and hackers. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 6(1), 891–903.
17.
HowellC. J.BurrussG. W. (2020). Datasets for analysis of cybercrime. In HoltT. J.BosslerA. M. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of international cybercrime and cyberdeviance (pp. 207–219). Palgrave Macmillan.
18.
HowellC. J.BurrussB. W.MaimonD.SahaniS. (2019). Website defacement and routine activities: Considering the importance of hackers’ valuations of potential targets. Journal of Crime and Justice, 42, 536–550.
19.
HowellC. J.MaimonD.CochranJ. K.JonesH. M.PowersR. A. (2017). System trespasser behavior after exposure to warning messages at a Chinese computer network: An Examination. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 11(1), 63–77.
JeanisM. N.FoxB. H.MunizC. N. (2019). Revitalizing profiles of runaways: A latent class analysis of delinquent runaway youth. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 36(2), 171–187.
22.
JordanT.TaylorP. A. (2004). Hacktivism and cyberwars: Rebels with a cause?Psychology Press.
23.
KaoD. Y.HuangF. F. Y.WangS. J. (2009). Persistence and desistance: examining the impact of re-integrative shaming to ethics in Taiwan juvenile hackers. Computer Law & Security Review, 25(5), 464–476.
24.
KilgerM. (2011). Social dynamics and the future of technology-driven crime. In SchellB. H.HoltT. J. (Eds.), Corporate hacking and technology-driven crime: Social dynamics and implications (pp. 205–227). IGI Global.
25.
LandrethB. (1985). Out of the inner circle: A hacker’s guide to computer security. Microsoft Press.
26.
MaimonD.Babko-MalayaO.CatheyR.HintonS. (2017, November6–10). Re-thinking online offenders’ SKRAM: Individual traits and situational motivations as additional risk factors for predicting cyber attacks. In 2017 IEEE 15th Intl Conf on Dependable, Autonomic and Secure Computing, 15th Intl Conf on Pervasive Intelligence and Computing, 3rd Intl Conf on Big Data Intelligence and Computing and Cyber Science and Technology Congress (DASC/PiCom/DataCom/CyberSciTech) (pp. 232–238). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/DASC-PICom-DataCom-CyberSciTec.2017.50
27.
MaimonD.FukudaA.HintonS.Babko-MalayaO.CatheyR. (2017, December11–14). On the relevance of social media platforms in predicting the volume and patterns of web defacement attacks. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), (pp. 4668–4673). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData.2017.8258513
28.
McCuddyT.VogelM. (2015). More than just friends: Online social networks and offending. Criminal Justice Review, 40(2), 169–189.
29.
MeyersC. A.PowersS. S.FaissolD. M. (2009). Taxonomies of cyber adversaries and attacks: A survey of incidents and approaches(No. LLNL-TR-419041). Lawrence Livermore National Lab. (LLNL).
30.
MoffittT. E. (1993). A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674–701.
ParkerD. (1998). Fighting computer crime: A new framework for protecting information. John Wiley & Sons.
33.
PattonD. U.HongJ. S.RanneyM.PatelS.KelleyC.EschmannR.WashingtonT. (2014). Social media as a vector for youth violence: A review of the literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 548–553.
34.
PowerR. (1998). Current and future danger. Computer Security Institute.
35.
RogersM. K. (2006). A two-dimensional circumplex approach to the development of a hacker taxonomy. Digital Investigation, 3(2), 97–102.
36.
StataCorp. (2017). Stata statistical software: release 15. StataCorp LLC.
37.
WooH. J.KimY.DominickJ. (2004). Hackers: Militants or merry pranksters? A content analysis of defaced web pages. Media Psychology, 6(1), 63–82.
38.
ZhangX.TsangA.YueW. T.ChauM. (2015). The classification of hackers by knowledge exchange behaviors. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(6), 1239–1251.
