Over the past four decades, research on hackers has widely propagated within the social sciences. Although this area of scholarship yields rich insight into the interpersonal dynamics of hackers, research on the unique ecosystems they create and inhabit is scant in comparison. The current study aims to offer a more complete assessment of hackers’ ecosystems by incorporating the group affiliations which link hackers to one another. Using 12 months of archived website defacement data containing individuals’ self-reported group affiliations alongside their hacking activities, the study reconstructs the social network of hacker groups over time. Findings reveal the illicit ecosystem to be loosely connected, yet densely clustered around a few central groups. The ecosystem also maintained its network features across the observation period with no sign of structural degradation. These findings corroborate extant research on the social environments of hackers, offer an innovative look into the illicit ecosystem of website defacers, and serve as a steppingstone to extend investigations of criminal behavior to the group-level.
AbbasiA.LiW.BenjaminV.HuS.ChenH. (2014). Descriptive analytics: Examining expert hackers in web forums [Paper Presentation]. Presented in the 2014 IEEE Joint Intelligence and Security Informatics Conference, The Hague, NL, 2456–2663September 2014 (pp. –).
AslanC. B.LiS.CelebiF. V.TianH. (2020). The world of defacers: Looking through the lens of their activities on Twitter. IEEE Access, 8, 204132-204143. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3037015
4.
BoaseJ.WellmanB. (2006). Personal relationships: On and off the internet. In VangelistiA. L.PerlmanD. (Eds.), The cambridge handbook of personal relationships (1st ed., pp. 709–723). Cambridge University Press.
5.
BrennerS. W. (2002). Organized cybercrime-how cyberspace may affect the structure of criminal relationships. North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology, 4(1). https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncjolt/vol4/iss1/4
BrightD. A.HughesC. E.ChalmersJ. (2012). Illuminating dark networks: a social network analysis of an Australian drug trafficking syndicate. Crime, Law and Social Change, 57(2), 151–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-011-9336-z
BurrussG.HowellC. J.BosslerA.HoltT. J. (2019). Self-Perceptions of English and Welsh constables and sergeant’s preparedness for online crime: A latent class analysis. Policing: An International Journal, 43(1), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-08-2019-0142
10.
BurrussG. W.HowellC. J.MaimonD.WangF. (2021). Website defacer classification: A finite mixture model approach. Social Science Computer Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439321994232
Décary-HétuD.MorselliC.Leman-LangloisS. (2012). Welcome to the scene: A study of social organization and recognition among warez hackers. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49(3), 359–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427811420876
14.
DescormiersK.MorselliC. (2011). Alliances, conflicts, and contradictions in montreal’s street gang landscape. International Criminal Justice Review, 21(3), 297–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057567711418501
15.
DuijnP. A. C.KlerksP. P. H. M. (2014). Social network analysis applied to criminal networks: Recent developments in Dutch law enforcement. In MasysA. (Ed.), Networks and network analysis for defence and security (1st ed., pp. 121–159). Springer.
DupontB.CôtéA.-M.BoutinJ.-I.FernandezJ. (2017). Darkode: Recruitment patterns and transactional features of "the most dangerous cybercrime forum in the world". American Behavioral Scientist, 61(11), 1219–1243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764217734263
DuxburyS. W.HaynieD. L. (2018). The network structure of opioid distribution on a darknet cryptomarket. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 34(4), 921–941. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-017-9359-4
GargA.CurtisJ.HalperH. (2003). Quantifying the financial impact of IT security breaches. Information Management & Computer Security, 11(2), 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1108/09685220310468646
GraboskyP. (2016). The evolution of cybercrime, 2006–2016. In HoltT. J. (Ed.), Cybercrime through an interdisciplinary lens (1st ed., pp. 29–50). Routledge.
25.
HoltT. J. (2007). Subcultural evolution? examining the influence of on- and off-line experiences on deviant subcultures. Deviant Behavior, 28(2), 171–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639620601131065
26.
HoltT. J. (2009). Lone hacks or group cracks: examining the social organization of computer hackers. In SmallegerF.PittaroM. (Eds.), Crimes of the internet (1st ed., pp. 336–355). Pearson Prentice Hall.
HoltT. J.KilgerM. (2008). Techcrafters and makecrafters: A comparison of two populations of hackers [Paper Presentation]. Proceedings of the 2008 WOMBAT Workshop on Information Security Threats Data Collection and Sharing, 21–22 April 2008 (pp. 67–78).
30.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819900322
31.
HoltT. J.SolesJ.LeslieL. (2008, April 24–25). Characterizing malware writers and computer attackers in their own words [Paper Presentation]. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Information Warfare and Security, Omaha, NE (pp. 189–194).
32.
HoltT. J.StonhouseM.FreilichJ.ChermakS. M. (2021). Examining ideologically motivated cyberattacks performed by far-left groups. Terrorism and Political Violence, 33(3), 527–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2018.1551213
33.
HowellC. J.BurrussG. W.MaimonD.SahaniS. (2019). Website defacement and routine activities: considering the importance of hackers' valuations of potential targets. Journal of Crime and Justice, 42(5), 536–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2019.1691859
34.
HuangW.WangS.-Y. K. (2010). Emerging cybercrime variants in the socio-technical space. In WhitworthB.de MoorA. (Eds.), Social computing: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (1, pp. 1740–1753). IGI Global.
35.
HuntonP. (2011). The stages of cybercrime investigations: Bridging the gap between technology examination and law enforcement investigation. Computer Law & Security Review, 27(1), 61–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2010.11.001
36.
HutchingsA. (2013). Hacking and fraud: Qualitative analysis of online offending and victimization. In JaishankarK.RonelN. (Eds.), Global criminology: Crime and victimization in the globalized era (1st ed., pp. 93–114). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1201/b13925-9
37.
HutchingsA. (2014). Crime from the keyboard: organised cybercrime, co-offending, initiation and knowledge transmission. Crime, Law and Social Change, 62(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-014-9520-z
38.
JewkesY.YarM. (Eds.), (2013). Introduction: The internet, cybercrime, and the challenges of the 21st century. In Handbook of internet crime (1st ed., pp. 19–26). Willan.
KilgerM. (2011). Social dynamics and the future of technology-driven crime. In HoltT. J.SchellB. H. (Eds.), Corporate hacking and technology-driven crime: social dynamics and implications (1st ed., pp. 205–227). IGI Global.
LeukfeldtE. R.KleemansE. R.StolW. P. (2017). Cybercriminal networks, social ties and online forums: Social ties versus digital ties within phishing and malware networks. The British Journal of Criminology, 57(3), 704–722. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azw009
44.
LiqueteC.PiroddiC.DrakouE. G.GurneyL.KatsanevakisS.CharefA.EgohB. (2013). Current status and future prospects for the assessment of marine and coastal ecosystem services: A systematic review. PLoS One, 8(7), e67737. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067737
45.
LuY.LuoX.PolgarM.CaoY. (2010). Social network analysis of a criminal hacker community. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 51(2), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2010.11645466
MaggiF.BalduzziM.FloresR.GuL.CiancagliniV. (2018). Investigating web defacement campaigns at large [Paper Presentation]. Proceedings of the 2018 on Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Incheon, Korea, 4–8 June 2018 (pp. 443-456).
48.
MaimonD.FukudaA.HintonS.Babko-MalayaO.CatheyR. (2017). On the relevance of social media platforms in predicting the volume and patterns of web defacement attacks [Paper Presentation]. Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), San Francisco, CA, 6–9 April 2017 (pp. 4668–4673).
49.
MaimonD.HowellC. J.BurrussG. W. (2021). Restrictive deterrence and the scope of hackers' reoffending: Findings from two randomized field trials. Computers in Human Behavior, 125(3), 106943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106943
McGloinJ. M.NguyenH. (2013). The importance of studying co-offending networks for criminological theory and policy. In MorselliC. (Ed.), Crime and networks (1st ed., pp. 13–27). Routledge.
54.
McGloinJ. M.SullivanC. J.PiqueroA. R.BaconS. (2008). Investigating the stability of co-offending and co-offenders among a sample of youthful offenders. Criminology, 46(1), 155–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2008.00105.x
55.
McGuireM. (2012). Organised crime in the digital age. John Grieve Centre for Policing and Security.
56.
MeldeC.EsbensenF. A. (2013). Gangs and violence: Disentangling the impact of gang membership on the level and nature of offending. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29(2), 143–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-012-9164-z
57.
MorselliC. (2010). Assessing vulnerable and strategic positions in a criminal network. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26(4), 382–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986210377105
OoiK. W.KimS. H.WangQ. H.HuiK. L. (2012). Do hackers seek variety? an empirical analysis of website defacements [Paper Presentation]. Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando, FL, 16–19 December 2012 (pp. 1-10). https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sis_research/3299/
60.
OuelletM.BouchardM.CharetteY. (2019). One gang dies, another gains? The network dynamics of criminal group persistence. Criminology, 57(1), 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12194
61.
PapachristosA. V. (2009). Murder by structure: Dominance relations and the social structure of gang homicide. American Journal of Sociology, 115(1), 74–128. https://doi.org/10.1086/597791
62.
PapachristosA. V.HureauD. M.BragaA. A. (2013). The corner and the crew: The influence of geography and social networks on gang violence. American Sociological Review, 78(3), 417–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122413486800
63.
PeteI.HughesJ.ChuaY. T.BadaM. (2020). A social network analysis and comparison of six dark web forums [Paper Presentation]. Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS&PW), Genoa, Italy, 7–11 September 2020 (pp. 484–493).
64.
PyroozD. C.DeckerS. H. (2019). Competing for control: Gangs and the social order of prisons. Cambridge University Press.
65.
PyroozD. C.TuranovicJ. J.DeckerS. H.WuJ. (2016). Taking stock of the relationship between gang membership and offending: a meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(3), 365–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815605528
66.
R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation For Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
67.
RomagnaM.van den HoutN. J. (2017). Hacktivism and Website Defacement: Motivations, Capabilities and Potential Threats [Paper Presentation]. Proceedings of the 27th Virus Bulletin International Conference, Madrid, Spain, 4–6 October 2017 (1, pp. 1–10). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320330579
68.
SamtaniS.ChenH. (2016). Using social network analysis to identify key hackers for keylogging tools in hacker forums [Paper Presentation]. Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics (ISI), Tucson, AZ, 28–30 September 2016 (pp. 319–321).
69.
SamtaniS.ChinnR.ChenH.NunamakerJ. F.Jr (2017). Exploring emerging hacker assets and key hackers for proactive cyber threat intelligence. Journal of Management Information Systems, 34(4), 1023–1053. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2017.1394049
70.
Sánchez-MercadoA.Cardozo‐UrdanetaA.MoranL.OvalleL.ArveloM. Á.Morales‐CamposJ.CoyleB.BraunM. J.Rodríguez‐ClarkK. M. (2020). Social network analysis reveals specialized trade in an endangered songbird. Animal Conservation, 23(2), 132–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12514
71.
SchwartzD. M.RouselleT. D. (2009). Using social network analysis to target criminal networks. Trends in Organized Crime, 12(2), 188–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12117-008-9046-9
72.
SteinmetzK. F. (2015). Craft(y)ness: An ethnographic study of hacking. British Journal of Criminology, 55(1), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azu061
73.
SutherlandE. H. (1947). Principles of criminology (4th ed.). J. B. Lippincott Co.
ThornberryT. P.KrohnM. D.LizotteA. J.Chard-WierschemD. (1993). The role of juvenile gangs in facilitating delinquent behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(1), 55–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427893030001005
76.
TremblayR. E.WelshB. C.Sayre-McCordG. (2019). Crime and the life-course, prevention, experiments, and truth seeking: Joan Mccord’s pioneering contributions to criminology. Annual Review of Criminology, 2, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024712
77.
Van der HulstR. C. (2009). Introduction to social network analysis (SNA) as an investigative tool. Trends in Organized Crime, 12(2), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12117-008-9057-6
78.
VerfaillieK.Vander BekenT. (2008). Proactive policing and the assessment of organised crime. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 31(4), 534–552. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639510810910553
