Cyber-attacks detection and prevention

I believe that if we want to address the issue of cybercrime, it would be appropriate to at least define the parameters that delineate this crime. At the end of this subchapter, I want to present to the reader some classifications of cyber (or computer) crime as perceived by different procedural rules and various authors or organisations that are engaged in the fight against cyber crime. I also want to demonstrate in these categories the genesis of the view of the issue of cybercrime.

1.   Classification according to the Convention on Cybercrime and according to the Additional Protocol.

The Convention on Cybercrime divides cybercrime into four categories:

1.   Offences against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems,

2.   Computer-related offences,

3.   Content-related offences,

4.   Offences related to infringements of copyright and related rights.

The Additional Protocol then defines other cybercrimes:

1.   Dissemination of racist and xenophobic material through computer systems,

2.   Racist and xenophobic motivated threat,

3.   Racist and xenophobic motivated insult,

4.   Denial, gross minimisation, approval or justification of genocide or crimes against humanity.

2. Classification of the Committee of Experts on Crime in Cyberspace

According to the Statute of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Experts on Crime in Cyberspace from 2000, cybercrime can be divided into:

1.   According to position of the computer when committing a crime:

-       target of the attack;

-       means (tool) of the attack.

2.   According to type of act:

-       traditional infringements (such as counterfeiting, etc.)

-       new infringements (such as phishing, DDoS etc.)

3. Classification according to eEurope+

This document divided computer crimes into:

1.   Crimes that violate privacy

-       Illegal collection, storage, modification, disclosure and dissemination of personal data.

2.   Crimes related to computer content

-       Child pornography, racism, incitement to violence, etc.

3.   Economic

-       Unauthorised access, sabotage, hacking, virus transmission, computer espionage, computer forgery and fraud.

4.   Crimes related to intellectual property[1]

4.Classification of computer crime according to criminology

Porada a Konrád[2] divide cybercrime into five basic groups.

1.   Unauthorised tampering with input data

-       change of input document for computer processing,

-       creation of a document containing false data for subsequent processing of data by computer,

2.   Unauthorised changes to stored data

-       manipulation of data, unauthorised tampering with them and subsequent return to normal,

3.   Unauthorised instructions for computer operations

-       direct instruction to perform the operation or to install the software performing the operations automatically,

4.   Unauthorised intrusion into computers, computer system and its databases

-       informative access to the database, without the use of information,

-       unauthorised use of information for personal use,

-       changes, destruction or replacement of information by others,

-       illegal “interception” and recording of electronic communications traffic,  

5.   Attack of another's computer, software and files and data in databases

-       creation of attack programs,

-       introduction of a virus into the computer software,

-       infection by viruses or other programs.

5.Europol's focus on certain types of cybercrime by severity

Europol respects the Convention on Cybercrime and abides by the breakdown of the offences contained therein. The European Cyber ​​Crime Centre (EC3)[3] has been set up within Europol to support the fight against cybercrime and assist Member States. This team has clearly stated its scope of activity in the fight against cybercrime and has identified the following three areas (focal points – FPs) it deals with:

1.   FP TERMINAL – Payment fraud. A group dedicated to providing support in online fraud.

2.   FP Cyborg – High-Tech Crimes. A group dedicated to and providing support for various cyberattacks affecting critical infrastructure[4] and information systems. In particular, these are attacks such as: malware, ransomware, hacking, phishing, identity theft etc.

3.   FP Twins – Child Sexual Exploitation. A group dedicated to and providing support in the investigation of child sexual abuse.

6.   Classification of cybercrime according to its “relationship” to the digital environment

With the development of cybercrime as such, an opinion has come to the forefront in recent years that propounds the possibility of viewing cybercrime as an act that could be described as “pure” or “genuine” cybercrime. Only those cyberattacks that took place in cyberspace and whose goal and tool was a computer system or data could be subsumed under such conduct. Typically, these are attacks identified as hacking, DoS, DDoS attacks, attacks on critical infrastructure, etc.

Other crime committed in the cyberspace environment is only considered as the transfer of “old” or “ordinary” criminal conduct into the new digital environment.

According to the above division, it would then be possible to understand cybercrime in a:

-       Narrow concept (“pure” cybercrime);

-       Broad concept (“ordinary” criminal conduct in a new environment).

Other possible classifications of cybercrime

There are many other methods of classification, to illustrate another possible division of cybercrime.[5]

At this point, I would like to mention my classification based on my own findings obtained especially in the interpretation of cybercrime at various seminars or conferences.

In a simplified way, it can be stated that cybercrime can be viewed from three perspectives:

1.   According to the frequency (nature) of attacks:

a)    copyright infringement (see Internet (computer) piracy. Within cyberspace, this act involving the infringement of intellectual property prevails. Efforts to combat this phenomenon are particularly evident on the part of private copyright organisations.);

b)    other cyberattacks (see manifestations of cybercrime. Except Internet (computer) piracy.).

2.   According to punishability by criminal law:

a)    conduct resolved by criminal law – some of the mentioned acts subsumable under the objective element of crime;

b)    conduct not addressed (unpunishable) by criminal law – some of the mentioned acts cannot be subsumed under the legal objective elements of the criminal offence, even using an admissible analogy[6].).

3.   According to the degree of tolerance by the majority society:

a)    conduct tolerated by society (copyright infringement conduct is most tolerated);

b)    conduct not accepted by society (e.g. child pornography, etc.).