Difficulty Determining Foul Play and Appropriate Action The owners of these devices are as much victims as anyone else and hacking them back could cause them harm. This becomes more difficult in the wold of IoT where many unwilling parts of a botnet are used to create a cyber-attack, much like the Mirai malware. Thus, a hack back would result in the intrusion of an innocent victim’s server. Often, a hacker will launch an attack from a server that does not belong to them. This draft bill is supposed to help victims work together with law enforcement, but if the evidence is tampered with in a way that makes it inaccessible to a court when charging a cyber-criminal, what use will this bill really have? Difficulty to Accurately Target Hackers Whether the victim is an inexperienced individual or a highly technical enterprise, the potential for compromising forensic evidence has to be addressed.
The cybersecurity community got very vocal over this draft bill and together came up with many compelling reasons why hacking back might not be the best idea. But isn’t this just fighting fire with fire? What can be achieved from this in the long term? Why Hacking Back Might Be a Bad Idea After All… On the surface, this bill allows a victim to identify the attacker, work with law enforcement to stop further intrusion and retrieve any stolen data – essentially meaning you can ‘hack back’. The purpose of this bill is to help law enforcement with information gathering in the event of a hacking and to disrupt any continued unauthorized access or activity from the hacker. If passed, the bill will give permission to companies and individuals to try and identify the computer or location of a cyber-attack against them.Ī revised draft was published on 25th May 2017 that allows for use of beaconing technology and creates a mandatory reporting requirement and additional attempts to limit collateral damage.
0 kommentar(er)
