Wednesday 03 07 2024 08:55:40 AM

Office Address

123/A, Miranda City Likaoli Prikano, Dope

Phone Number

+0989 7876 9865 9

+(090) 8765 86543 85

Email Address

info@example.com

example.mail@hum.com

World Cybercrime Index Unveiled: Russia and Ukraine Top List and the limitations of the index
A new World Cybercrime Index, based on surveys among top experts, reveals Russia and Ukraine as primary hubs of cybercrime.
Dr.G.R.Balakrishnan Apr 13 2024 Logistics News (Roadways & Railways)

World Cybercrime Index Unveiled: Russia and Ukraine Top List and the limitations of the index

A newly developed World Cybercrime Index sheds light on the origins and prevalence of cybercrime across the globe. Compiled by a team of researchers including Miranda Bruce, Jonathan Lusthaus, RidhiKashyap, Nigel Phair, and Federico Varese, the index draws insights from surveys conducted among leading cybercrime experts worldwide. Despite challenges in pinpointing cybercriminal locations due to sophisticated masking techniques, the index identifies key countries where cybercrime thrives, emphasizing the urgent need for targeted preventive measures.]

The index is based on a comprehensive survey completed by 92 top cybercrime experts. Through expert focus groups and pilots, the survey refined insights into five categories of cybercrime: technical products/services, attacks/extortion, data/identity theft, scams, and cashing out/money laundering. Results highlight a concentration of cybercriminal activity in select countries, with China, Russia, Ukraine, the United States, Romania, and Nigeria consistently ranking among the top 10 across all categories. Key Rankings as well as insights follow:

·         Russia and Ukraine emerge as the top two hubs of cybercrime, according to the index. India secures the 10th position, scoring notably in impact, professionalism, and technical skills. China and the United States closely follow, showcasing their prominence in cybercriminal activities and Certain cybercrimes are associated with specific countries, such as data/identity theft with the United States and technical products/services with Ch

While the index offers valuable insights for cybercrime research and preventive efforts, it faces limitations. The limitations include the following facts; the pool of experts surveyed may not represent global diversity adequately, potentially skewing results. Moreover, interpretations of survey questions could introduce inaccuracies. Additionally, the index does not fully address the complex landscape of state-sponsored cybercrime and profit-driven illicit activities, signaling the need for further research and nuanced approaches to combatting cyber threats