Daily Trends and Origin of Computer-Focused Crimes Against a Large University Computer Network: An Application of the Routine-Activities and Lifestyle Perspective

Personal Denial of Service (PDOS) Attacks: A Discussion and Exploration of a New Category of Cyber Crime

“…(Selwyn, 2008). Maimon and collaborators' work that analyzed computer-focused crimes against a large university computer network states that "our findings support the view that the routine-activities and lifestyle perspective could be used to explain cybercrime" (Maimon, 2013). Selwyn explored the propensity of British university students to participate is "lesser" Internet-based online misbehavior (Selwyn, 2008).…”

On the Value of Honeypots to Produce Policy Recommendations

“…In fact, in recent research, some co‐authors of Testa et al. (), using honeypots deployed in Israel, China, and the United States, found substantially different conclusions on the country of origin, or on the last observable connecting IP address, of attackers (Maimon et al., , ).…”

“…Several high-profile cybercrime investigations over the last decade remain open because suspects named in indictments cannot be brought to justice (Holt and Bossler, 2016). In fact, in recent research, some co-authors of Testa et al (2017), using honeypots deployed in Israel, China, and the United States, found substantially different conclusions on the country of origin, or on the last observable connecting IP address, of attackers (Maimon et al, 2013(Maimon et al, , 2015.…”

“…Honeypots have been primarily used by academics and computer scientists to understand the technical practices of system intruders while interacting with an active computing environment (Riebach, Rathgeb, and Toedtmann, ; Spitzner, ). Criminologists have recently employed these resources to assess the somewhat hidden practices of active offenders and to engage in randomized experiments to affect intruder activities (Maimon, Alper, Sobesto, and Culkier, ; Maimon, Kamerdze, Cukier, and Sobesto, ; Maimon, Wilson, Ren, and Berenblum, ). In their studies, they have analyzed the network activities of intruders in a similar fashion to qualitative researchers who have interviewed offenders to identify the process of target selection and tactics of offending (Cherbonneau and Copes, ; Jacobs, ; Wright and Decker, 1994, ).…”

Need for Debate on the Implications of Honeypot Data for Restrictive Deterrence Policies in Cyberspace

“…Another concern is that the behaviors of the computer intruders within that honeypot or network may be unique to that specific honeypot or network. Even comparing findings from honeypot data from universities in three different countries (e.g., United States, China, or Israel) illustrates that computer intrusion patterns differ (Maimon et al., , ). It would therefore be expected that computer intrusion patterns and the deterrent capabilities of warning banners would differ on other factors as well, such as types of organizations (financial, government, industrial, etc.…”