Cyber Crime and Cyber Terrorism

(APCO, 2012, p. 6).
This statement is particularly applicable to the case studies outlined below. The 
very fact that the hacking is happening across times zones and jurisdictions means 

---

103
 
Taxonomical classification of cybercrime/cyberterrorism
that is it easier for hackers, hacktivists, cyber criminals, etc. to continue their attacks. 
It also helps to emphasize a need for clear communication strategies and intelligence 
about the attacks to be shared between not only by affected countries/governments, 
but also networks across the globe to strengthen security networks against future at-
tacks and risks.
It is also important to make clear that the following chapter outlines some of the 
activities in cyber space—without prejudice. The authors are neither in support nor 
against the activities summarized below. The outlined cases show the variation in the 
motivation behind cybercrimes and terrorist use of the internet, and also show the po-
tential difficulties for taxonomizing motivations behind attacks. It is also important 
to highlight the difference in jurisdiction across the world in relation to the defini-
tion of cybercrime (see Chapters 1 and 3). There is for instance a fine line between 
covert operations and terrorist attacks depending on where in the world the activity 
is occurring. Therefore, this chapter does not intend to address the issues of law and 
legislation behind the activity. The cases that have been used are summarized by 
outlining the information that is publicly available about them. They are followed 
by an overview of the strategic responses from the UK, US and EU and then a threat 
assessment is discussed.
TAXONOMICAL CLASSIFICATION OF CYBERCRIME/
CYBERTERRORISM
There are a number of taxonomies developed in relation to cybercrime and activ-
ity. Other taxonomies for cybercrime concentrate on the characteristics of attacks 
(
Lough, 2001
) whilst 
Howard and Longstaff (1998)
 taxonomy accounts for motiva-
tions and objectives and consists of five process stages. However, a key problem in 
the area of cyber security is the lack of agreed terminology across different organiza-
tions, research disciplines and approaches, and stakeholders. This taxonomy there-
fore attempts to overcome linguistic barriers by using nontechnical language. Taking 
a human-centric approach this taxonomy focuses on the situational understanding of 
cybercrime and helps to foster the practical implementations of countermeasures by 
focusing on intentions (and circumstances) surrounding the cybercrimes.
The proposed taxonomy below relates to the perceived motivations/intentions for 
cybercrime and attacks and therefore does not focus on the technical considerations 
of cybercrime. The taxonomy needs to be elaborated, not only as a list of words but 
also to reflect the attributes (and their inter-relationships) that are key to all the target 
user communities—for example law enforcement agencies, especially investigative 
officers.
Whilst this is a starting point for a categorization process there is room for devel-
opment as cyber security demands change and develop. Currently it is not exhaustive 
and a limitation could be the lack of room for technical detail, however in its current 
form it helps to establish the perceived motivations behind cyber-attacks which in 
turn provides basis for situational understanding (
Table 9.1
).

---