It turned out that Intel subsidiary McAfee has exaggerated the cost of hacking in its fundamental study which was used to form the basis for American government cyber security policy. A study was conducted back in 2009 by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies and claimed that hacking cost the world economy $1 trillion.
Now US President keeps quoting this figure, as well as intelligence officials and members of Congress, in order to press for legislation on cybercrime protection. However, it recently turned out that $1 trillion was a huge exaggeration by McAfee. This was revealed by another study that was carried out by CSIS. The outfit discovered multiple flaws in the methodology of McAfee’s study and made a conclusion that a specific number would be much more difficult to calculate. According to the new research, the proper number could be $100 billion to $500 billion – although it’s a pretty high figure, it is hardly a trillion.
This is not the first time the McAfee’s figure was believed to be overstated – before, two principal Microsoft researchers had the same doubts. Actually, the CSIS explained that the United States might lose as little as $20 billion to $25 billion annually to cybercrime or as much as $100 to $140 billion. Both researches were underwritten by McAfee, which is considered to be one of the largest security technology vendors. In the meantime, the bias of the 2009 report was commented on at the time.
Media reports suggest that the companies can have a hard time trying to figure out what was stolen, while there are plenty of more complex economic issues out there which keep the surveys from being accurate. Now, even though the figures are 1/3 lower than the last survey, experts still have doubts that McAfee has got it right. It is clear what McAfee gets out of it if the figure is high – it is known that the company has helped the Department of Defense design a secure infrastructure and the latter has cited McAfee’s $1 trillion overestimate to argue for the expansion of cybersecurity programs.
Although hackers from abroad are definitely an increasing threat, it looks like the arguments for such expansions were based on McAfee’s earlier study results.
Now US President keeps quoting this figure, as well as intelligence officials and members of Congress, in order to press for legislation on cybercrime protection. However, it recently turned out that $1 trillion was a huge exaggeration by McAfee. This was revealed by another study that was carried out by CSIS. The outfit discovered multiple flaws in the methodology of McAfee’s study and made a conclusion that a specific number would be much more difficult to calculate. According to the new research, the proper number could be $100 billion to $500 billion – although it’s a pretty high figure, it is hardly a trillion.
This is not the first time the McAfee’s figure was believed to be overstated – before, two principal Microsoft researchers had the same doubts. Actually, the CSIS explained that the United States might lose as little as $20 billion to $25 billion annually to cybercrime or as much as $100 to $140 billion. Both researches were underwritten by McAfee, which is considered to be one of the largest security technology vendors. In the meantime, the bias of the 2009 report was commented on at the time.
Media reports suggest that the companies can have a hard time trying to figure out what was stolen, while there are plenty of more complex economic issues out there which keep the surveys from being accurate. Now, even though the figures are 1/3 lower than the last survey, experts still have doubts that McAfee has got it right. It is clear what McAfee gets out of it if the figure is high – it is known that the company has helped the Department of Defense design a secure infrastructure and the latter has cited McAfee’s $1 trillion overestimate to argue for the expansion of cybersecurity programs.
Although hackers from abroad are definitely an increasing threat, it looks like the arguments for such expansions were based on McAfee’s earlier study results.
No comments:
Post a Comment