Cyber-Dependent Crimes: An Interdisciplinary Review

Literature Cited

1. Afroz S, Garg V, McCoy D, Greenstadt R 2013. Honor among thieves: a common's analysis of cybercrime economies. eCrime Res. Summit 2013:1–11
   [Google Scholar]
2. Akers RL 1973. Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publ.
3. Al-Ghaith W 2016. Extending protection motivation theory to understand security determinants of anti-virus software usage on mobile devices. Int. J. Comput. 10:125–38
   [Google Scholar]
4. Atzeni A, Lioy A 2006. Why to adopt a security metric? A brief survey.. Quality of Protection. Advances in Information Security 23 D Gollmann, F Massacci, A Yautsiukhin 1–12 Boston: Springer
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bachmann M 2010. The risk propensity and rationality of computer hackers. Int. J. Cyber Criminol. 4:643–56
   [Google Scholar]
6. Barlow JB, Warkentin M, Ormond D, Dennis AR 2013. Don't make excuses! Discouraging neutralization to reduce IT policy violation. Comput. Secur. 39:145–59
   [Google Scholar]
7. Bell J, Burke B 1992. Cruising Cooper Street Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies Guilderland, NY: Harrow and Heston. , 2nd ed..
   [Google Scholar]
8. Blakley B 2002. The measure of information security is dollars. Proceedings of the First Annual Workshop on the Economics of Information Security Berkeley, CA: Univ. Calif. Press
   [Google Scholar]
9. Boss SR, Galletta DF, Lowry PB, Moody GD, Polak P 2015. What do users have to fear? Using fear appeals to engender threats and fear that motivate protective security behaviors. MIS Q. 39:837–64
   [Google Scholar]
10. Bossler AM 2017. Need for debate on the implications of honeypot data for restrictive deterrence policies in cyberspace. Criminol. Public Policy 16:681–88
    [Google Scholar]
11. Bossler AM, Burruss GW 2011. The general theory of crime and computer hacking: low self-control hackers. Corporate Hacking and Technology-Driven Crime: Social Dynamics and Implications TJ Holt, BH Schell 38–67 Hershey, PA: IGI Glob.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Bossler AM, Holt TJ 2009. On-line activities, guardianship, and malware infection: an examination of routine activities theory. Int. J. Cyber Criminol. 3:400–20
    [Google Scholar]
13. Bossler AM, Holt TJ 2010. The effect of self-control on victimization in the cyberworld. J. Crim. Justice 38:227–36
    [Google Scholar]
14. Bossler AM, Holt TJ 2013. Assessing officer perceptions and support for online community policing. Secur. J. 26:349–66
    [Google Scholar]
15. Briar S, Piliavin I 1965. Delinquency, situational inducements, and commitment to conformity. Soc. Probl. 13:35–45
    [Google Scholar]
16. Bringer ML, Chelmecki CA, Fujinoki H 2012. A survey: recent advances and future trends in honeypot research. Int. J. Comput. Network Inf. Secur. 4:63–75
    [Google Scholar]
17. Br. Crime Surv. (BCS). 2017. Table E1: Fraud and computer misuse by loss (of money or property) - number and rate of incidents and number and percentage of victims, year ending September 2017 CSEW (Official Statistics).
18. Broadhurst R 2006. Developments in the global law enforcement of cyber‐crime. Polic. Int. J. Police Strateg. Manag. 29:408–33
    [Google Scholar]
19. Broadhurst R, Grabosky P, Alazab M, Bouhours B, Chon S 2014. An analysis of the nature of groups engaged in cyber crime. Int. J. Cyber Criminol. 8:1–20
    [Google Scholar]
20. Brookson C, Farrell G, Mailley J, Whitehead S, Zumerle D 2007. ICT product proofing against crime. ETSI White Paper 5:1–33
    [Google Scholar]
21. Bunting RJ, Chang OY, Cowen C, Hankins R, Langston S et al. 2018. Spatial patterns of larceny and aggravated assault in Miami-Dade County, 2007–2015. Prof. Geogr. 70:34–46
    [Google Scholar]
22. Chen H, Chiang RH, Storey VC 2012. Business intelligence and analytics: from big data to big impact. MIS Q 36:1165–88
    [Google Scholar]
23. Cheng L, Li Y, Li W, Holm E, Zhai Q 2013. Understanding the violation of IS security policy in organizations: an integrated model based on social control and deterrence theory. Comput. Secur. 39:447–59
    [Google Scholar]
24. Chu B, Holt TJ, Ahn GJ 2010. Examining the Creation, Distribution, and Function of Malware On-line Washington, DC: Natl. Inst. Justice
25. Choi KS 2008. Computer crime victimization and integrated theory: an empirical assessment. Int. J. Cyber Criminol. 2:308–33
    [Google Scholar]
26. Chua YT, Holt TJ 2016. A cross-national examination of the techniques of neutralization to account for hacking behaviors. Vict. Offenders 11:534–55
    [Google Scholar]
27. Clarke RV 1995. Situational crime prevention. Crime Justice 1:91–150
    [Google Scholar]
28. Cohen LE, Felson M 1979. Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. Am. Sociol. Rev. 44:588–608
    [Google Scholar]
29. Coles-Kemp L, Theoharidou M 2010. Insider threat and information security management. Insider Threats in Cyber Security J Hunker, D Gollman 45–71 Boston: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
30. Coleman EG 2013. Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Hacking Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
31. Cornish DB, Clarke RV 2003. Opportunities, precipitators and criminal decisions: a reply to Wortley's critique of situational crime prevention. Crime Prev. Stud. 16:41–96
    [Google Scholar]
32. D'Arcy J, Devaraj S 2012. Employee misuse of information technology resources: testing a contemporary deterrence model. Decis. Sci. 43:1091–124
    [Google Scholar]
33. D'Arcy J, Herath T 2011. A review and analysis of deterrence theory in the IS security literature: making sense of the disparate findings. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 20:643–58
    [Google Scholar]
34. D'Arcy J, Hovav A, Galletta D 2009. User awareness of security countermeasures and its impact on information systems misuse: a deterrence approach. Inf. Syst. Res. 20:79–98
    [Google Scholar]
35. Décary-Hétu D, Dupont B 2012. The social network of hackers. Glob. Crime 13:160–75
    [Google Scholar]
36. Deibert GR, Miethe TD 2003. Character contests and dispute-related offenses. Deviant Behav 24:245–67
    [Google Scholar]
37. Denning D, Baugh W 2000. Hiding crimes in cyberspace. Cybercrime: Law Enforcement’ Security and Surveillance in the Information Age D Thomas, D Loader 105–32 London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
38. Dey D, Lahiri A, Zhang G 2012. Hacker behavior, network effects, and the security software market. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 29:77–108
    [Google Scholar]
39. Diamond B, Bachmann M 2015. Out of the beta phase: obstacles, challenges, and promising paths in the study of cyber criminology. Int. J. Cyber Criminol. 9:24–34
    [Google Scholar]
40. Dupont B, Côté AM, Boutin JI, Fernandez J 2017. Darkode: recruitment patterns and transactional features of “the most dangerous cybercrime forum in the world. .” Am. Behav. Sci. 61:1219–43
    [Google Scholar]
41. Dupont B, Côté AM, Savine C, Décary-Hétu D 2016. The ecology of trust among hackers. Glob. Crime 17:129–51
    [Google Scholar]
42. Duncan OD 1961. From social system to ecosystem. Sociol. Inq. 31:140–49
    [Google Scholar]
43. Dunlap RE, Catton WR Jr. 1979. Environmental sociology. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 5:243–73
    [Google Scholar]
44. Eivazi K 2011. Computer use monitoring and privacy at work. Comput. Law Sec. Rev. 27:516–23
    [Google Scholar]
45. Eur. Comm. Public Opin. (ECPO). 2017. Eurobarometer: Europeans' Attitudes Towards Cyber Security Brussels, Belg.: Eur. Union
46. Fafinski S, Dutton WH, Margetts H 2010. Mapping and measuring cybercrime Oxf. Int. Inst. Work. Pap. No. 18
47. Fagan J, Wilkinson DL 1998. Social contexts and functions of adolescent violence. Violence in American Schools: A New Perspective DS Elliott, BA Hamburg, KR Williams 55–93 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
48. Farrington DP, Burrows JN 1993. Did shoplifting really decrease. ? Br. J. Criminol. 33:57–69
    [Google Scholar]
49. Fed. Bur. Investig. (FBI). 2017. 2016 IC3 Annual Report Washington, DC: Bur. Justice Stat http://www.ic3.gov/media/annualreport/2016_IC3Report.pdf
50. Furnell S 2002. Cybercrime: Vandalizing the Information Society Boston: Addison-Wesley
    [Google Scholar]
51. Furnell S, Emm D, Papadaki M 2015. The challenge of measuring cyber-dependent crimes. Comput. Fraud Secur. 2015:5–12
    [Google Scholar]
52. Garg V, Afroz S, Overdorf R, Greenstadt R 2015. Computer-supported cooperative crime. Int. Conf. Financ. Cryptogr. Data Secur. 2015:32–43
    [Google Scholar]
53. Gibbs J 1975. Crime, Punishment, and Deterrence New York: Elsevier
54. Glenny M 2011. Darkmarket: Cyberthieves, Cybercops and You New York: Random House
    [Google Scholar]
55. Gordon S 2000. Virus writers: the end of the innocence? Paper presented at the 10th Annual Virus Bulletin Conference (VB2000) Orlando, FL: Sept. 28–29
    [Google Scholar]
56. Gottfredson MR, Hirschi T 1990. A General Theory of Crime Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press
57. Grabosky P 2016. The evolution of cybercrime, 2006–2016. Cybercrime Through an Interdisciplinary Lens TJ Holt 15–37 New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
58. Graif C, Sampson RJ 2009. Spatial heterogeneity in the effects of immigration and diversity on neighborhood homicide rates. Homicide Stud 13:242–60
    [Google Scholar]
59. Harknett RJ, Callaghan JP, Kauffman R 2010. Leaving deterrence behind: war-fighting and national cybersecurity. J. Homel. Secur. Emerg. Manag. 7:22
    [Google Scholar]
60. Hartley RD 2015. Ethical hacking pedagogy: an analysis and overview of teaching students to hack. J. Int. Technol. Inf. Manag. 24:95–104
    [Google Scholar]
61. Herath T, Rao HR 2009. Protection motivation and deterrence: a framework for security policy compliance in organisations. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 18:106–25
    [Google Scholar]
62. Hirschi T 1969. Causes of Delinquency Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publ.
63. Holt TJ 2007. Subcultural evolution? Examining the influence of on- and off-line experiences on deviant subcultures. Deviant Behav 28:171–98
    [Google Scholar]
64. Holt TJ 2017. On the value of honeypots to produce policy recommendations. Criminol. Public Policy 16:739–47
    [Google Scholar]
65. Holt TJ, Bossler AM 2013. Examining the relationship between routine activities and malware infection indicators. J. Contemp. Crim. Justice 29:420–36
    [Google Scholar]
66. Holt TJ, Bossler AM 2014. An assessment of the current state of cybercrime scholarship. Deviant Behav 35:20–40
    [Google Scholar]
67. Holt TJ, Bossler AM 2016. Cybercrime in Progress: Theory and Prevention of Technology-Enabled Offenses New York: Routledge
68. Holt TJ, Bossler AM, May DC 2012. Low self-control deviant peer associations and juvenile cyberdeviance. Am. J. Crim. Justice 37:378–95
    [Google Scholar]
69. Holt TJ, Burruss GW, Bossler AM 2016. Assessing the macro-level correlates of malware infections using a routine activities framework. Int. J. Offender Ther. Comp. Criminol. 62:1720–41
    [Google Scholar]
70. Holt TJ, Kilger M 2008. Techcrafters and makecrafters: a comparison of two populations of hackers. IEEE Information Security Threats Data Collection and Sharing Workshop67–78 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
71. Holt TJ, Lampke E 2010. Exploring stolen data markets online: products and market forces. Crim. Justice Stud. 23:33–50
    [Google Scholar]
72. Holz T, Engelberth M, Freiling F 2009. Learning more about the underground economy: A case-study of keyloggers and dropzones. Eur. Symp. Res. Comput. Secur. 2009:1–18
    [Google Scholar]
73. Hovav A, D'Arcy J 2012. Applying an extended model of deterrence across cultures: an investigation of information systems misuse in the US and South Korea. Inf. Manag. 49:99–110
    [Google Scholar]
74. Hsiao DK, Kerr DS, Madnick SE 2014. Computer Security Cambridge, MA: Academic Press
75. Hu Q, Xu Z, Dinev T, Ling H 2011. Does deterrence work in reducing information security policy abuse by employees. ? Commun. ACM 54:54–60
    [Google Scholar]
76. Hughes LA, DeLone GJ 2007. Viruses, worms, and trojan horses: serious crimes, nuisance, or both. ? Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 25:78–98
    [Google Scholar]
77. Hui KL, Kim SH, Wang QH 2017. Cybercrime deterrence and international legislation: evidence from distributed denial of service attacks. MIS Q 41:497–523
    [Google Scholar]
78. Hutchings A, Clayton R 2016. Exploring the provision of online booter services. Deviant Behav 37:1163–78
    [Google Scholar]
79. Hutchings A, Holt TJ 2015. A crime script analysis of the online stolen data market. Br. J. Criminol. 55:596–614
    [Google Scholar]
80. Jeffrey CR, Hunter RD, Griswold J 1987. Crime prevention and computer analysis of convenience store robberies in Tallahassee. Fla. Police J. 34:65–69
    [Google Scholar]
81. Jeong ES, Kim IS, Lee DH 2016. SafeGuard: a behavior based real-time malware detection scheme for mobile multimedia applications in android platform. Multimed. Tools Appl. 76:18153–73
    [Google Scholar]
82. Johnston AC, Warkentin M 2010. Fear appeals and information security behaviors: an empirical study. MIS Q 34:549–66
    [Google Scholar]
83. Jordan T, Taylor P 1998. A sociology of hackers. Sociol. Rev. 46:757–80
    [Google Scholar]
84. Karami M, Park Y, McCoy D 2016. Stress testing the booters: understanding and undermining the business of DDoS services. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web1033–43 Geneva, Switz.: Int. World Wide Web Conf. Steer. Comm.
    [Google Scholar]
85. Kigerl A 2012. Routine activity theory and the determinants of high cybercrime countries. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 30:470–86
    [Google Scholar]
86. Kraemer-Mbula E, Tang P, Rush H 2013. The cybercrime ecosystem: online innovation in the shadows. ? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 80:541–55
    [Google Scholar]
87. Kremling J, Parker AM 2017. Cyberspace, Cybersecurity, and Cybercrime Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
88. Lauritsen JL, Rezey ML 2018. Victimization trends and correlates: Macro- and microinfluences and new directions for research. Annu. Rev. Criminol. 1:103–21
    [Google Scholar]
89. Lessig L 2009. Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace, Version 2.0 New York: Basic Books
    [Google Scholar]
90. Leukfeldt R, Kleemans E, Stol W 2017. Origin, growth and criminal capabilities of cybercriminal networks. An international empirical analysis. Crime Law Soc. Change 67:39–53
    [Google Scholar]
91. Leukfeldt ER, Yar M 2016. Applying routine activity theory to cybercrime: a theoretical and empirical analysis. Deviant Behav 37:263–80
    [Google Scholar]
92. Lévesque LF, Nsiempba J, Fernandez JM, Chiasson S, Somayaji A 2013. A clinical study of risk factors related to malware infections. Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer & Communications Security97–108 New York: ACM
    [Google Scholar]
93. Lévesque FL, Fernandez JM, Batchelder D, Young G 2016. Are they real? Real-life comparative tests of antivirus products. Virus Bulletin Conference1–11 Abingdon, UK: Virus Bull.
    [Google Scholar]
94. Lewis JA 2018. Economic impact of cybercrime: at $600 billion and counting—no slowing down CSIS Rep., Cent. Strateg. Int. Stud. Washington, DC: https://www.csis.org/analysis/economic-impact-cybercrime
95. Louderback ER, Antonaccio O 2017. Exploring cognitive decision-making processes, computer-focused cyber deviance involvement and victimization: the role of thoughtfully reflective decision-making. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 54:639–79
    [Google Scholar]
96. Luckenbill DF 1977. Criminal homicide as a situated transaction. Soc. Probl. 25:176–86
    [Google Scholar]
97. Luo X, Liao Q 2009. Ransomware: a new cyber hijacking threat to enterprises. Handbook of Research on Information Security and Assurance JND Gupta, S Sharma 1–6 Hershey, PA: IGI Glob.
    [Google Scholar]
98. Macdonald M, Frank R 2017. The network structure of malware development, deployment and distribution. Glob. Crime 18:49–69
    [Google Scholar]
99. Maimon D, Alper M, Sobesto B, Cukier M 2014. Restrictive deterrent effects of a warning banner in an attacked computer system. Criminology 52:33–59
    [Google Scholar]
100. Maimon D, Kamerdze A, Cukier M, Sobesto B 2013. Daily trends and origin of computer-focused crimes against a large university computer network. Br. J. Criminol. 53:319–43
     [Google Scholar]
101. Marcum CD, Higgins GE, Ricketts ML, Wolfe SE 2014. Hacking in high school: cybercrime perpetration by juveniles. Deviant Behav 35:581–91
     [Google Scholar]
102. McGuire M 2012. Organised Crime in the Digital Age London: John Grieve Cent. Polic. Secur.
103. McGuire M, Dowling S 2013. Cyber crime: a review of the evidence. Summary of key findings and implications Home Off. Res. Rep., Home Off. London:
     [Google Scholar]
104. McHugh J 2000. Testing intrusion detection systems: a critique of the 1998 and 1999 DARPA intrusion detection system evaluations as performed by Lincoln laboratory. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 3:262–94
     [Google Scholar]
105. Meier RF, Kennedy LW, Sacco VF 2001. The Process and Structure of Crime New York: Routledge
106. Moore T, Clayton R, Anderson R 2009. The economics of online crime. J. Econ. Perspect. 23:3–20
     [Google Scholar]
107. Morris MR, Ryall K, Shen C, Forlines C, Vernier F 2004. Beyond social protocols: multi-user coordination policies for co-located groupware. Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work262–65 New York: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
108. Morris RG 2011. Computer hacking and the techniques of neutralization: an empirical assessment. Corporate Hacking and Technology-Driven Crime: Social Dynamics and Implications TJ Holt, BH Schell 1–17 Hershey, PA: IGI Glob.
     [Google Scholar]
109. NCA. 2016. NCA strategic cyber industry group cyber crime assessment 2016 NCA Rep., Natl. Crime Agency Strateg. Cyber Ind. Group London: http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/publications/709-cyber-crime-assessment-2016/file
110. Ngo F, Paternoster R 2011. Cybercrime victimization: an examination of individual and situational level factors. Int. J. Cyber Criminol. 5:773–93
     [Google Scholar]
111. NIST. 2014. Framework for improving critical infrastructure cybersecurity: version 1.0 NIST Rep., Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Gaithersburg, MD: https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cyberframework/cybersecurity-framework-021214.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
112. Ooi KW, Kim SH, Wang QH, Hui KL 2012. Do hackers seek variety? An empirical analysis of website defacements. Proceedings of the 33rd Interanational Conference on Information Systems1–10 Atlanta, GA: AIS
     [Google Scholar]
113. Overvest B, Straathof B 2015. What drives cybercrime? Empirical evidence from DDoS attacks CPB Disc. Pap. 306, CPB Neth. Bur. Econ. Policy Anal. Hague:
114. Papanikolaou A, Vlachos V, Venieris A, Ilioudis C, Papapanagiotou K, Stasinopoulos A 2013. A framework for teaching network security in academic environments. Inf. Manag. Comput. Secur. 21:315–38
     [Google Scholar]
115. Park JH, Yi KJ, Jeong Y-S 2014. An enhanced smartphone security model based on information security management system (ISMS). Electron. Commerce Res. 14:321–48
     [Google Scholar]
116. Paternoster R, Pogarsky G 2009. Rational choice, agency and thoughtfully reflective decision making: the short and long-term consequences of making good choices. J. Quant. Criminol. 25:103–27
     [Google Scholar]
117. Police Exec. Res. Forum (PERF). 2014. The Role of Local Law Enforcement Agencies in Preventing and Investigating Cybercrime Washington, DC: PERF
118. Pratt TC, Cullen FT 2000. The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime: a meta‐analysis. Criminology 38:931–64
     [Google Scholar]
119. Priv. Rights Clearinghouse (PRCH). 2017. Privacy rights clearinghouse. PRCH http://www.privacyrights.org
120. Rantala RR 2008. Cybercrime against businesses, 2005 Bur. Justice Stat. Spec. Rep. NCJ 221943, US Dep. Justice Washington, DC: http://www.justiceacademy.org/iShare/Library-BJS/CyberCrimes.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
121. Reyns BW 2015. A routine activity perspective on online victimisation: results from the Canadian General Social Survey. J. Financ. Crime 22:396–411
     [Google Scholar]
122. Riffkin R 2014. Hacking tops list of crimes Americas worry about most. Gallup Oct 27. https://news.gallup.com/poll/178856/hacking-tops-list-crimes-americans-worry.aspx
123. Richards K, LaSalle R, Devost M, van den Dool F, Kennedy-White J 2017. 2017 cost of cybercrime study. Accenture https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insight-cost-of-cybercrime-2017
124. Rogers RW 1975. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J. Personal. 91:93–114
     [Google Scholar]
125. Rogers MK 2006. A two-dimensional circumplex approach to the development of a hacker taxonomy. Digit. Investig. 3:97–102
     [Google Scholar]
126. Sampson RJ 2012. Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
127. Sampson RJ, Laub JH 1993. Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
128. Schell BH, Dodge JL 2002. The Hacking of America: Who's Doing It, Why, and How Westport, CT: Greenwood Publ.
     [Google Scholar]
129. Scott MS 2003. The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns Washington, DC: Off. Comm. Oriented Polic. Serv.
130. Seebruck R 2015. A typology of hackers: classifying cyber malfeasance using a weighted arc circumplex model. Digit. Investig. 14:36–45
     [Google Scholar]
131. Short JF 1998. The level of explanation problem revisited: the American Society of Criminology 1997 presidential address. Criminology 36:3–6
     [Google Scholar]
132. Siponen M, Pahnila S, Mahmood MA 2010. Compliance with information security policies: an empirical investigation. Computer 43:64–71
     [Google Scholar]
133. Siponen M, Vance A 2010. Neutralization: new insights into the problem of employee information systems security policy violations. MIS Q 34:487–502
     [Google Scholar]
134. Siponen M, Willison R 2009. Information security management standards: problems and solutions. Inf. Manag. 46:267–70
     [Google Scholar]
135. Skinner WF, Fream AM 1997. A social learning theory analysis of computer crime among college students. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 34:495–518
     [Google Scholar]
136. Sloan-Howitt M, Kelling GL 1990. Subway graffiti in New York City: Gettin’ up versus meanin’ it and cleanin’ it. Secur J 1:131–36
     [Google Scholar]
137. Spano R, Freilich JD 2009. An assessment of the empirical validity and conceptualization of individual level multivariate studies of lifestyle/routine activities theory published from 1995 to 2005. J. Crim. Justice 37:305–14
     [Google Scholar]
138. Steinmetz KF 2015. Craft(y)ness: an ethnographic study of hacking. Br. J. Criminol. 55:125–45
     [Google Scholar]
139. Stockman M, Heile R, Rein A 2015. An open-source honeynet system to study system banner message effects on hackers. Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM Conference on Research in Information Technology19–22 New York: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
140. Storm D 2015. MEDJACK: hackers hijacking medical devices to create backdoors in hospital networks. Computerworld June 8. https://www.computerworld.com/article/2932371/cybercrime-hacking/medj1ack-hackers-hijacking-medical-devices-to-create-backdoors-in-hospital-networks.html
141. Sykes GM, Matza D 1957. Techniques of neutralization: a theory of delinquency. Am. Sociol. Rev. 22:664–70
     [Google Scholar]
142. Taylor PA 1999. Hackers: Crime in the Digital Sublime London: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
143. Testa A, Maimon D, Sobesto B, Cukier M 2017. Illegal roaming and file manipulation on target computers. Criminol. Public Policy 16:689–726
     [Google Scholar]
144. Torres JM, Sarriegi JM, Santos J, Serrano N 2006. Managing information systems security: critical success factors and indicators to measure effectiveness. International Conference on Information Security530–45 Berlin: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
145. Tseloni A, Mailley J, Farrell G, Tilley N 2010. Exploring the international decline in crime rates. Eur. J. Criminol. 7:375–94
     [Google Scholar]
146. Valnour. 2009. Revenge is a dish best served cold. Hacker Q 26:32
     [Google Scholar]
147. Van Wilsem J 2013. Hacking and harassment—do they have something in common? Comparing risk factors for online victimization. J. Contemp. Crim. Justice 29:437–53
     [Google Scholar]
148. Waldrop MM 2016. How to hack the hackers: the human side of cybercrime. Nature 533:164–67
     [Google Scholar]
149. Wall DS 2001. Crime and the Internet New York: Routledge
150. Wall DS 2007. Policing cybercrimes: situating the public police in networks of security within cyberspace. Police Practice Res 8:183–205
     [Google Scholar]
151. Wall DS 2013. Enemies within: redefining the insider threat in organizational security policy. Secur. J. 26:107–24
     [Google Scholar]
152. Wang J, Gupta M, Rao HR 2015. Insider threats in a financial institution: analysis of attack-proneness of information systems applications. MIS Q 39:91–112
     [Google Scholar]
153. Wilbur KC, Zhu Y 2009. Click fraud. Mark. Sci. 28:293–308
     [Google Scholar]
154. Wilcox P, Cullen FT 2018. Situational opportunity theories of crime. Annu. Rev. Criminol. 1:123–48
     [Google Scholar]
155. Wilson T, Maimon D, Sobesto B, Cukier M 2015. The effect of a surveillance banner in an attacked computer system: additional evidence for the relevance of restrictive deterrence in cyberspace. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 52:829–55
     [Google Scholar]
156. Willison R, Siponen M 2009. Overcoming the insider: reducing employee crime through Situational Crime Prevention. Commun. ACM 52:133–37
     [Google Scholar]
157. Wolfe SE, Higgins GE, Marcum CD 2008. Deterrence and digital piracy: a preliminary examination of the role of viruses. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 26:317–33
     [Google Scholar]
158. Workman M, Bommer WH, Straub D 2008. Security lapses and the omission of information security measures: a threat control model and empirical test. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24:2799–816
     [Google Scholar]
159. Yar M 2005. The novelty of cybercrime: an assessment in light of routine activity theory. Eur. J. Criminol. 2:407–27
     [Google Scholar]
160. Yip M, Shadbolt N, Webber C 2013. Why forums? An empirical analysis into the facilitating factors of carding forums. Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Web Science Conference453–62 New York: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
161. Young R, Zhang L, Prybutok VR 2007. Hacking into the minds of hackers. Inf. Syst. Manag. 24:281–87
     [Google Scholar]
162. Yu S 2014. Fear of cyber crime among college students in the United States: an exploratory study. Int. J. Cyber Criminol. 8:36–46
     [Google Scholar]
163. Yucedal B 2010. Victimization in cyberspace: an application of Routine Activity and Lifestyle Exposure theories PhD Diss., Kent State Univ. Kent, OH:
     [Google Scholar]
164. Zimring WD 2006. The Great American Crime Decline New York: Oxford Univ. Press