Factors Affecting Online Attacks of Malicious Code among University Students in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province of Pakistan
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56976/rjsi.v2i1.13Keywords:
Malicious Code, Target Suitability, Routine Activity TheoryAbstract
This paper focused to measure the relationship of online target suitability with the chances of encountering malicious code i.e. hacking and viruses. Particularly, young students are prone to online attacks due to their excessive use of online spaces. The concept of target suitability was adopted from Routine Activity Theory (RAT). The study is a descriptive survey in nature. The population of the study was all university students of KP. 800 students were selected from the six top-ranked universities of KP. Multiple regression analysis was used to analyze the data. The findings of the study revealed that the target suitability in online activities of young adults increases the likelihood to face attacks in form of hacking and viruses. More careful use of the internet is recommended to avoid hacking and virus attacks during online communication.
References
Bossler, A. M., Holt, T. J., & May, D. C. (2012). Predicting online harassment victimization among a juvenile population. Youth & Society, 44(4), 500-523.
Chauhan, A. (2013). Evolution and Development of Cyber Law-A Study with Special Reference to India. Available at SSRN 2195557.
Choi, K.-s. (2008). Computer crime victimization and integrated theory: An empirical assessment. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 2(1), 308.
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American sociological review, 588-608.
Dredge, R., Gleeson, J., & De la Piedad Garcia, X. (2014). Presentation on Facebook and risk of cyberbullying victimisation. Computers in Human Behavior, 40, 16-22.
Egele, M., Scholte, T., Kirda, E., & Kruegel, C. (2012). A survey on automated dynamic malware-analysis techniques and tools. ACM computing surveys (CSUR), 44(2), 6.
Felson, M., & Clarke, R. V. (1998). Opportunity makes the thief. Police research series, paper, 98(1-36), 21-25.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Personal information of adolescents on the Internet: A quantitative content analysis of MySpace. Journal of adolescence, 31(1), 125-146.
Holt, T. J., & Bossler, A. M. (2008). Examining the applicability of lifestyle-routine activities theory for cybercrime victimization. Deviant behavior, 30(1), 1-25.
Holt, T. J., & Bossler, A. M. (2013). Examining the relationship between routine activities and malware infection indicators. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 29(4), 420-436.
Kamruzzaman, M., Islam, M. A., Islam, M. S., Hossain, M. S., & Hakim, M. A. (2016). Plight of youth perception on cyber crime in South Asia. American Journal of Information Science and Computer Engineering, 2(4), 22-28.
Kienzle, D. M., & Elder, M. C. (2003). Recent worms: a survey and trends. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2003 ACM workshop on Rapid malcode.
Kokkinos, C. M., & Saripanidis, I. (2017). A lifestyle exposure perspective of victimization through Facebook among university students. Do individual differences matter? Computers in Human Behavior, 74, 235-245.
Manzar, U., Tanveer, S., & Jamal, S. (2016). The incidence of cybercrime in pakistan.1-89
Marcum, C. D., Higgins, G. E., & Ricketts, M. L. (2010). Potential factors of online victimization of youth: An examination of adolescent online behaviors utilizing routine activity theory. Deviant Behavior, 31(5), 381-410.
Marcum, C. D., Higgins, G. E., Ricketts, M. L., & Wolfe, S. E. (2014). Hacking in high school: cybercrime perpetration by juveniles. Deviant Behavior, 35(7), 581-591.
Martens, M., & De Wolf, R. (2018). Measuring the cost and impact of cybercrime in Belgium (BCC): D3. 1.2 Risk perception monitor report (2 nd wave, 2017).
McGraw, G., & Morrisett, G. (2000). Attacking malicious code: A report to the Infosec Research Council. IEEE software, 17(5), 33-41.
Mshana, J. A. (2015). Cybercrime: An Empirical Study of its Impact in the Society-A Case Study of Tanzania. Huria: Journal of the Open University of Tanzania, 19(1), 72-87.
Palmer, D. (2018). What is malware? Everything you need to know about viruses, trojans and malicious software. Retrieved June 5, 2018, from https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-is-malware-everything-you-need-to-know-about-viruses-trojans-and-malicious-software/
Peluchette, J. V., Karl, K., Wood, C., & Williams, J. (2015). Cyberbullying victimization: Do victims’ personality and risky social network behaviors contribute to the problem? Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 424-435.
Qbeitah, M. A., & Aldwairi, M. (2018, April). Dynamic malware analysis of phishing emails. In 2018 9th International Conference on Information and Communication Systems (ICICS) (pp. 18-24). IEEE.
Reep-van den Bergh, C. M., & Junger, M. (2018). Victims of cybercrime in Europe: a review of victim surveys. Crime science, 7(1), 5-15.
Reyns, B. W., & Henson, B. (2016). The thief with a thousand faces and the victim with none: Identifying determinants for online identity theft victimization with routine activity theory. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 60(10), 1119-1139.
Sikorski, M., & Honig, A. (2012). Practical malware analysis: the hands-on guide to dissecting malicious software: no starch press.
Staksrud, E., Ólafsson, K., & Livingstone, S. (2013). Does the use of social networking sites increase children’s risk of harm? Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 40-50.
Symantec. (2010). Norton cybercrime report: The human impact.
Taylor, R. W., Fritsch, E. J., & Liederbach, J. (2014). Digital crime and digital terrorism: Prentice Hall Press.
Wilsem, J. v. (2013). Hacking and harassment—Do they have something in common? Comparing risk factors for online victimization. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 29(4), 437-453.
