Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 210

Cybercrime response may slow internet

In mid-April, the 'Shadow Hackers' online group made public some malicious software that had been stolen from the US government’s National Security Agency. A month later, 'ransomware' dubbed WannaCry that incorporated the bugs pilfered from US intelligence penetrated perhaps 300,000 computers running outdated Microsoft software in an estimated 150 countries.

While that might well be the most chilling cyberattack ever, it’s perhaps not the most significant because hackers have tried to influence elections, most notably the US election last year. While it will never be established how much the hacked emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign helped Donald Trump, it’s apparent that cybercrime is all too common. It is already a US$1 trillion-industry worldwide, according to some estimates.

Nothing is safe on the internet

Whatever the true figure, identification theft, fraudulent online transfers, payment-card frauds, network assaults, denial-of-service attacks by malicious networks of computers (botnets), ransomware, cyberbullying, trolling and online child pornography are too common. They show that nothing is safe on the internet – apart from criminals, it seems.

If people, businesses, governments and other bodies including hospitals can’t trust the internet to protect data, share files, host websites, seamlessly send and receive messages and make payments, an internet slowed by protections and precautions could assume a lower profile in everyday life – or fall well short of its potential anyway. To maintain the public’s trust in the internet, policymakers are making cybersecurity a top priority while an industry has sprung up to protect cyberspace. It will be a never-ending battle.

To be sure, billions of interactions happen every day on the internet without hassle. A cyberattack is yet to trigger a catastrophe. Firewalls, virus antidotes and sophisticated behavioural defences help protect systems. The payments companies have never suffered a significant breach. Neither have the big digital-platforms. That may not last. The core problem is that the foundations of the internet are insecure. After all, they were designed to allow a few trusted parties to communicate, not billions worldwide.

Fragile and flawed

Amateur hackers were around in the early days of computers. Nowadays, cybercriminals operate in sophisticated packs. Thanks to technological advancements that allow for mass criminal activity while protecting anonymity, cybercrime is lucrative, hard to detect and even harder to prosecute.

Government, businesses and households are taking cybersecurity more seriously with each attack. The major responsibility for keeping the internet safe, however, lies with the operating system developers such as Apple, Google and Microsoft.

Microsoft software products include Windows XP, the model that WannaCry exploited. As is typical, Microsoft puts a finite life on its software versions because software is costly to update and patch.

Despite the negligence of enterprises that still use Windows XP while refusing to pay for support after its ‘end of life’, in the aftermath of the WannaCry attack, Microsoft stood accused of holding back on issuing a free repair for Windows XP that could have protected users.

Critics suggest that Microsoft would have provided support if not for its profit motive to sell software patches, and that it has an incentive to avoid providing security updates on old software, to force people to buy the latest versions. A bugbear for many people is that companies such as Microsoft bear little or no responsibility under US law if their software is vulnerable to attack.

Invisible but lethal

While governments are giving greater priority to cybersecurity, the most likely catastrophic assault on the internet is by a state-sponsored cyberwarfare attack.

Rogue governments are adept at cyberattacks, and cyberwarfare is likely to be a never-ending arms race. Democratic governments need to develop cyberwarfare technology to gather intelligence to protect their populations. The more weapons they create the more insecure adversaries feel, which prompts them to step up efforts. Another quandary is that intelligence agencies must decide whether or not to warn software manufacturers about flaws in their code. If they inform software makers (and they often do), intelligence agencies risk making worthless their cyberweaponary edge. Another concern is that cyberweapon technology is easy to steal.

Such are the unending challenges of guarding the internet against the next WannaCry.

 

Michael Collins is an Investment Specialist at Magellan Asset Management. Magellan is a sponsor of Cuffelinks.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

How I lost my files to ransomware

Ransomware threatens home, office and national security

The shift to the cloud

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Are franking credits hurting Australia’s economy?

Business investment and per capita GDP have languished over the past decade and the Labor Government is conducting inquiries to find out why. Franking credits should be part of the debate about our stalling economy.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

Here's what should replace the $3 million super tax

With Div. 296 looming, is there a smarter way to tax superannuation? This proposes a fairer, income-linked alternative that respects compounding, ensures predictability, and avoids taxing unrealised capital gains. 

Superannuation

Less than 1% of wealthy families will struggle to pay super tax: study

An ANU study has found that families with at least one super balance over $3 million have average wealth exceeding $19 million - suggesting most are well placed to absorb taxes on unrealised capital gains.   

Superannuation

Are SMSFs getting too much of a free ride?

SMSFs have managed to match, or even outperform, larger super funds despite adopting more conservative investment strategies. This looks at how they've done it - and the potential policy implications.  

Property

A developer's take on Australia's housing issues

Stockland’s development chief discusses supply constraints, government initiatives and the impact of Japanese-owned homebuilders on the industry. He also talks of green shoots in a troubled property market.

Economy

Lessons from 100 years of growing US debt

As the US debt ceiling looms, the usual warnings about a potential crash in bond and equity markets have started to appear. Investors can take confidence from history but should keep an eye on two main indicators.

Investment strategies

Investors might be paying too much for familiarity

US mega-cap tech stocks have dominated recent returns - but is familiarity distorting judgement? Like the Monty Hall problem, investing success often comes from switching when it feels hardest to do so.

Latest from Morningstar

A winning investment strategy sitting right under your nose

How does a strategy built around systematically buying-and-holding a basket of the market's biggest losers perform? It turns out pretty well, so why don't more investors do it?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.