'Cybercrime exceeds drug trade' myth exploded
AT&T feeds Congress trillion-dollar FUD
Regcast training : Hyper-V 3.0, VM high availability and disaster recovery
A leading security researcher has unpicked the origins of the myth that revenues from cybercrime exceeds those from the global drug trade, regurgitated by a senior security officer at AT&T before Congress last week.
Ed Amoroso, Senior Vice President and Chief Security Officer of AT&T, told a Congressional Committee on 20 March that cybercrime was a $1trn a year business. It'd be nice to think that Amoroso had been misquoted or made a slip of the tongue but written testimony from Amoroso repeats the amazing claim, made before a hearing of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.
The end of paragraph 5 of the written submission states:
Last year the FBI announced that revenues from cyber-crime, for the first time ever, exceeded drug trafficking as the most lucrative illegal global business, estimated at reaping more than $1 trillion annually in illicit profits.
As Richard Stiennon points out the quoted figure would make cybercrime bigger than the entire IT industry. The top 10 Fortune 50 firms turned over $2trn last year.
Put another way, revenues from cybercrime exceed those of AT&T itself ($119bn in 2008) by a factor of around eight.
Estimates of the drug trade peg annual revenues at about $400bn. There's no figure on this from the FBI much less a comparative figure comparing cybercrime and drug trade revenues, despite what Amoroso said.
Stiennon, chief research analyst at IT-Harvest, guesses that cybercrime profits might be worth about $1bn a year, which seems much more plausible.
You'd have to be on something truly mindblowing to think that cybercrime revenues exceed the GDP of Saudi Arabia ($555bn in 2007), with all its oil income.
How could anyone ever think such a thing? Stiennon comes up trumps in tracking down the origin of this meme.
The idea that cybercrime revenue trumps that of the drug trade were first mentioned by Valerie McNiven, a consultant to the US Treasury Department in November 2005. The figure cited at the time was the still-implausible $105bn, Stiennon reports.
The same figure, mentioned by a lawyer to a Reuters stringer and henceforth enshrined in clippings harvest by the PR departments of security firms, reappeared again in a September 2007 speech by the chief exec of McAfee, David DeWalt.
Eighteen months later the meme has grown so that the figure cited is $1trn but, as Stiennon points out, the form of language is virtually identical. Earlier this week security firm Finjan published a press release ("Finjan confirms cybercrime revenues exceeding drug trafficking") supporting the myth, most recently relayed by Amoroso before Congress.
We asked Finjan whether it wanted to rethink what it said. Not a bit of it, the security firm responded.
"In our Q1 2009 report on cybercrime, for example, we revealed that one single rogueware network are raking in $10,800 a day, or $39.42 million a year," it said. "If you extrapolate those figures across the many thousands of cybercrime operations that exist on the internet at any given time, the results easily reach a trillion dollars."
You can observe the ongoing capers of this implausible FUD-laden cybercrime revenues meme in Stiennon's posting on the ThreatChaos blog here. ®
Bootnote
We're aware that even leaving aside Finjan's head-spinning statistical assumptions its figures still don't stack up. When we called it to ask if it wanted to reconsider its earlier statement, contained in a press release but not published on its website, in light of Stiennon's criticism it answered that it was sticking by its guns.
COMMENTS
Obligatory Dr Evil joke
"Can you estimate how much cybercrime costs the US economy each year, Dr AT&T?"
<finger in mouth>
"One ... TRILLION ... dollars!!!"
I love the math
At $39.42 million a year, you'd need 25,368 organizations operating at this level.
Not very likely.
research
all these research companies talk nothing but unsubstantiated crap, made up out of random figures
an article i read the other day claimed iphone users send emails on their phone more than users of other phones because of . . . the touchscreen keypad?!?! not the 'even my mums mums mum can do it and shes not actually breathing since long ago' simplicity of the email app itself then? and the fact it takes you by the hand thru setting up your account, and that you can spend half an hour putting the [very basic] info into a nokia and it still won't work properly, and even if it does, its a pain in the arse to use on a regular basis anyway, christ, the touch screen keypad is the one thing that puts me off writing an email on my phone!!!
THATS why more people send emails on iphones, that and the fact that a higher percentage of the iphone user base are likely to use email, because the people who use email are those who are also more likely to have acquired an iphone

IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Top 10 SIEM implementer’s checklist
Steps to Take Before Choosing a Business Continuity Partner
Requirements Checklist for Choosing a Cloud Backup and Recovery Service Provider