NEWS / INsig2 lectures at LTEC 2016
News archive


INsig2 lectures at LTEC 2016

LTEC 2016, Bruxelles, Belgium
INsig2 lectures;
The Future of Cybercrime by Jerko Burić
Julie Amero – where things went wrong by Savina Gruičić

The Future of Cybercrime by Jerko Burić
Whether it is about hijacking the plane in the middle of the flight, or stealing $1 billion dollars over the Internet , cybercrime of the future is no longer a plain talk about the future – it is reality and it is here! As the number of devices connected to the Internet grows, more vulnerable to cybercrime we get. It is predicted that there will be more than 200 billion internet-connected devices by the year 2020. In other words – there will be 200 billion vulnerable points surrounding people. This lecture will focus on providing information about the future of cybercrime and will point out some initiatives to raise people's awareness of cybercrime and danger it represents.

Julie Amero– where things went wrong by Savina Gruičić
State of Connecticut v. Julie Amero is a court case in the 2007 concerning Internet privacy and DNS hijacking. On October 19, 2004, Julie Amero, the defendant in the case, was a substitute teacher in seventh-grade language class at Kelly Middle School in Norwich, Connecticut. The teacher's computer was accessed by pupils while the regular teacher, Matthew Napp, was out of the room. When Amero took charge, the computer started showing pornographic images. On January 5, 2007, Julie Amero was convicted of four counts of risk of injury to a minor, or impairing the morals of a child, as a result of a computer that was infected with spyware and DNS hijacking software. There were many things that went wrong during the investigation and trial. The computer, along with the school network, lacked up-to-date firewall, anti-virus software and software updates to prevent inappropriate pop-ups and block pornographic websites. The computer was full of malware and adware. The computer was used after the incident. To preserve as much as possible evidence, everything should have been documented and photographed. Proper chain of custody should have been followed. The officer in charge did not have appropriate qualifications as he conducted his examination on a live system, thereby violating the main principle of digital forensics. The defense expert did not have appropriate qualification or knowledge to address the presented evidence.