{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":2,"sheets":["Arkusz2","Arkusz3"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":0,"macros":0,"external_links":0,"defined_names":1,"comments":1,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"Arkusz2","index":0,"n_rows":246,"n_cols":21,"rows_kept":246,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[0,10,0,11],[0,12,0,13],[0,14,0,15],[0,16,0,17],[0,18,0,19],[208,4,211,4],[205,18,207,18],[205,19,207,19],[161,2,168,2],[175,2,178,2],[170,2,173,2],[205,10,207,10],[205,11,207,11],[205,12,207,12],[205,13,207,13],[205,14,207,14],[205,15,207,15],[205,16,207,16],[205,17,207,17],[7,2,10,2],[93,4,95,4],[128,3,131,3],[128,4,131,4],[105,4,110,4],[93,3,95,3],[111,4,112,4],[114,3,116,3],[120,4,123,4],[114,4,116,4],[117,4,119,4],[190,2,196,2],[206,2,207,2],[206,3,207,3],[124,3,125,3],[132,3,133,3],[135,3,138,3],[141,3,145,3],[182,3,184,3],[126,2,150,2],[227,4,233,4],[161,3,164,3],[165,3,168,3],[165,4,168,4],[161,4,164,4],[222,4,224,4],[217,4,221,4],[149,4,154,4],[135,4,138,4],[141,4,145,4],[182,4,184,4],[155,3,159,3],[155,4,159,4],[17,2,19,2],[17,3,19,3],[47,1,59,1],[55,2,56,2],[61,1,75,1],[62,2,65,2],[67,2,70,2],[72,2,73,2],[239,1,245,1],[208,2,211,2],[208,3,211,3],[215,2,221,2],[217,3,221,3],[222,2,224,2],[222,3,224,3],[102,1,237,1],[117,3,119,3],[105,3,110,3],[111,3,112,3],[225,2,234,2],[227,3,233,3],[120,3,123,3],[149,3,154,3],[180,2,188,2],[2,1,15,1],[120,0,123,0],[124,0,125,0],[93,0,95,0],[105,0,110,0],[111,0,112,0],[114,0,116,0],[117,0,119,0],[17,4,19,4],[20,2,24,2],[26,2,28,2],[40,2,42,2],[44,2,45,2],[124,2,125,2],[77,1,87,1],[78,2,79,2],[85,2,87,2],[89,1,100,1],[92,2,96,2],[105,2,112,2],[114,2,123,2],[21,3,22,3],[21,4,22,4],[17,1,45,1],[227,0,233,0],[161,0,164,0],[165,0,168,0],[208,0,211,0],[217,0,221,0],[222,0,224,0],[128,0,131,0],[132,0,133,0],[141,0,145,0],[206,0,207,0],[149,0,154,0],[155,0,159,0]]}
["Threat number","High Level Threats","Threats","Threat details","Exploit","Trends","Affected Asset","Comments","References","Work Week","ENISA 2012",null,"ENISA 2013",null,"ENISA 2014",null,"Threat Landscape and Good Practice Guide for Internet Infrastructure\nYes/No/Additional/Difference",null,"Threat Landscape and Good Practice Guide for Smart Home and Converged Me…\nYes/No/Additional/Difference",null,"Threat description"]
[{"$f":"1","v":1},"Physical attack (deliberate/ intentional)",{"$nulls":8},12,"Physical Theft/Loss/Damage (ENISA Threat Landscape Published 2012)",6,"Physical Damage/Theft/Loss (ENISA Threat Landscape 2013)",10,"Physical damage/theft /loss (ENISA Threat Landscape 2014)","Yes",null,"Yes",null,"Threats of intentional hostage human actions"]
[{"$f":"A2+1","v":2},null,"Fraud",{"$nulls":13},"Yes",null,"No",null,"Fraud made by human"]
[{"$f":"A3+1","v":3},null,null,"Fraud by employees",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No",null,"Fraud made by employees or others who are in relation with entities, that have access to knowledge about entities' information and IT Assets"]
[4,null,"Sabotage",{"$nulls":13},"Yes",null,"No",null,"Intentional actions (non-fulfillment or defective fulfillment of personal duties) aimed to cause disruption or damage of IT Assets"]
[5,null,"Vandalism",{"$nulls":13},"Yes",null,"No",null,"Act of physically damage of IT Assets"]
[6,null,"Theft (devices, storage media and documents)",null,null,"Stable (?)",null,"\"As was the case with our previous reports, people are people; so, why should it be that we expect perfection when it comes to the physical security of their corporate devices? Also (predictably), folks still steal things\" (page 45)","Verizon data breach investigation report 2015",{"$nulls":7},"Yes",null,"No",null,"Stealing of information or IT Assets. Robbery"]
[7,null,null,"Theft of mobile devices (smartphones/ tablets)",{"$nulls":12},"Difference","Devices","No",null,"Taking of another person's property in the form of mobile devices for example smartphones, tablets."]
[8,null,null,"Theft of fixed hardware ",null,"Decreasing (?)",null,"Graph on page 79 showing decrease in number of incidents of data breach due to Theft or loss of computer or drive. From 27 to 21 %","Symantec internet security threat report 20 ",{"$nulls":7},"Difference","Cables","No",null,"Taking of another person's hardware property (except mobile devices), which often contain business-sensitive data."]
[9,null,null,"Theft of documents",{"$nulls":12},"Yes",null,"No",null,"Stealing documents of private/company archives, often for the purpose of re-sale or to achieve personal benefits."]
[10,null,null,"Theft of backups",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No",null,"Stealing media device, on which copies of essential information are kept."]
[11,null,"Information leakage/sharing",{"$nulls":9},13,"Information Leakage (ENISA Threat Landscape 2013)",12,"Information leakage (ENISA Threat Landscape 2014)","Yes",null,"No",null,"Sharing information with unauthorised entities. Loss of information confidentiality due to intentional human actions."]
[12,null,"Unauthorized physical access / Unauthorised entry to premises",{"$nulls":13},"Yes",null,"No",null,"Unapproved access to facility."]
[13,null,"Coercion, extortion or corruption",{"$nulls":13},"Yes",null,"No",null,"Actions caused by coercion, extortion or corruption"]
[14,null,"Damage from the warfare",{"$nulls":13},"No",null,"No",null,"Threats of direct impact of warfare activities"]
[15,null,"Terrorists attack",{"$nulls":13},"Yes","Bomb attacks/threats","No",null,"Threats of bombing or other actions that counts as \"terrorists attacks\""]
[16,"Unintentional damage / loss of information or IT assets",{"$nulls":14},"Yes",null,"Yes",null,"Threats of unintentional human actions or errors"]
[17,null,"Information leakage/sharing due to human error"," ",null,"decreasing",null,"Page 11 showing that 25%  all data breaches incidents was cause by accident loss.  In 2013, accidental loss accounted for 27% of the  breaches. ","Gemalto Breach Level Index 2014"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing (in UK)",null,"75% of large organisations and 31% of small businesses suffered staff related security breaches in the last year.Large: Up from 58% a year ago.\nSmall:  Up from 22% a year ago. Page 4","HM Government 2015 Information Security Breaches Survey"]
[{"$f":"A18+1","v":18},{"$nulls":4},"Increasing",null,"number 3 (with score 17.1%) in top 10, Fig.39, page 49","Verizon data breach investigation report 2015"]
[19,null," ","Accidental leaks/sharing of data by employees",null,"Decreasing",null,"Graph on page 79 showing decrease in number of incidents of data breach due to accidentally made data public","Symantec internet security threat report 20 ",{"$nulls":7},"No",null,"No",null,"Unintentional distribution of private or sensitive data to an unauthorized entity by staff member."]
[null,null,null,"Leaks of data via mobile applications",null,"Increasing (?)",null,"“The biggest problem identified in this year’s research is the negligent or careless employee with multiple mobile devices using commercial cloud apps and working outside the office”","Ponemon: 2015 State of the Endpoint Report: User-Centric Risk","W40"]
[{"$f":"A21+1","v":20},{"$nulls":4},"Increasing",null,"\"Traditional threats increased 6 percentage points between 2013\nand 2014, while threats that steal information from the device or track users declined in 2014.\" page 22","Symantec internet security threat report 20 ","W39",{"$nulls":6},"No",null,"No",null,"Threat of leakage private information using applications for mobile devices."]
[21,null,null,"Leaks of data via Web applications","Insecure interfaces (APIs)","decreasing",null,"Unintentional \"publishing errors\" as fiig. 26 on page 33","Verizon data breach investigation report 2015",{"$nulls":5},3,"Web application attacks /Injection attacks (ENISA Threat Landscape 2014)","No",null,"No",null,"Threat of leakage important information using web applications."]
[22,null,null,"Leaks of information transferred by network",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No",null,"Threat of leakage important information by unsecure network traffic."]
[23,null,"Erroneous use or administration of devices and systems",null," systems and technology failures --> Compatibility\n systems and technology failures --> Configuration management  \nUnpatched software (delayed patching processes)",{"$nulls":11},"Yes",null,"Yes",null,"Information leakage / sharing / damage caused by users IT Assets misuse (lack of awareness of application features) or wrong / improperly IT Assets configuration or management"]
[24,null,null,"Loss of information due to  maintenance errs / operators errors","Technological obsolescence",{"$nulls":11},"No",null,"No",null,"Threat of loss of information by incorrectly performed conservation of devices or systems"]
[25,null,null,"Loss of information due to  configuration/ installation error","Inadequate management in complex solution (scale)\n Routing infrastructure ",{"$nulls":11},"No",null,"No",null,"Threat of loss of information by errors in installation or system configuration"]
[26,null,null,"Increasing recover time",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No",null,"Threat of loss of availability of information by errors in use od backup media and increasing information recovery time"]
[27,null,null,"Loss of information due to  user errors"]
[28,null,"Using information from an unreliable source"," ",{"$nulls":12},"Yes",null,"Yes",null,"Bad decision based on unreliable sources of information or unchecked information."]
[29,null,"Unintentional change of data in an information system",{"$nulls":13},"Yes",null,"Yes",null,"Loss of information integrity due to human error (information system user mistake)"]
[30,null,"Inadequate design and planning or improperly adaptation",null," systems and technology failures --> Process design or execution:\n- Process flow \n- Process documentation \n- Roles and responsibilities \n- Notifications and alerts \n- Information flow \n- Escalation of issues \n- Service level agreements \n- Task hand-off \n- Process controls \n- Status monitoring \n- Metrics \n- Periodic review \n- Process ownership \n- Supporting processes \n- Staffing \n- Funding \n- Training and development \n- Procurement\n systems and technology failures --> Business issues\n systems and technology failures:\n- Market conditions \n-  Economic conditions \nDesign errors\nInadequate specifications\nInadequate usability \nOutdated procedures\nOutdated risk assessments\nOutdates Policies",{"$nulls":11},"Difference","Inadequate designs and planning or lack of adaptions","Yes",null,"Threats caused by improperly IT Assets or business processes design (inadequate specifications of IT products, inadequate usability, insecure interfaces, policy/procedure flows, design errors)"]
[31,null,"Damage caused by a third party ",{"$nulls":13},"Yes",null,"Yes",null,"Threats of damage of IT Assets caused by third party "]
[32,null,null,"Security failure by third party"," systems and technology failures --> Security settings",{"$nulls":11},"No",null,"No",null,"Threats of damage of IT Assets caused by breach security regulation by third party"]
[33,null,"Damages resulting from penetration testing",null," systems and technology failures --> Testing",{"$nulls":11},"Yes",null,"No",null,"Threats to information systems caused by improperly / inprepare conducting of IT penetration testing"]
[34,null,"Loss of information in the cloud",{"$nulls":13},"Difference","Loss of information","Yes",null,"Threats of loosing information or data stored in the cloud"]
[35,null,"Loss of (integrity of) sensitive information",{"$nulls":13},"Yes",null,"Yes",null,"Threats of loosing information or data (or changing) information classified as sensitive"]
[36,null,null,"Loss of integrity of certificates",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No",null,"Threat of lossing integrity of certificates used for authorisation services"]
[37,null,"Loss of devices, storage media and documents",{"$nulls":4},"IBM X-Force 2Q2015 considers this as 7th of Top 8 with score 35%",{"$nulls":8},"Difference","Loss","Difference","Loss or destruction of devices, storage media and documents","Threats of the lack of availability (loosing) of IT Assets and documents"]
[38,null,null,"Loss of devices/ mobile devices",{"$nulls":12},"Yes","Devices","No",null,"Threat of loosing mobile devices."]
[39,null,null,"Loss of storage media ",{"$nulls":12},"Yes",null,"No",null,"Threat of loosing data-storage medium."]
[40,null,null,"Loss of documentation of IT Infrastructure",{"$nulls":12},"Yes","Documents","No",null,"Threat of loosing important documentation."]
[41,null,"Destruction of records",{"$nulls":13},"Yes","Destruction of records, devices or storage media","Difference","Loss or destruction of devices, storage media and documents","Threats of the lack of availability (destruction) of data and records (information) stored in devices and storage media"]
[42,null,null,"Infection of removable media",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No",null,"Threat of loss of important data due to infection of removable media."]
[43,null,null,"Abuse of storage ",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No",null,"Threat of loss of records by improperly/unauthorised use of storage devices"]
[44,"Disaster (natural, environmental)",{"$nulls":14},"Yes",null,"Yes",null,"Threats of damage of information assets caused by natural or environmental elements"]
[45,null,"Disaster (natural earthquakes, floods, landslides, tsunamis, heavy rains, heavy snowfalls, heavy winds)",{"$nulls":13},"Difference","Natural disasters --> Earthquake, Floods etc.","Difference","Natural disasters --> Earthquake, Floods etc.","Large scale and large effects natural disasters"]
[46,null,"Fire",{"$nulls":13},"Difference","Environmental disasters --> Fires","Difference","Environmental disasters --> Fires","Threat of fire "]
[47,null,"Pollution, dust, corrosion",{"$nulls":13},"Difference","Environmental disasters --> Pollutions, Dust, Corrosions","Difference","Environmental disasters --> Pollutions, Dust, Corrosions","Threat of disruption of work of IT systems (hardware) dur to pollution, dust or corrosion (arising from the air)"]
[48,null,"Thunder stroke",{"$nulls":13},"Difference","Natural disasters --> Lightning strike","Difference","Natural disasters --> Lightning strike","Threat of damage of IT hardware caused by the thunder strike (the electrical overvoltage)"]
[49,null,"Water",{"$nulls":13},"No",null,"No",null,"Threat of damage of IT hardware caused by the water"]
[50,null,"Explosion",{"$nulls":13},"Difference","Environmental disasters --> Explosions","Difference","Environmental disasters --> Explosions"]
[51,null,"Dangerous radiation leak",{"$nulls":13},"Difference","Environmental disasters --> Dangerous radiation leaks","Difference","Environmental disasters --> Dangerous radiation leaks"]
[52,null,"Unfavorable climatic conditions",{"$nulls":13},"Difference","Environmental disasters --> Unfavorable climatic conditions","Difference","Environmental disasters --> Unfavorable climatic conditions","Threat of disruption of work of IT systems due to climatic conditions that have the negative effect on hardware"]
[53,null,null,"Lost of data or accessibility of IT infrastructure in result of extensive humidity",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No"]
[54,null,null,"Lost of data or accessibility of IT infrastructure in result of extensive temperature",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No"]
[55,null,"Major events in the environment",{"$nulls":13},"Difference","Environmental disasters --> Major events in the environment","Difference","Environmental disasters --> Major events in the environment"]
[56,null,"Threats from space / Electromagnetic storm",{"$nulls":13},"Difference","Natural disasters --> Electromagnetic storm","Difference","Natural disasters --> Electromagnetic storm","Threats of the negative impact of solar radiation (harmful rays) to a satellites and radio wave communication systems - Electromagnetic storm"]
[57,null,"Wildlife"]
[58,"Failures/ Malfunction",{"$nulls":14},"Yes",null,"Yes"]
[59,null,"Failure of devices or systems",null,"- False sensor data\n- Privacy and ubiquitous sensors\n- Sensors and RFID\n- System maintainability and verifiability\n systems and technology failures --> Hardware\n systems and technology failures --> Systems:\n- Design \n- Specifications \n- Integration \n- Complexity \nCoding practices",{"$nulls":11},"Yes",null,"Yes",null,"Threat of failure of IT hardware and/or software assets or its parts"]
[60,null,null,"Failure of defective data media",{"$nulls":12},"Difference","Data centers","Difference","Data centers"]
[61,null,null,"Hardware failure",{"$nulls":12},"Difference","Servers","Difference","Servers"]
[62,null,null,"Failure of applications and services","systems and technology failures --> Software",{"$nulls":11},"No",null,"No"]
[63,null,null,"Failure of parts of devices (connectors, plug in)",{"$nulls":12},"Difference","Network devices","Difference","Network devices"]
[64,null,"Failure or disruption of communication links (communication networks)",null,"- Next generation networks\n- IPV6 and direct reachability of hos",{"$nulls":11},"Yes",null,"Yes",null,"Threat of failure or malfunction of communications links "]
[65,null,null,"Failure of cable networks",{"$nulls":12},"Difference","Cable breaks","Difference","Cable breaks"]
[66,null,null,"Failure of wireless networks",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No"]
[{"$f":"A69+1","v":67},null,null,"Failure of mobile networks",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No"]
[68,{"$nulls":15},"Additional","Cable cuts","Additional","Cable cuts"]
[69,null,"Failure or disruption of main supply",null,"  systems and technology failures --> Supplier failure ",{"$nulls":11},"Yes",null,"Yes",null,"Threat of failure or disruption of supply required for information systems"]
[70,null,null,"Failure or disruption of the power supply",{"$nulls":12},"Yes",null,"Yes"]
[71,null,null,"Failure of cooling infrastructure"]
[72,null,"Failure or disruption of service providers (supply chain)",null," systems and technology failures:\n- Emergency services\n- Service dependencies",{"$nulls":11},"Yes",null,"Yes",null,"Threat of failure or disruption of thire party services required for proper operation of information systems"]
[73,null,"Malfunction of equipment (devices or systems)",null," systems and technology failures --> Change control ",{"$nulls":11},"Difference","Malfunctions of parts of devices","Difference","Malfunctions of parts of devices","Threat of malfunction of IT hardware and/or software assets or its parts"]
[74,"Outages",null,null,"actions of people --> Outages\nactions of people:\n- Inaction \n- Skills \n- Knowledge \n- Guidance ",{"$nulls":11},"Yes"]
[75,null,"Loss of resources",null," systems and technology failures:\n- Capacity \n- Performance\n systems and technology failures:\n- Fuel \n- Transportation\n-  Utilities",{"$nulls":11},"Difference","Lack of resources","Difference","Lack of resources/electricity","Unavailability of resources (supply) required for proper operation of information system"]
[76,null,null,"Loss of electricity",{"$nulls":12},"Difference","Lack of physical resources --> Power","Difference","Lack of physical resources --> Power"]
[77,null,null,"Cooling outages"]
[78,null,"Absence of personnel",{"$nulls":13},"Yes",null,"Yes",null,"Unavailability of key personnel and their competences"]
[79,null,"Strike",{"$nulls":13},"Yes",null,"Yes",null,"Unavailability of staff due strike (large scale absence of personnel)"]
[80,null,"Loss of support services",{"$nulls":13},"Yes",null,"Yes",null,"Unavailability of support services required for proper operation of information system"]
[81,null,"Internet outage",{"$nulls":13},"No",null,"Yes",null,"Unavailability of the Internet connection"]
[82,null,"Network outage",{"$nulls":13},"Yes","Network outages","Yes",null,"Unavailability of communication links"]
[83,null,null,"Outage of cable networks",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No"]
[84,null,null,"Outage of wireless networks",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No"]
[85,null,null,"Outages of mobile networks",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No"]
[86,"Eavesdropping/ Interception/ Hijacking",{"$nulls":14},"Yes",null,"Yes",null,"Threats that relay on alters of communication between two parties"]
[87,null,"War driving",{"$nulls":13},"No",null,"Yes",null,"Threat of locating and possible exploite connection to the wireless network"]
[88,null,"Intercepting compromising emissions",{"$nulls":13},"Yes",null,"Yes",null,"Threat of disclosure transmitted information using interception and analysis of compromising emission"]
[89,null,"Interception of information",null,null,"Increasing",null,"Number 3 in top 9 (with score 18%), fig. 25 on page 32","Verizon data breach investigation report 2015",{"$nulls":5},14,"Cyber espionage (ENISA Threat Landscape 2014)","Yes",null,"Yes",null,"Threat of interception of information improperly secured in transmission or improperly actions of staff"]
[90,null,null,"Corporate Espionage",{"$nulls":12},"Yes","Espionage","Yes","Espionage"]
[91,null,null,"Nation state espionage",null,"Increasing",null,"\"state-sponsored attackers, who carried out 56 of the breaches, or 4%, in 2014. (..) these sources increased from less than 1% in 2013. This is likely to be a continuing trend, as countries launch hacks against each other for political, economic, retaliatory or other reasons\" page 12","Gemalto Breach Level Index 2014"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing",null,"\"More state-sponsored cyberespionage came to light in 2014.\" page 61","Symantec internet security threat report 20 ","W39"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing",null,"\"One  of  the  more  popular  events  of  2014  was  a  report  by  FireEye  concerning  a  group  called  APT28.  According  to  this report, this group may have been supported by the Russian government  and  was  aiming  at providing  information  valuable to that government\" page 18","CERT Polska report 2014"]
[{"$f":"A94+1","v":92},null,null,"Information leakage due to unsecured Wi-Fi, rogue access points",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No"]
[93,null,"Interfering radiation",{"$nulls":13},"Yes",null,"Yes",null,"Threat of failure of IT hardware or transmission connection due to electromagnetic induction or electromagnetic radiation emitted from an another source"]
[94,null,"Replay of messages",{"$nulls":13},"Yes",null,"Yes",null,"Threat in which valid data transmission is maliciously or fraudulently repeated or delayed"]
[95,null,"Network Reconnaissance, Network traffic manipulation and Information gathering",{"$nulls":13},"No",null,"Yes",null,"Threat of identifying information about network to find security weaknesses"]
[96,null,"Man in the middle/ Session hijacking ",{"$nulls":13},"Yes",null,"Yes",null,"Threats that relay on alters of communication between two parties"]
[97,"Nefarious Activity/ Abuse",null,null,null,"Increasing",null,"Number 5 in top 10 (with score 8,3%), fig. 35, page 41","Verizon data breach investigation report 2015",{"$nulls":7},"Yes",null,"Yes"]
[98,null,"Identity theft (Identity Fraud/ Account) ",null," User interface ","increasing (dramatically)",null,"\"The most common type of attack was identity theft. \"\n\"these attacks, which accounted for more than half of the total (54%). That’s up dramatically from just 20% in 2013\" page 12","Gemalto Breach Level Index 2014",null,13,"Identity Theft (ENISA Threat Landscape Published 2012)",7,"Identity Theft/Fraud (ENISA Threat Landscape 2013)",13,"Identity theft/fraud (ENISA Threat Landscape 2014)","Yes",null,"Yes","Identity fraud","Threat of identity theft action"]
[99,null,null,"Credentials stealing trojans","inadequate AAA mechanisms ","Increasing",null,"\"Over 95% of these incidents involve harvesting credentials from customer devices, then logging into web applications with them\" page 42","Verizon data breach investigation report 2015",{"$nulls":7},"No",null,"No"]
[100,null,"Receive of unsolicited E-mail ",{"$nulls":13},"Yes",null,"Difference","Unsolicited & infected e-mail","Threat of receive of unsolicited E-mail that affect for information security and efficienty of work"]
[101,null,null,"SPAM",null,"Decrease (but number of SPAM urls increased dramatically)",null,"Graph on page 38 shows decreasing trend, however:\n\"New spam URLs and their domains leaped by 380% in Q2. Most of this increase is due to hundreds of thousands of autogenerated or sequential domains dedicated to spam campaigns we discovered after we improved our collection of Realtime Blackhole Lists.\" page 38","McAfee Labs Threats Report August 2015"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Stable",null,"\"Yet the volume of worldwide spam has remained relatively consistent\"","Cisco 2015 Midyear Security Report","W41"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing (partial)",null,"\"Spam volume is increasing in the United States, China, and the Russian Federation, but remained relatively stable in other regions in the first five months of 2015.\" page 3","Cisco 2015 Midyear Security Report","W41"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing (snowshoe spam)",null,"\"Snowshoe spam, which involves sending low volumes of spam from a large set of IP addresses to avoid detection, is an emerging threat\"(..)\n\"Worldwide spam volumes are on the rise, indicating that\nspam is still a lucrative vector for online criminals\" on pages 18 and 19","Cisco Annual Security Report 2015","W41"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Decreasing",null,"Graph on page 12 showing \"Overall Email Spam Rate\". Drop from 66 to 60%","Symantec internet security threat report 20 ","W39"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Stable",null,"Recent IBM X-Force Advanced Research analysis indicates that the threat for spam is growing. \nHowever, the graph on page 6 of 2Q2015 shows stable/decreasing.\nIn the same report (page 9) it says that \"although the overall spam volume has not changed over the last two years..\".","IBM X-Force 2Q2015",null,10,"Spam (ENISA Threat Landscape Published 2012)",10,"Spam (ENISA Threat Landscape 2013)",6,"Spam (ENISA Threat Landscape 2014)","No",null,"No"]
[{"$f":"A106+1","v":102},null,null,"Unsolicited infected e-mails",null,"Increasing",null,"The percentage of spam transporting malicious attachments increases","IBM X-Force 2Q2015"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing",null,"\"The  most  popular  method  of  infection  of  users  in  Polish networks are malicious email attachments\" page 6","CERT Polska report 2014",{"$nulls":7},"No",null,"No"]
[{"$f":"A112+1","v":103},null,"Denial of service",{"$nulls":7},6,"Denial of Service  (ENISA Threat Landscape Published 2012)",8,"Denial of service (ENISA Threat Landscape 2013)",5,"Denial of service (ENISA Threat Landscape 2014)","Difference","Denial of service attacks (DoS/DDoS)","Yes",null,"Threat of Deny of service type attacks at information systems/services"]
[104,null,null,"Distributed Denial of network service (DDoS) (network layer attack i.e. Protocol exploitation / Malformed packets / Flooding / Spoofing)",null,"Increasing",null,"Increase in bandwidth volume of 253 Gbps\n\nIncrease in attack duration 20% over five days.\n\n55% are UDP flood, second SYNC.\n\nSingle vector (56%) vs. multiple vector attacks.","IMPERVA Global DDoS Threat Landscape Q2 2015",{"$nulls":7},"Yes",null,"No"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing",null,"\"6.04% increase in infrastructure layer (Layer 3 & 4) DDoS attack\" page 6","Akamai’s state of the internet security Q2 2015 report"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing",null,"\"SYN DDoS and TCP DDoS and were the most common scenarios of DDoS attacks.\"","Kaspersky DDoS Intelligence Report Q2 2015"]
[{"$f":"A115+1","v":105},null,null,"Distributed Denial of application service (DDoS) (application layer attack i.e. Ping of Death / XDoS / WinNuke / HTTP Floods)"," ","Increasing",null,"\"17.65% increase in application layer (Layer 7) DDoS attacks\" page 6","Akamai’s state of the internet security Q2 2015 report"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing (?)",null,"179 K RPS as largest attack (within customers. Need to check other reports).\n\n14% of application level attacks from China.","IMPERVA Global DDoS Threat Landscape Q2 2015"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Decreasing ",null,"\"HTTP DDoS was displaced to the third position\"\nAlso look at https://securelist.com/files/2015/08/ddos_report_q2_en_5.png graph showing large decrease form 30,2 % to 13,8%","Kaspersky DDoS Intelligence Report Q2 2015"]
[{"$f":"A118+1","v":106},null,null,"Distributed DoS (DDoS) to both network and application services (amplification/reflection methods i.e. NTP/ DNS /…/ BitTorrent)",null,"Increasing",null,"\"SSDP amplification – a relatively recent method but gaining in popularity;\"","Kaspersky DDoS Intelligence Report Q2 2015"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing",null,"\"nd quarter of 2015 set a record for the number of distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks recorded on Akamai’s Prolexic Routed network — more than double what was reported in q2 2014\" page 5","Akamai’s state of the internet security Q2 2015 report"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing",null,"\"Distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks got worse again this year with our reporting partners logging double the number of incidents from last year\" page 43","Verizon data breach investigation report 2015",{"$nulls":7},"Difference","Denial of service attacks (DoS/DDoS) --> CDoS","Difference","Application --> XDoS"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Stable",null,"\"Cybercriminals  still  use  the misconfigured  network  services like DNS or NTP to launch DDoS attacks\" page 5","CERT Polska report 2014"]
[{"$f":"A121+1","v":107},null,"Malicious code/ software/ activity",null,"Online games ","Increasing",null,"IBM X-Force 2Q2015 considers this as 4th of Top 8",null,null,2,"Worms/Trojans  (ENISA Threat Landscape Published 2012)",2,"Worms/Trojans (ENISA Threat Landscape 2013)",1,"Malicious code: Worms/Trojans (ENISA Threat Landscape 2014)","No",null,"Yes",null,"Threat of malicious code or software execution"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Decreasing",null,"\"Meanwhile, venerable old keylogger malware has been in decline, having only been observed in about 5% of the breaches recorded in this year’s sample\" page 5","Verizon data breach investigation report 2015"]
[null,null,null,"Abuse of resources",null,null,null,"Malware using Bitcoin miners which are abusing CPU/memory resources.","https://blog.fortinet.com/2016/06/14/obfuscated-bitcoin-miner-propagates-through-ftp-using-password-dictionary\n\nhttps://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/new-malware-mines-bitcoin/"]
[{"$f":"A125+1","v":108},null,null,"Search Engine Poisoning",{"$nulls":6},15,"Search Engine Poisoning (ENISA Threat Landscape Published 2012)",{"$nulls":4},"Difference","DNS manipulations DNS spoofing DNS poisoning","Difference","Manipulation of information --> DNS manipulation --> DNS\npoisoning"]
[109,null,null,"Exploitation of fake trust of social media",null,"Decreasing (number of URLs in social media)",null,"Graph on page 12 showing \"Average Number of Phishing URLs\non Social Media\" in 2013 and 2014","Symantec internet security threat report 20 ","W39",{"$nulls":6},"No",null,"No"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing",null," First, the increased use of social media has provided a quintessential goldmine of  personal data for perpetrators","FBI 2014 Internet Crime Report","W40"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing (fake trust)",null,"\"This means that more and more \nusers are clicking links embedded in emails,\"","TrendMicro  Report: A Rising Tide: New Hacks Threaten Public Technologies","W40"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing (fake trust)",null,"Graph on page 12 shows great increase in number of Manually Shared\nSocial Media Scams","Symantec internet security threat report 20 ","W39"]
[{"$f":"A129+1","v":110},null,null,"Worms/ Trojans",null,"Increasing",null,"IBM X-Force 1Q2015 foresees malware as \"one of the most common attack types\". Page 9","IBM x-Force 2Q2015 and IBM x-Force 1Q2015"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing",null,"\"In  2014,  we  observed  the rise  of  Tinba,  VMZeuS,  Kronos  and  IFSB  families\" page 5","CERT Polska report 2014",{"$nulls":7},"Difference","Malware and viruses:\n- Trojans\n- Worms","Difference","Badware:\n- Trojans\n- Worms"]
[{"$f":"A133+1","v":111},null,null,"Rootkits",{"$nulls":12},"Difference","Malware and viruses--> Rootkits","Difference","Badware --> Rootkit"]
[112,null,null,"Mobile malware",null,"Increasing",null,"\"The total number of mobile malware samples grew 17% in Q2\" and graphs on page 31","McAfee Labs Threats Report August 2015"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing",null,"\" In fact, 75 percent of respondents (an increase from 68 percent in last year’s study) believe their mobile endpoints have been the target of malware over the past 12 months.\"","Ponemon: 2015 State of the Endpoint Report: User-Centric Risk","W40"]
[{"$f":"A136+1","v":113},{"$nulls":4},"Increasing",null,"Various info-graphics on page 10 showing i.e. Increase of cumulative android malware from 231 to 277 malware families.","Symantec internet security threat report 20 ","W39"]
[114,{"$nulls":4},"Decreasing",null,"Figure 14 on page 18 shows drop from over 60k infections in September 2014 to below 10k in January of 2015","Verizon data breach investigation report 2015",{"$nulls":7},"No",null,"No"]
[{"$f":"A139+1","v":115},null,null,"Infected trusted mobile apps",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No"]
[116,null,null,"Elevation of privileges",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No"]
[117,null,null,"Web application attacks / injection attacks (Code injection: SQL, XSS)",null,"Increasing",null,"Numbers 3 (19%) and 7 (6,3%) in top 10, figure 35, page 41","Verizon data breach investigation report 2015"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing",null,"\"Web threats got bigger and much more aggressive in 2014 (..) The web presented an incredibly threatening landscape in 2014, a trend set to continue in 2015\" on page 32","Symantec internet security threat report 20 ","W39"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing",null,"\"Including events based on Shellshock nearly doubled the number of attack events we analyzed this quarter,\" page 26","Akamai’s state of the internet security Q2 2015 report"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Decreasing (Local File Inclusion only)",null,"\"In contrast, lfi attacks dropped significantly this quarter. In the last week of q1, we saw nearly 75 million lfi alerts due to an attack on a pair of large retail customers, while in all of q2 we only saw 63 million alerts.\"","Akamai’s state of the internet security Q2 2015 report"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing",null,"\"in  all  of  these  attacks:  ATS  (Automatic  Transfer Script) used to host the webinjects and provide an easy platform  for  attackers  to  manage  the  money  transfers.\" page 13","CERT Polska report 2014",null,3,"Code Injection (ENISA Threat Landscape Published 2012)",3,"Code Injection (ENISA Threat Landscape 2013)",null,null,"Difference","Exploitation of software bugs --> Validation --> Input--> SQL injections","No"]
[{"$f":"A142+1","v":118},null,null,"Spyware or deceptive adware",null,"Increasing",null,"\"Adware is an increasingly popular option for app publishers, growing from\nalmost 300,000 apps in 2013 to more than 410,000 in the first three quarters of 2014 alone\" page 19","Verizon data breach investigation report 2015",{"$nulls":7},"Difference","Malware and viruses:\n- Spyware\nPotentially unwanted software:\n- Adware","Difference","Badware:\n- Spyware\n- Adware"]
[119,null,null,"Viruses"]
[120,null,null,"Rogue security software/  Rogueware/ Scareware",{"$nulls":6},9,"Rogueware/Scareware (ENISA Threat Landscape Published 2012)",11,"Rogueware/ Ransomware/ Scareware (ENISA Threat Landscape 2013)",15,"Ransomware/Rogueware/Scareware (ENISA Threat Landscape 2014)","Difference","Malware and viruses:\n- Scareware;\n- Roguware","Difference","Badware:\n- Scareware\n- Rogueware"]
[{"$f":"A149+1","v":121},{"$nulls":4},"Increasing",null,"\"crypto-ransomware continues  to grow, setting another monthly high for the year.\" on page 3","Symantec intelligence report August 2015","W39"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing",null,"\"Ransomware attacks grew 113 percent in 2014, driven by more than\na 4,000 percent increase in crypto-ransomware attacks\" page 7","Symantec internet security threat report 20 ","W39"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Decreasing (slowly)",null,"\"Ransomware attacks grew 113 percent in 2014, driven by more than\na 4,000 percent increase in crypto-ransomware attacks\" page 7","TrendMicro  Report: A Rising Tide: New Hacks Threaten Public Technologies"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing",null,"“After many years of evolution, ransomware has emerged as one of the most troublesome malware categories of our time.” at first paragraph"," Symantec Official Blog: The dawn of ransomwear: How ransomware could move to wearable devices","W40"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing",null,"\"Ransomware continues to grow very rapidly—with the number of new ransomware samples rising 58% in Q2\" page 35","McAfee Labs Threats Report August 2015"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing",null,"\" Infected  machines  can  be  utilized to perform new attacks (..) or to provide direct financial benefit to the attacker (such  is  the  case  with  ransomware,  data  extraction,  social engineering attacks on online banking users).(..). Both of these malware attack scenarios are serious threats\" page 11","CERT Polska report 2014",{"$nulls":7},"No",null,"No"]
[{"$f":"A150+1","v":122},null,null,"Exploits/Exploit Kits",null,"Increasing",null,"\"We saw a 67% growth in the overall exploit-kit-related detection numbers \nquarter over quarter.\" on page 26","TrendMicro  Report: A Rising Tide: New Hacks Threaten Public Technologies"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing (Office macros)",null,"\"Adversaries are once again using Microsoft Office macros to deliver malware. It’s an old tactic that fell out of favor, but it’s being taken up again as malicious actors seek new ways to thwart security protections.\" page 3","Cisco 2015 Midyear Security Report","W41"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing (Flash)",null,"\"Exploits of Adobe Flash vulnerabilities are increasing. They are regularly integrated into widely used exploit kits such as Angler and Nuclear\" page 3","Cisco 2015 Midyear Security Report","W41"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Decreasing (Java only)",null,"\"Continuing a trend covered in the Cisco 2015 Annual Security Report, exploits involving Java have been on the decline in the first half of 2015\". page 3","Cisco 2015 Midyear Security Report","W41"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Stable (?)",null,"Graph on page 10 showing that exploit kits are notable malware (no numbers were presented).","McAfee Labs Threats Report August 2015",null,4,"Exploit Kits (ENISA Threat Landscape Published 2012)",4,"Exploit Kits (ENISA Threat Landscape 2013)",8,"Exploit kits (ENISA Threat Landscape 2014)","No",null,"No"]
[{"$f":"A156+1","v":123},null,"Social Engineering",null,null,"Increasing",null,"IBM X-Force 2Q2015 considers this as 2nd of Top 8"]
[124,null,null,"Phishing attacks",null,null,null,"CozyDukes is using social engineering to get initial foothold in targeted organizations. They include high profile legitimate sites that host a ZIP archive.","Kaspersky DDoS Intelligence Report Q2 2015",null,7,"Phishing (ENISA Threat Landscape Published 2012)",9,"Phishing (ENISA Threat Landscape 2013)",7,"Phishing (ENISA Threat Landscape 2014)","Yes",null,"No"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Same level",null,"Graph on page 7 shows that within last year there were months where phishing rate was 1:647 and months with rate 1:2666, but generally it is at about 1:2000 rate.","Symantec intelligence report August 2015"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing",null,"\"has made phishing a favorite tactic of state-sponsored threat actors and criminal organizations, all with the intent to gain an initial foothold into a network.\" page 12","Verizon data breach investigation report 2015"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing",null,"\"Phishing has also been on the rise since 2011, although the rate of growth has slowed in the last year\" page 5","Verizon data breach investigation report 2015"]
[{"$f":"A162+1","v":125},null,null,"Spear phishing attacks",null,"Increasing",null,"\"In 2014, attackers continued to breach networks with highly targeted spear-phishing attacks, which increased eight percent overall.\" page 6","Symantec internet security threat report 20 ","W39"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Decreasing (Spear phishing emails only)",null,"Graph on page 13 showing  Spear Phishing Emails per Day from 83 to 73","Symantec internet security threat report 20 ","W39"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing",null,"\"The biggest increase is in zero day attacks, APTs and spear phishing.\"","Ponemon: 2015 State of the Endpoint Report: User-Centric Risk","W40"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing",null,"APT CozyDuke from Duke family, including anti-detection techniques and encryption. It is remarkable that this malware users social engineering techniques with some of the spear-fishing containing links to hacked websites.\nNaikon APT: this apt targets south-east Asia. It is based on a spear-phishing mails.","Kaspersky threat evolution q2 216"]
[{"$f":"A166+1","v":126},null,"Abuse of Information Leakage",{"$nulls":7},14,"Abuse of Information Leakage (ENISA Threat Landscape Published 2012)",{"$nulls":4},"Yes",null,"Yes",null,"? What is difference between others Physical attack (deliberate/ intentional)?"]
[127,null,null,"Leakage affecting mobile privacy and mobile applications",null,"decreasing",null,"\"data breaches involving mobile devices should not be in any top-whatever list\" page 20","Verizon data breach investigation report 2015",{"$nulls":7},"No",null,"No"]
[128,null,null,"Leakage affecting web privacy and web applications",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No"]
[129,null,null,"Leakage affecting network traffic",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No"]
[130,null,null,"Leakage affecting cloud computing",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No"]
[131,null,"Generation and use of rogue certificates",{"$nulls":13},"Yes",null,"Yes",null,"Threat of use of rogue certificates"]
[132,null,null,"Loss of (integrity of) sensitive information",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No"]
[133,null,null,"Man in the middle/ Session hijacking ",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No"]
[134,null,null,"Social Engineering / signed malware (e.g. install fake trust OS updates – signed malware)",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No"]
[135,null,null,"Fake SSL certificates"]
[136,null,"Manipulation of hardware and software",null,null,"Increasing",null,"IBM X-Force 2Q2015 considers this as 3rd of Top 8",{"$nulls":8},"Yes",null,"Yes",null,"Threat of unauthorized manipulation of hardware and software"]
[137,null,null,"Anonymous proxies",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No"]
[138,null,null,"Abuse of computing power of cloud to launch attacks (cybercrime as a service)",null,null,null,"IBM X-Force 2Q2015 considers this as 8th of Top 8",{"$nulls":8},"No",null,"No"]
[null,null,null,"Abuse of vulnerabilities, 0-day vulnerabilities",null,"Increasing",null,"\"The biggest increase is in zero day attacks, APTs and spear phishing.\"","Ponemon: 2015 State of the Endpoint Report: User-Centric Risk","W40"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Decreasing (Java only)",null,"\" We sa a significiant decrese in the exploitation of Java vulnerabilities in 2014, making up just 14.5 percent of exploits encountered by trustwave compared to 78 percent the previous year.\"","2015 Trustwave Global Security Report","W41"]
[{"$f":"A182+1","v":139},{"$nulls":4},"Increasing",null,"\"August was a big month for zero-day vulnerabilities, in which a total of 11 were reported.  This is by far the largest number disclosed in a given month to-date.\" page 3","Symantec intelligence report August 2015","W39",{"$nulls":6},"No",null,"No"]
[140,null,null,"Access of web sites through chains of HTTP Proxies (Obfuscation)",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No"]
[141,null,null,"Access to device software",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No"]
[142,null,null,"Alternation of software",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No",null,"unauthorized modifications to code or data, attacking its integrity"]
[143,null,null,"Rogue hardware"]
[144,null,"Manipulation of information",{"$nulls":13},"Yes",null,"Yes",null,"Threat of intentional data manipulation to mislead information systems or somebody or to cover other nefarious activities (loss of integrity of information) "]
[145,null,null,"Repudiation of actions",{"$nulls":12},"Difference","Eavesdropping/Interception/Hijacking --> Repudiation of actions","Difference","Eavesdropping/Interception/Hijacking --> Repudiation of actions"]
[146,null,null,"Address Space hijacking (IP prefixes)\nRouting table manipulation"]
[147,null,null,"DNS poisoning / DNS spoofing / DNS Manipulations ",null,"Increasing",null,"\"We saw an increase in the number of DNS changer detections, particularly in Brazil.\"","TrendMicro  Report: A Rising Tide: New Hacks Threaten Public Technologies","W40"]
[148,null,null,"Falsification of record",{"$nulls":12},"Yes",null,"Difference","Nefarious Activity/Abuse --> Falsification of records"]
[149,null,null,"AS hijacking"]
[150,null,null,"AS manipulation"]
[151,null,null,"Falsification of configurations"]
[152,null,"Misuse of audit tools",{"$nulls":13},"No",null,"Yes",null,"Threat of nefarious actions with use of audit tools (discovery security weaknesses in information systems)"]
[153,null,"Misuse of information/ information systems (including mobile apps)",null,null,"Increasing",null,"1) Number 4 in top 9 (with 18%), fig. 25 on page 32\n\n2) \"This year, we saw more incidents involving the end user than ever before\" page 46","Verizon data breach investigation report 2015",{"$nulls":7},"Yes",null,"No",null,"Threat of nefarious action due to misuse of information / information systems"]
[154,null,"Unauthorized activities"]
[155,null,null,"Unauthorized use or administration of devices and systems",null,"Increasing",null,"IBM X-Force 2Q2015 calls this threat as  1st of top 8 security threats"]
[156,null,null,"Unauthorized use of software"]
[157,null,null,"Unauthorized access to the information systems / networks (IMPI Protocol / DNS Register Hijacking)"]
[158,null,null,"Network Intrusion"]
[159,null,null,"Unauthorized changes of records"]
[160,null,"Unauthorized installation of software",{"$nulls":7},1,"Drive-by exploits (ENISA Threat Landscape Published 2012)",1,"Drive-by Downloads (ENISA Threat Landscape 2013)",2,"Web-based attacks (ENISA Threat Landscape 2014)","Difference","Unauthorized activities --> Unauthorized installation of software","Yes",null,"Threat of unauthorized installation of software"]
[{"$f":"A206+1","v":161},null,null,"Web based attacks (Drive-by download / malicious URLs / Browser based attacks)",null,"Increasing",null,"\"Web-based attacks are growing increasingly\nsophisticated. \" on page 61","Symantec internet security threat report 20","W39"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Stable (excluding Drive-by-Download) ?",null,"Graph on page 10 showing this is notable malware (no numbers were present)","McAfee Labs Threats Report August 2015","W39"]
[{"$f":"A207+1","v":162},null,"Compromising confidential information (data breaches)",null,null,"Increasing",null,"\"The number of breaches increased 23 percent in 2014. Attackers were responsible for the majority of these breaches\"  page 16","Symantec internet security threat report 20 ","W39"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing",null,"\"Clearly, the numbers were up in 2014. Data breaches totaled 1,540, up 46% from the 1,056 in 2013\" page 3","Gemalto Breach Level Index 2014",null,8,"Compromising Confidential Information (ENISA Threat Landscape Published 2012)",12,"Data Breaches (ENISA Threat Landscape 2013)",9,"Data breaches (ENISA Threat Landscape 2014)","Yes",null,"Yes",null,"Threat of data breach "]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing",null,"\"Data breaches are still a significant issue, since the number of breaches increased 23 percent and attackers were responsible for the majority of these breaches\" page 5","Symantec internet security threat report 20 ","W39"]
[{"$nulls":7},"IBM X-Force 2Q2015 defines Insider Threat as being deliberate, accidental, from both insiders, ex-insiders and quasi-insiders. This is in fact a very \"inclusive\" definitions. It argues that 55% of all attacks emanate from persons with insider access to organizations.","IBM X-Force 2Q2015",{"$nulls":5},11,"Insider threat (ENISA Threat Landscape 2014)"]
[{"$f":"A209+1","v":163},null,"Hoax",{"$nulls":13},"Difference","Social engineering --> Pretexting/hoax","Yes",null,"Threat of disruption of work due to False rumor and/or a fake warning"]
[164,null,null,"False rumor and/or a fake warning"]
[{"$f":"A214+1","v":165},null,"Remote activity (execution)",{"$nulls":13},"Yes",null,"Yes",null,"Threat of remote activity over controled IT Assets"]
[166,null,null,"Remote Command Execution",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No"]
[167,null,null,"Remote Access Tool (RAT)",null,null,null,"Naikon APT is using a RAT wotj 48 commands.","Kaspersky threat evolution q2 216"]
[168,null,null,"Botnets / Remote activity ",null,"Same percentage of primitive DDoS bots (I need to analyze this further) as in previous years.",null,"There is a shift from search engine impersonator due to existing defences (ASN verification)\n\nHigher overall deversity in DDoS bots user-agent variants, with top 10 covering 43% of attacks. ","IMPERVA Global DDoS Threat Landscape Q2 2015"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Decreasing",null,"\"The number of bots declined by 18 percent in 2014.\" on page 88","Symantec internet security threat report 20"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Decrease (?)",null,"\"That said, DDoS attack scripts on the application side have been shifting more towards the use of non-botnet based resources, such as attack scripts that leverage open proxies on the Internet\" page 15","Akamai’s state of the internet security Q2 2015 report"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Stable",null,"\"C&C statistics are almost the same as last year’s.\" page 7","CERT Polska report 2014"]
[{"$nulls":7},"\"(..)this is evidence that the botnet has been arranged by the cybercriminals to launch large-scale DDoS attacks.\"","\nKaspersky DDoS Intelligence Report Q2 2015\n",null,5,"Botnets (ENISA Threat Landscape Published 2012)",5,"Botnets (ENISA Threat Landscape 2013)",4,"Botnets (ENISA Threat Landscape 2014)","Difference","Malware and viruses --> Botnets","Difference","Badware --> Botnets"]
[{"$f":"A218+1","v":169},null,"Targeted attacks (APTs etc.)",{"$nulls":4},"IBM X-Force 2Q2015 considers this as 5th of Top 8 (with score of 36%)"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing",null,"\"Advanced persistent/targeted attacks increased dramatically\"","Ponemon: 2015 State of the Endpoint Report: User-Centric Risk","W40"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing",null,"\"last  year  we  also  observed  an  increase  in  APT  attacks,\" page 5","CERT Polska report 2014",null,11,"Targeted Attacks (ENISA Threat Landscape Published 2012)",14,"Targeted Attacks (ENISA Threat Landscape 2013)",null,null,"Difference","Timescales --> Targeted attacks/advanced persistent threats","Yes",null,"Threat of sophisticated targetes attack with combination of many attack techniques"]
[{"$f":"A223+1","v":170},null,null,"Mobile malware",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No"]
[171,null,null,"Spear phishing attacks",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No"]
[172,null,null,"Installation of sophisticated and targeted malware",null,null,null,"\"Fast forward to today, and RAM scraping has grown up in a big way.\" page 5","Verizon data breach investigation report 2015"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing",null,"\"The McAfee Labs malware zoo grew 12% in the most recent quarter. It now contains more than 433 million samples.\" page 33","McAfee Labs Threats Report August 2015","W39"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing",null,"\"The rate of malware has steadily increased\"","Ponemon: 2015 State of the Endpoint Report: User-Centric Risk","W40"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing - POS",null,"Graph on page 9 showing number of PoS malware detections (1Q 2014–2Q 2015). Nearly doubled this year.","TrendMicro  Report: A Rising Tide: New Hacks Threaten Public Technologies","W40"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Decreasing (Education sector)",null,"\"Malware related events in the education sector dropped from 42% to 35%\"","2015 NTT Group Global Threat Intelligence Report","W41"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing",null,"\"Non-targeted attacks still make up the majority of malware, which increased by 26 percent in 2014.\" page 7","Symantec internet security threat report 20 ","W39"]
[{"$nulls":5},"Increasing",null,"\"An  interesting  new  category  of  malware  threats  made their  debut:  malware  that  changed  the  bank  account number either in the Windows clipboard (VBKlip) or in the browser’s memory (Banatrix). \" page 5","CERT Polska report 2014",{"$nulls":7},"No",null,"No"]
[{"$f":"A228+1","v":173},null,null,"Watering Hole attacks",null,"Increasing (?)",null,"\"Attackers also perfected watering hole attacks, making each attack more selective by infecting legitimate websites, monitoring site visitors and targeting only the companies they wanted to attack.\" page 6","Symantec internet security threat report 20 ","W39",null,null,15,"Watering Hole (ENISA Threat Landscape 2013)",null,null,"No",null,"No"]
[174,null,"Failed of bussines process",{"$nulls":13},"No"]
[175,null,"Brute force"]
[176,null,"Abuse of authorizations"]
[177,"Legal",{"$nulls":14},"Yes",null,"Yes"]
[178,null,"Violation of laws or regulations / Breach of legislation",{"$nulls":13},"Yes",null,"Yes",null,"Threat of finacial or legal penatly or lost of trust of customers and collaborators due to violation of law or regulations"]
[179,null,"Failure to meet contractual requirements",{"$nulls":13},"Yes",null,"Yes",null,"Threat of finacial penatly or lost of trust of customers and collaborators due to failure to meet contractual requirements"]
[180,null,null,"Failure to meet contractual requirements by third party",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No"]
[181,null,"Unauthorized use of IPR protected resources",{"$nulls":13},"No",null,"No",null,"Threat of finacial or legal penatly or lost of trust of customers and collaborators due to improper/illegal use of copyrights material"]
[182,null,null,"Illegal usage of File Sharing services",{"$nulls":12},"No",null,"No"]
[183,null,"Abuse of personal data",{"$nulls":13},"Difference","Nefarious Activity/Abuse -->  Abuse of personal data","Difference","Nefarious Activity/Abuse -->  Abuse of personal data","Threat of illegal use personal data"]
[184,null,"Judiciary decisions/court orders",null,"Value imbalance exploitations\n- Re-entries\n- Reputation lag exploitations\n- Proliferation\n- Collusions\n- Discriminations\n- Playbooks\n- Unfair ratings\n- Sybil attacks"]

{"sheet":"Arkusz3","index":1,"n_rows":0,"n_cols":0,"rows_kept":0,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}