New Research: legitimate cyber security activities in the 21st Century

A new piece of work by the CyberUp Campaign released today establishes the current expert consensus of what should constitute legitimate cyber security activity under a reformed UK Computer Misuse Act.

 The key findings of the report:

  • Through consultation with industry experts, the report establishes the set of activities which are seen as legitimate instances of unauthorised access – and therefore ought to be legal under a reformed Computer Misuse Act. These include: proportionate threat intelligence; responsible vulnerability research and disclosure; active scanning; enumeration; use of open directory listings; identification; and honeypots.

  • The report also outlines the consensus on illegitimate forms of unauthorised access, which include: hack back, distributed denial-of-service attacks, and breaking into the critical national infrastructure, among others.

  • Finally, the report establishes that techniques best describes as ‘active defence’ still represent a grey area and will require further discussion as the Home Office prepares to respond to the review of the Act and set out next steps towards a potential policy change.

 The CyberUp Campaign has been advocating for the inclusion of a statutory defence in the Computer Misuse Act since 2019. Building on the CyberUp’s Defence Framework, the consensus outlined in the report published today shows how a statutory defence can operate in practice. Crucially, it highlights that it will not open up a ‘Wild West’ of cyber vigilantism. Instead, by reforming the Computer Misuse Act to make defensible the activities outlined in the report, the CyberUp Campaign argues the Government can enable a swathe of benefits including improved cyber resilience of the nation and its allies and accelerated growth of the UK’s domestic cyber security sector.

 

 

Previous
Previous

CyberUp comments on the Government’s Response to their Computer Misuse Act 1990 (CMA) Call for Evidence

Next
Next

CyberUp view on the DoJ's new guidance for prosecutors