![]() The analogy no longer describes how the surface, deep, and dark web actually function and how risks unfold across these spaces. Whether or not we want to admit it, the internet iceberg’s notoriety affects how intelligence and security teams view the internet-and likely how they approach online investigations. Users responsible for disinformation campaigns and extremist propaganda also rely on the surface web and social media channels to access a wider audience than is available on the dark web. The ILPT (“illegal life pro-tips”) subReddit often hosts brand-targeted conversations relevant to corporate security teams. This information can be leveraged by criminals for shoplifting and potentially infiltrating the security system’s hardware.įor example, indexed public social media posts often contain criminal discussions. Yes, there is a LOT of valuable threat intelligence on the dark web-but digital risks and crime, from child pornography to terrorist networks, malicious hacking how-to’s, and stolen data, are also present on the deep and surface web.Ī major retailer’s security layout, which was lifted from an LP office by an internal actor and posted on the surface web. In reality, the surface web is significantly larger than the dark web in terms of site traffic, overall size, and in many instances, available threat data. The dark web does not have a “monopoly” on online threats-but this role has been exaggerated in part by iceberg-like depictions of vast scary blobs lurking beneath the surface. Online risks never occur in silos as the iceberg might suggest, and investigations that begin on the surface web often cross over to the deep and dark web, and vice versa. Many threat actors on the dark web have digital footprints that overlap deep and surface web spaces. Nefarious online activity happens on the surface and deep web as much as the dark web. In reality, they are not distinctly separated but highly interwoven, with deep and dark web pages “hiding in plain sight” amongst the navigable surface web.īeyond how the web is actually structured, the iceberg also fails to capture how users navigate the internet, especially from a threat intelligence perspective. It’s easy to think of the surface, deep, and dark web operating in compartmentalized “layers” of digital space. Where does the internet iceberg fall short, and what model is better suited to threat intelligence practices and solutions? Where the Internet Iceberg Analogy Gets It Wrong However, the iceberg is no longer an accurate representation of how web spaces interact-yet it impacts how security professionals view the internet and consequently, how they approach digital risk protection strategies and tools. This image makes it easy to understand where content is accessible (or not) online, and represents how more anonymized and hidden parts of the web are valuable for investigating illicit activity and digital risk indicators like leaked data. The dark web is usually depicted as the deepest, darkest part of the iceberg, including unindexed web pages only accessible through specialized software like Tor. This includes the surface web-the smaller, visible part of the iceberg easily navigable through standard search engines like Google-and the deep web, the largest part of the iceberg including unindexed or encrypted pages. The internet iceberg is often used to illustrate how web spaces are structured. But could this model now be irrelevant-or even detrimental-for effective digital risk protection?Īn array of iceberg images discovered through a Google image search for “deep dark web” Like many analogies, its goal is to make a complex system (like the internet) more digestible. ![]() It’s a metaphor the threat intelligence and corporate security world has long been familiar with: the internet iceberg.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |