Datasets for Analysis of Cybercrime

  • C. Jordan Howell
  • George W. BurrussEmail author
Living reference work entry


In this chapter, we document various sources of cybercrime data to help guide future research endeavors. We focus most of our attention on datasets associated with hacking, and to a lesser degree online fraud. Rather than a catalog of sources, we also describe what research has accomplished with these data on specific crimes and discuss the strengths and limitations of their use. The data discussed throughout the chapter are gathered from a variety of sources including the FBI, Cambridge Cybercrime Centre, Zone-H, various cybersecurity companies, and several other websites and platforms. These data allow researchers the opportunity to assess cybercrime correlates of engagement, victimization patterns, and macro-level trends. However, they share one major flaw; they do not allow for the assessment of causation. We conclude by suggesting that criminologists should prioritize longitudinal data collection that allows for causal assessment.


Cybercrime Datasets Analysis 


  1. Arbor Networks. (2018). Insight into the global threat landscape. Retrieved from
  2. Babko-Malaya, O., Cathey, R., Hinton, S., Maimon, D., & Gladkova, T. (2017). Detection of hacking behaviors and communication patterns on social media. In 2017 IEEE international conference on big data (Big Data) (pp. 4636–4641). Boston, MA: IEEE.Google Scholar
  3. Benjamin, V., Li, W., Holt, T., & Chen, H. (2015). Exploring threats and vulnerabilities in hacker web: Forums, IRC and carding shops. In Intelligence and Security Informatics (ISI), 2015 IEEE international conference on (pp. 85–90). Baltimore, MD: IEEE.Google Scholar
  4. Bitdefender. (2018). Cyberthreat real time map. Retrieved from
  5. Bossler, A. M. (2017). Need for debate on the implications of honeypot data for restrictive deterrence policies in cyberspace. Criminology & Public Policy, 16(3), 681–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Button, M., Nicholls, C. M., Kerr, J., & Owen, R. (2014). Online frauds: Learning from victims why they fall for these scams. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 47(3), 391–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2019a). Crime in the United States 2018. Retrieved from
  8. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2019b). National incident-based reporting system. Retrieved from
  9. Federal Bureau of Investigation Internet Crime Complain Center (IC3). (2017). 2017 Internet crime report. Retrieved from
  10. Holt, T. J., Strumsky, D., Smirnova, O., & Kilger, M. (2012). Examining the social networks of malware writers and hackers. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 6(1).Google Scholar
  11. Holt, T. J., Burruss, G. W., & Bossler, A. M. (2018). Assessing the macro-level correlates of malware infections using a routine activities framework. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(6), 1720–1741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hong, J. (2012). The state of phishing attacks. Communications of the ACM, 55(1), 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Howell, C. J., Maimon, D., Cochran, J. K., Jones, H. M., & Powers, R. A. (2017). System trespasser behavior after exposure to warning messages at a Chinese computer network: An Examination. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 11(1), 63–77.Google Scholar
  14. Howell, C. J., Burruss, B. W., Maimon, D., & Sahani, S. (2019). Website defacement and routine activities: Considering the importance of hackers’ valuations of potential targets. Journal of Crime and Justice, 42, 536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huff, R., Desilets, C., & Kane, J. (2010). National public survey on white collar crime. Fairmont: National White Collar Crime Center.Google Scholar
  16. Kaspersky Lab. (2018). Cyberthreat real-time map. Retrieved from
  17. Kigerl, A. (2012). Routine activity theory and the determinants of high cybercrime countries. Social Science Computer Review, 30(4), 470–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lastdrager, E. E. (2014). Achieving a consensual definition of phishing based on a systematic review of the literature. Crime Science, 3(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  19. Lau, F., Rubin, S. H., Smith, M. H., & Trajkovic, L. (2000). Distributed denial of service attacks. In Systems, man, and cybernetics, 2000 IEEE international conference on (Vol. 3, pp. 2275–2280). Nashville, TN: IEEE.Google Scholar
  20. Lee, M., Pak, S., Lee, D., & Schapiro, A. (1999). Electronic commerce, hackers, and the search for legitimacy: A regulatory proposal. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 14(2), 839.Google Scholar
  21. Macdonald, M., Frank, R., Mei, J., & Monk, B. (2015). Identifying digital threats in a hacker web forum. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/ACM international conference on advances in social networks analysis and mining 2015 (pp. 926–933). Paris, France: ACM.Google Scholar
  22. Maimon, D., & Louderback, E. R. (2018). Cyber-dependent crimes: An interdisciplinary review. Annual Review of Criminology, (0), 191–216.Google Scholar
  23. Maimon, D., Alper, M., Sobesto, B., & Cukier, M. (2014). Restrictive deterrent effects of a warning banner in an attacked computer system. Criminology, 52(1), 33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maimon, D., Fukuda, A., Hinton, S., Babko-Malaya, O., & Cathey, R. (2017). On the relevance of social media platforms in predicting the volume and patterns of web defacement attacks. In 2017 IEEE international conference on big data (Big Data) (pp. 4668–4673). Boston, MA: IEEE.Google Scholar
  25. Malware Domain List (MDL). (2013). Malware domain list frequent asked questions. Retrieved from
  26. McAfee. (2018). Global virus map. Retrieved from
  27. McGrath, D. K., & Gupta, M. (2008). Behind phishing: An examination of phisher modi operandi. LEET, 8, 4.Google Scholar
  28. Muniz, C. N. (2019). Sexual assault and robbery disclosure: An examination of Black’s theory of the behavior of law (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida).Google Scholar
  29. Pangaria, M., & Shrivastava, V. (2013). Need of ethical hacking in online world. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), India Online. ISSN: 2319–7064, 529–531.Google Scholar
  30. Project Honey pot. (2018). Project honey pot. Retrieved from
  31. Rantala, R. (2008). Cybercrime against businesses, 2005. Retrieved from
  32. Reyns, B. W. (2015). A routine activity perspective on online victimisation: Results from the Canadian general social survey. Journal of Financial Crime, 22(4), 396–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reyns, B. W., Henson, B., Fisher, B. S., Fox, K. A., & Nobles, M. R. (2016). A gendered lifestyle-routine activity approach to explaining stalking victimization in Canada. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(9), 1719–1743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schafer, J. A., Lee, C., Burruss, G. W., & Giblin, M. J. (2018). College student perceptions of campus safety initiatives. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 29(4), 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Testa, A., Maimon, D., Sobesto, B., & Cukier, M. (2017). Illegal roaming and file manipulation on target computers: Assessing the effect of sanction threats on system trespassers’ online behaviors. Criminology & Public Policy, 16(3), 689–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Trend Micro. (2018). Global botnet map. Retrieved from
  37. U.K. Office for National Statistics. (2019) Crime and justice. Retrieved from
  38. Wilson, T., Maimon, D., Sobesto, B., & Cukier, M. (2015). The effect of a surveillance banner in an attacked computer system: Additional evidence for the relevance of restrictive deterrence in cyberspace. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52(6), 829–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhang, X., Tsang, A., Yue, W. T., & Chau, M. (2015). The classification of hackers by knowledge exchange behaviors. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(6), 1239–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zone-H. (2018). Unrestricted information. Retrieved from

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CriminologyUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations