Security Investment, Hacking, and Information Sharing between Firms and between Hackers

A four period game between two firms and two hackers is analyzed. The firms first defend and the hackers thereafter attack and share information. Each hacker seeks financial gain, beneficial information exchange, and reputation gain. The two hackers’ attacks and the firms’ defenses are inverse U-sha...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Kjell Hausken
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2017-05-01
Series:Games
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/8/2/23
id doaj-14a7ac4a21b04905ad6e54ccf0badad7
record_format Article
spelling doaj-14a7ac4a21b04905ad6e54ccf0badad72020-11-24T22:02:27ZengMDPI AGGames2073-43362017-05-01822310.3390/g8020023g8020023Security Investment, Hacking, and Information Sharing between Firms and between HackersKjell Hausken0Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stavanger, 4036 Stavanger, NorwayA four period game between two firms and two hackers is analyzed. The firms first defend and the hackers thereafter attack and share information. Each hacker seeks financial gain, beneficial information exchange, and reputation gain. The two hackers’ attacks and the firms’ defenses are inverse U-shaped in each other. A hacker shifts from attack to information sharing when attack is costly or the firm’s defense is cheap. The two hackers share information, but a second more disadvantaged hacker receives less information, and mixed motives may exist between information sharing and own reputation gain. The second hacker’s attack is deterred by the first hacker’s reputation gain. Increasing information sharing effectiveness causes firms to substitute from defense to information sharing, which also increases in the firms’ unit defense cost, decreases in each firm’s unit cost of own information leakage, and increases in the unit benefit of joint leakage. Increasing interdependence between firms causes more information sharing between hackers caused by larger aggregate attacks, which firms should be conscious about. We consider three corner solutions. First and second, the firms deter disadvantaged hackers. When the second hacker is deterred, the first hacker does not share information. Third, the first hacker shares a maximum amount of information when certain conditions are met. Policy and managerial implications are provided for how firms should defend against hackers with various characteristics.http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/8/2/23information sharingcyber securitygame theoryasset allocationcyber warcontest success functionsecurity investmentpolicy
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Kjell Hausken
spellingShingle Kjell Hausken
Security Investment, Hacking, and Information Sharing between Firms and between Hackers
Games
information sharing
cyber security
game theory
asset allocation
cyber war
contest success function
security investment
policy
author_facet Kjell Hausken
author_sort Kjell Hausken
title Security Investment, Hacking, and Information Sharing between Firms and between Hackers
title_short Security Investment, Hacking, and Information Sharing between Firms and between Hackers
title_full Security Investment, Hacking, and Information Sharing between Firms and between Hackers
title_fullStr Security Investment, Hacking, and Information Sharing between Firms and between Hackers
title_full_unstemmed Security Investment, Hacking, and Information Sharing between Firms and between Hackers
title_sort security investment, hacking, and information sharing between firms and between hackers
publisher MDPI AG
series Games
issn 2073-4336
publishDate 2017-05-01
description A four period game between two firms and two hackers is analyzed. The firms first defend and the hackers thereafter attack and share information. Each hacker seeks financial gain, beneficial information exchange, and reputation gain. The two hackers’ attacks and the firms’ defenses are inverse U-shaped in each other. A hacker shifts from attack to information sharing when attack is costly or the firm’s defense is cheap. The two hackers share information, but a second more disadvantaged hacker receives less information, and mixed motives may exist between information sharing and own reputation gain. The second hacker’s attack is deterred by the first hacker’s reputation gain. Increasing information sharing effectiveness causes firms to substitute from defense to information sharing, which also increases in the firms’ unit defense cost, decreases in each firm’s unit cost of own information leakage, and increases in the unit benefit of joint leakage. Increasing interdependence between firms causes more information sharing between hackers caused by larger aggregate attacks, which firms should be conscious about. We consider three corner solutions. First and second, the firms deter disadvantaged hackers. When the second hacker is deterred, the first hacker does not share information. Third, the first hacker shares a maximum amount of information when certain conditions are met. Policy and managerial implications are provided for how firms should defend against hackers with various characteristics.
topic information sharing
cyber security
game theory
asset allocation
cyber war
contest success function
security investment
policy
url http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/8/2/23
work_keys_str_mv AT kjellhausken securityinvestmenthackingandinformationsharingbetweenfirmsandbetweenhackers
_version_ 1725835776901513216