Managing a company’s website in the face of a cyberattack – an example of proactive detection by Google

Scientific Papers of Silesian University of Technology. Organization and Management Series Vol. 149

DOI: 10.29119/1641-3466.2020.149.55

[Research paper]

Artur Strzelecki
Department of Informatics
University of Economics in Katowice
Katowice, Poland
Karol Król
Faculty of Environmental Engineering and Land Surveying
University of Agriculture in Krakow
Kraków, Poland
Dariusz Zdonek
Faculty of Organization and Management
Silesian University of Technology in Gliwice
Gliwice, Poland

Abstract:

Proactive detection by Google is designed to protect users and website administrators from threats resulting from malware infections. The aim of the research is to analyse the threats resulting from the development and universality of the World Wide Web service in the world and the solutions offered by the Google consortium in the field of proactive protection of websites against cyberattacks. The research covered processes informing users and website owners about the potential threat, carried out as part of proactive Google protection. Management of a company’s website in the face of a cyberattack boils down to the use of various security measures and monitoring implemented mostly by network system administrators. Research has shown that the key to the security of the website is to have an up-to-date version of the content management system and continuous monitoring of the website.

Keywords:

Search engine optimization; Discoverability; Promotion strategies; Search engine results; Search visibility; STM publishers

Full text:

PDF

How to cite:

Strzelecki, A., Król, K. & Zdonek, D. (2020). Managing a company’s website in the face of a cyberattack – an example of proactive detection by Google. Scientific Papers of Silesian University of Technology. Organization and Management Series, 149, 667-676. https://doi.org/10.29119/1641-3466.2020.149.55.

References:

  1. Anderson, R., Barton, C., Böhme, R., Clayton, R., Van Eeten, M. J., Levi, M., Moore, T., Savage, S. (2013). Measuring the cost of cybercrime. In The economics of information security and privacy (pp. 265-300). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39498-0_12
  2. Benito-Osorio, D., Peris-Ortiz, M., Armengot, C. R., Colino, A. (2013). Web 5.0: the future of emotional competences in higher education. Global Business Perspectives, 1(3), 274-287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40196-013-0016-5
  3. Chertoff, M., Simon, T. (2015). The impact of the dark web on internet governance and cyber security. Global Commission on Internet Governance Paper Series, No. 6.
  4. Choudhury, N. (2014). World wide web and its journey from web 1.0 to web 4.0. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies, 5(6), 8096-8100.
  5. Ciglic, K., Jurczyk, M., Konkel, A., Lewandowska-Wiśniewska, I., Mikołajczyk, D., Podwiński, K., Rozenblum, L., Sordyl, J., Spychała, M., Vager, Y., Żelechowski. (2017). Cyberbezpieczeństwo polskiego przemysłu. Sektor energetyczny. Instytut Kościuszki, Kraków.
  6. Dwornik, B. (2013). Sieć pełna zagrożeń, ale które jest największe? To zależy od ciebie! Raporty interaktywnie.com – Bezpieczeństwo w internecie, 5-15.
  7. Grzybowska, K. (2018). Cyberbezpieczeństwo. Co grozi firmom i jak duży jest to problem. Raporty interaktywnie.com – Cyberbezpieczeństwo, 6-39.
  8. Król, K. (2015). Organizacyjne aspekty zarządzania bezpieczeństwem danych z perspektywy zagrożeń phishingu. Organizacja i Zarządzanie, 2(30), 19-32.
  9. Merchant, B. (2014). What It Was Like to Surf the Web in 1989. Motherboard Blog, http://bit.ly/2Wibwg1
  10. Mossburg, E., Gelinne, J., Calzada, H. (2016). Beneath the surface of a cyberattack. A deeper look at business impacts. Deloitte Development LLC. http://bit.ly/2KHYEZF
  11. Outpost (2018). TOP 10 of the world’s largest cyberattacks. Outpost24, http://bit.ly/2X2Flkx
  12. PwC (2018). Cyber-ruletka po polsku. Dlaczego firmy w walce z cyberprzestępcami liczą na szczęście. 5. edycja Badania Stanu Bezpieczeństwa Informacji. PwC Polska.
  13. Smaga, M. (2013). Internetowa grypa – nowe obszary i metody cyberprzestępców. Raporty interaktywnie.com – Bezpieczeństwo w internecie, 32-39.
  14. Symantec (2019). Symantec 2019 Internet Security Threat Report. Symantec Corporation.
  15. Szymanski K., (2009). Wyniki wyszukiwania z ostrzeżeniem, Blog Google, http://bit.ly/2Kgq1Ka
  16. W3Techs (2019). Usage of content management systems. W3Techs. Web Technology Surveys. Q-Success, http://bit.ly/2HOGwf6
  17. Wald G., (2011), Nowe powiadomienia w wynikach wyszukiwania dotyczące witryn zaatakowanych przez hakerów, Blog Google, http://bit.ly/30WGVTX
  18. Wasilewski J., (2013). Zarys definicji cyberprzestrzeni. Przegląd Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego, 5(9), 225-234.
  19. Web (2019). Top ways websites get hacked by spammers. Web Fundamentals. Google Developers, http://bit.ly/2XGzMW2
  20. Weimann, G. (2016). Going dark: Terrorism on the dark web. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 39(3), 195-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2015.1119546