Sample Critical Thinking Paper on Computer Crime Prosecution & Forms of Attack on Microsoft Systems

Computer crime is an illegal act performed by hackers whereby they get access to an individual or company’s computer and retrieve classified information. Often such people have evil intentions of stealing information or corrupting the files. Organizations and individuals are coming up with various solutions to curb this act including getting advances security controls to protect them from computer crime. Computer crime is illegal and those involved in it should be prosecuted since this is breaching an organization’s privacy and exposing them badly or passing on virus to files.

Defending computer systems against intrusions and disruptions is a multibillion dollar industry (Wolf, 2016). With an increase in computer crime many organizations think that buying more expensive technical defensive mechanism is the best way to protect their computers. This is not the best option when it comes to defending complex systems because there could be alterations between different system components and the new defense mechanism and this can give room for new unforeseen problems that jeopardize security. A defense mechanism may backfire in its intended function to better protect a system due to its interactions either with peopleor with other technological defenses (Wolf, 2016).

Some organizations or individuals opt to changing their passwords and implementing password policies to protect their computers and files. This could be effective, however, it is challenging when the files are shared, and this means that it would be more than one person having the password. Files could be easily manipulated. In the case whereby one has forgotten the password, depending on the policies implemented one may lose access to information since they cannot login.

All the ideas may not necessarily lead to security from Computer crime; therefore, organizations should review security policies not just for their individual impact but also for their interactions with other systems.

Forms of Attack on Microsoft Systems

Microsoft systems might be subjected to attacks if they don’t have proper security measures and policies in place Scandariato (Wuyts &Joosen , 2015). These attacks range from data modification, IP Address spoofing to sniffer attacks.

An attacker can gain access to a valid user account and easily modify the user’s data sometimes without their knowledge. This literally alters the meaning or even deletes the data.

Microsoft networks and operating systems use the IP address of computer to identify a valid entry. A hacker might use special programs to come up with a valid IP address and gain access to the network (Carr, 2012). The attacker can modify your data and even perform other malicious attacks. Viruses can be easily be transferred through the internet that infects the users file and even causing the system to crash.

Hackers can use devices to read, monitor data exchange through a network. This invades user privacy because an individual may not want someone else to view their communication. A sniffer attack analyzes user network and gain information that can crash or corrupt the network.

Application- Layer attack. This usually targets users who send applications to unregistered servers (Casey, 2011). This enables attacker to bypass security policies like login controls and gain access to a user’s account. Some of these attacks occur because users use outdated versions of Microsoft systems. Users using supported Microsoft systems should update to the current versions that have implemented security policies.



Carr, J. (2012). Inside cyber warfare. Beijing: O’Reilly.

Casey, E. (2011). Digital Evidence and Computer Crime: Forensic Science, Computers, and the Internet. Burlington: Elsevier Science.

Scandariato, R., Wuyts, K., & Joosen, W. (2015). A descriptive study of Microsoft’s threat modeling technique. Requirements Engineering, 20(2), 163-180.

Wolff, J. (2016). Perverse Effects in Defense of Computer Systems: When More Is Less. Journal Of Management Information Systems, 33(2), 597-620.