Radware report reveals sharp rise in global cyber threats
The report is based on data from network and application attack activity in 2024, sourced from Radware's cloud services, managed services, and threat intelligence research, as well as information from the messaging platform Telegram.
Key findings from the report indicate a 37% increase in the average duration of network DDoS attacks over the previous year, with North America facing the brunt of web application and API attacks, accounting for 66% of the total.
The finance and transportation sectors saw a nearly 400% year-over-year growth in DDoS attack volume. Furthermore, hacktivist claims rose by 20% globally, with governments being the most frequent targets.
The report links the increase in Layer 7 (L7) Web DDoS attacks to hacktivist groups, which are motivated by geopolitical tensions and have access to increasingly sophisticated tools. These attacks surged by 550% compared to 2023, with the EMEA region being the primary target.
Network-layer DDoS attacks also grew in volume, frequency, and duration, more than doubling since 2022. The average mitigated attack volume rose by 120% compared to the previous year. Europe faced the highest proportion of network DDoS activity, followed by North America.
The telecommunications industry bore 43% of the global network DDoS attack volume, with finance following at 30%. The financial sector experienced the steepest growth in attack volume per organization, increasing by 393% year-over-year.
Hacktivist campaigns intensified, with Ukraine and Israel being the most targeted nations. Government institutions were the top hacktivist targets, followed by business services, finance, and transportation. The most prolific threat actor was a pro-Russian hacker, claiming 4,767 DDoS attacks.
Web applications and APIs have become prime targets for exploitation, with attacks climbing by 41% compared to 2023. Vulnerability exploitation remained the most prominent attack type.
Pascal Geenens, director of threat intelligence at Radware, emphasized the need for dynamic defense strategies, stating, "The escalations in the threat landscape have significant implications for every sector... Organizations are operating in a dynamic environment that demands equally dynamic defense strategies."
Related Articles
Radware report reveals sharp rise in global cyber threats
IRS Chief Operating Officer Krause to become acting commissioner
Roberta Flack, American singer and Grammy winner, dies aged 88
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
15 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Germany Seeks Trump Tariff Agreement Extension as Deadline Looms
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced on Sunday that he is working intensively with European leaders to prevent the implementation of threatened 30 percent U.S. tariffs on European Union (EU) imports set to begin August 1. Newsweek reached out to the White House via email on Sunday for comment. Why It Matters The potential 30 percent tariff represents a significant escalation from previous negotiations, where the EU had been preparing for a 10 percent baseline tariff as recently as July 7. Merz acknowledged that "the German economy would be hit hard by the tariffs," highlighting the stakes for Europe's largest economy. The situation reflects broader challenges in transatlantic trade relations as President Donald Trump has regularly cited a goods trade deficit of about $236 billion in 2024 while pushing Europe to buy more American cars, energy, and defense equipment. What To Know Merz told German broadcaster ARD he had discussed the matter "intensively over the weekend with both [French President Emmanuel] Macron and [President of the European Commission] Ursula von der Leyen," and had also spoken directly with Trump. The chancellor emphasized his commitment to finding a solution within the remaining two-and-half weeks before the deadline. The current crisis stems from weeks of failed negotiations between the U.S. and its major trading partners. Trump threatened to impose the 30 percent tariff starting August 1, after comprehensive trade deal negotiations collapsed. This represents a dramatic escalation from the EU's previous goal of striking a trade deal with a 10 percent baseline tariff by July 9. The EU had been preparing for multiple scenarios, with European Commission spokesperson Olof Gill previously confirming to Newsweek they were "still aiming for a July 9 agreement in principle." However, negotiations have deteriorated since then. The EU has retaliatory measures targeting $22.6 billion in U.S. goods already approved, with another package covering $102.2 billion ready to activate if necessary. During meetings in Washington last week, EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič received "the first draft of the (U.S.) proposals for the eventual agreement in principle," though one diplomat described it as offering "nothing very concrete." Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had indicated Trump would be "sending letters to some of our trading partners saying that if you don't move things along, then on August 1 you will boomerang back to your April 2 tariff level." Internal EU divisions have complicated negotiations, with Germany and Italy favoring quick acceptance of deals while France and Ireland urge a harder line. The situation remains volatile, as Trump demonstrated by abruptly cutting off similar negotiations with Canada last week over a digital services tax dispute. What People Are Saying President Donald Trump posted separate letters on Truth Social on Friday to Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo as well as von der Leyen informing them of the tariff rates: "We have had years to discuss our Trading Relationship with The European Union, and have concluded that we must move away from these long-term, large, and persistent Trade Deficits, engendered by your Tariff, and Non-Tariff, Policies and Trade Barriers." European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen's X message on Saturday: "A 30% tariff on EU exports would hurt businesses, consumers and patients on both sides of the Atlantic. We will continue working towards an agreement by August 1." She added: "At the same time, we are ready to safeguard EU interests on the basis of proportionate countermeasures." German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told German broadcaster ARD on Sunday: "We want to use this time now, the two and half weeks until August 1 to find a solution. I am really committed to this." European Commission spokesperson Olof Gill told reporters last week: "Nothing you are seeing in terms of our approach to trade is haphazard. This has been war-gamed long before the election took place. And I think you can see that that's really playing out in real time." Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz speaks with President Donald Trump before the start of the North Atlantic Council plenary meeting at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in The Hague on June 25. Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz speaks with President Donald Trump before the start of the North Atlantic Council plenary meeting at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in The Hague on June 25. LUDOVIC MARIN/POOL/AFP via Getty Images What Happens Next The immediate focus centers on the August 1 deadline, with European leaders racing to secure either an extension or a framework agreement. When asked about potential counter-tariffs as proposed by France, Merz indicated support but emphasized timing: "Yes, but not before August 1." The EU has prepared for diplomatic success and failure, having already positioned retaliatory measures while continuing to pursue negotiations. The outcome of Šefčovič's Washington visit is expected to be discussed by EU ambassadors and the EU Council's Trade Policy Committee this week.
Time Business News
23 minutes ago
- Time Business News
India should avoid rushing for trade pact with US Experts
New Delhi, Jul 13 (PTI) India should avoid rushing into a trade deal with the US that compromises core sectors like agriculture, experts on Sunday said, cautioning that Washington is not sparing even its key partners like the EU. The US has shot off letters to 24 countries and the European Union (EU) imposing tariffs that are as high as 50 per cent on Brazil. On its key trading partners like the EU and Mexico, 30 per cent duties have been proposed from August 1. Economic think tank GTRI (Global Trade Research Initiative) said India must recognise that it is not alone in facing US pressure. The US is currently negotiating with over 20 countries and seeking concessions from more than 90. 'Yet most are resisting because they see these MASALA (Mutually Agreed Settlements Achieved through Leveraged Arm-twisting) deals for what they are politically driven, transactional demands offering no lasting trade certainty,' GTRI Founder Ajay Srivastava said. He added that both the EU and Mexico are major trade partners of the US, and Washington can impose tariffs on them to pressure them into quick deals, India cannot expect a balanced deal. Another trade expert said India should tread cautiously while negotiating the trade pact with the US. The expert added that Trump's trade threat is rapidly losing credibility as despite more than three months of pressure, only two countries — the UK and Vietnam — have agreed to the USA's one-sided terms. From Japan and South Korea to the EU and Australia, countries are resisting Trump's trade deals that demand tariff cuts without reciprocal US concessions, mandate guaranteed purchases of American goods, and leave the door open for future tariffs even after a deal is signed, the GTRI said. A team of Indian trade negotiators will soon visit Washington to further talks for the proposed Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA). 'India should stay the course and avoid trading away core sectors like agriculture. A hasty deal under pressure could have irreversible consequences, especially when such agreements may not survive the next shift in US politics,' Srivastava said. (This story has not been edited by TIMEBUSINESSNEWS and is auto-generated from PTI) Author Credits TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Banking Panics In The Past—That Was The Government
Cortelyou shuffled that paper in a not-so-efficient way (Photo by Heritage Art/Heritage Images via ... More Getty Images) We need the Federal Reserve because before we had it, the private banking system had panics all the time. Goodness gracious to we hear this justification for the Fed without surcease. We go over this theme in our new book, Free Money: Bitcoin and the American Monetary Tradition, because the government will not let us not do it. Federal websites to this very day—I'll spare you the URL's; they are in the book—say things like federal banking regulation pre and post the Fed strengthened and stabilized the American banking system, and by virtue of that, the economy. In Free Money, we tested the proposition. We found it wanting in every case. Here's a paradigmatic one, to reinforce a column I wrote on this topic several months ago. There was a big bad banking panic in 1907. It was the one that resulted in the Fed. Everybody went so berserk over this panic that out came the Fed in 1913, and we have had this banking supervisor-in-chief ever since. What was this panic and what caused it? In the fall of 1907, banks throughout the country depleted their reserves as brokers cashed on their accounts to ship the farm harvest—an annual ritual that had been going on for eons—and by October, banks were starting to not pay up to depositors and trim their hours and shut their doors and have managers throw themselves out the window. J.P. Morgan lent some people some money at a profit and the whole thing passed. What caused the panic of 1907? Why capitalism, of course. Right. Wow has our historical consciousness been misled on this one. In Free Money, we followed the crack analysis of inestimable monetary scholar Richard Timberlake (perhaps Milton Friedman's greatest student) in his remarkable book of decades ago, Monetary Policy In the United States: An Intellectual and Institutional History. Timberlake notes that at that time, the major banks in the United States were 'national banks,' so designated by the Federal government, and had to carry a high minimum of federal bonds in their reserves. Problem: the United States was generally running budget surpluses and otherwise shrinking the supply of federal debt instruments outstanding relative to the size of the economy, and therefore the natural size of the banking system. The United States had started the 'national bank' system in the civil war, because the union was issuing debt like crazy, nobody wanted to buy it, and the banks looked like a nice captive customer. Whatever the merits before 1865, by 1907 it was ludicrous for an economy as surpassingly successful as that of the time to have a banking system that had to have a large reserve in federal bonds. There were not enough of them. Wise to this obviousness, Treasury secretary Leslie Shaw kept loosening the rules, shrewdly permitting national banks to have other useful media in addition to federal governments as their base reserves. The man knew what he was doing! No panics through 1906. Then in a cloud of unclarity, Shaw was forced out in favor of gold-ole-boy George Cortelyou, a Knickerbocker buddy of the president TR's. This Mr. Amsterdam was no Leslie Shaw, a humble if canny Iowan. There were extra demands on the banking system because of insurance company losses against the San Francisco earthquake, and Cortelyou reinforced the requirement to base reserves in federal bonds. The harvest came, banks ran short, directors vaulted over the sills, and Morgan cleaned up. Timberlake: 'Some imagination on [Cortelyou's] part might have adjusted the timing and operation of [Treasury's] ordinary housekeeping operation so that it would have complemented rather than conflicted with seasonal monetary policies.' Timberlake found that to Cortelyou, having the controlling hand in whether a general financial crisis develops was not to his taste. He thought the Treasury secretary should be more narrowly focused. Great—then he should have scrapped the relic national bank system that Congress put in place during the war to make a fake market for its bonds. We got the Fed because of this comedy of errors. The whole problem was caused by the government. Design flaw #1: The national bank system requiring reserves in federal bonds was a leftover from the exigencies of 1862. There was no longer any need to encourage ownership of federal bonds because, um, the civil war had been over for two score years and some. Design flaw #2: the country had become ridiculously expert at producing wealth instruments of its own accord over the massive post-1865 industrial revolution, meaning that base reserve assets should have been diversified (as Shaw saw) as a nod to this reality. Design flaw #3: randos at the top of the Treasury (e.g., George Cortelyou) could ruin the whole thing if possessed of a bad idea. What really stopped the panic, more than Morgan's intervention, was the issue on the part of private clearinghouse banks of scrip payable to other members of the banking associations. Banks could use this scrip to settrle their debts, and then could accept that scrip in good cash after the crisis lifted. This scrip was illegal by the national banking acts of the civil war era and should have been banned or taxed at 10 percent or both, by statute. Congress looked the other way. The government caused the crisis, and the private sector solved it—and we got the Fed! How did the Fed do managing incipient crises? We got the worst ever—the Great Depression while the Fed was only a teenager, among other bad embarrassments. So we have the Fed, fine. The shame about it is that its extsitence and just-so history makes us get our heritage wrong. The private banking system performed beautifully back before the Fed. We continue to need the Fed to 'stabilize' our monetary system like we need a hole in the head.
