bad actors are seldom interested in targeting lifetime

Voc Authors

2 min read

·

23-11-2024

49

0

Share

Why Bad Actors Rarely Target Lifetime Value (LTV)

While the concept of Lifetime Value (LTV) is crucial for businesses aiming for sustainable growth, it often gets overlooked by malicious actors. This isn't because they're unaware of its importance; rather, it's due to a confluence of factors that make targeting LTV a less efficient and more risky proposition than other attack vectors.

The High Cost of Low Returns:

Extracting maximum value from a victim often requires a long-term strategy. Building trust, gradually accessing sensitive information, and manipulating systems over time – all hallmarks of a high-LTV attack – are resource-intensive. Bad actors are typically driven by quick profits, favoring methods that yield immediate returns. Phishing scams, ransomware attacks, and credit card skimming all provide faster, more direct payouts compared to the sustained effort needed to compromise LTV.

Increased Risk and Detection:

A prolonged attack designed to maximize LTV significantly increases the likelihood of detection. The longer a malicious actor remains in a system, the more digital footprints they leave behind, increasing their chances of being discovered by security software, internal audits, or even observant employees. This elevated risk doesn't align with the bad actor's preference for low-risk, high-reward schemes.

Complexity and Expertise:

Targeting LTV often necessitates a high degree of sophistication. It requires a deep understanding of the target's business model, data flows, and security infrastructure. This level of expertise is not readily available to all malicious actors, and the effort required to acquire it often outweighs the potential gains. Simpler, less sophisticated attacks require far fewer resources and specialized knowledge.

The Easier Path to Profit:

The vast majority of cyberattacks focus on immediate financial gain or data theft for resale on the dark web. These approaches are significantly more efficient and less risky. Targeting individual accounts for credit card details, stealing intellectual property, or disrupting operations for ransom are all far easier and more lucrative than a long-term LTV-focused campaign.

Exceptions to the Rule:

While infrequent, there are exceptions. Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs), often sponsored by nation-states or organized crime syndicates, do sometimes exhibit LTV-oriented behavior. Their motives often extend beyond immediate financial gain, encompassing espionage, intellectual property theft, or long-term disruption of critical infrastructure. However, even APTs tend to favor a combination of quick wins and longer-term objectives, rather than solely focusing on maximizing LTV.

Conclusion:

The economics of cybercrime favor quick, high-impact attacks over the slower, more complex process of maximizing LTV. The increased risk, resource requirements, and expertise needed to target LTV make it a less attractive option for most bad actors. While exceptions exist, the overwhelming majority of cyberattacks prioritize immediate returns over long-term value extraction. Businesses should focus their security efforts accordingly, prioritizing defenses against the most common and impactful threats.