AI is too risky for hackers, says former GCHQ boss

Robert Hannigan suggests that the technology isn't worth the trouble for state-sponsored attackers

The former head of GCHQ, Robert Hannigan

Robert Hannigan, the former head of GCHQ, has said that there is very little evidence of artificial intelligence (AI) being used in cyber crime or terrorism.

Hannigan was speaking at an event hosted by the London Office For Rapid Cybersecurity Advancement (LORCA), where he delivered a keynote on the so-called 'myths' and 'buzzwords' around AI in cyber security. 

In his opinion, while AI has transformed many aspects of modern life, it is yet to prove all that useful to state-sponsored hackers. He suggested there were not enough benefits to outweigh the "trouble" of investing in the technology for malicious purposes.  

"The cyber industry is great at scare stories, and I've read lots and lots of scare stories about criminal groups and even terrorists using AI, and to be honest, I've seen virtually no evidence for this at all, with a couple of exceptions," Hannigan said. "I would say that I think it's again a confusion with automation."

He added that AI would likely form a part of a hackers arsenal in the near future, but right now it simply presented too much "risk". As an example, he cited the SolarWinds hack, which he said was sophisticated but also appeared to be "hand-curated". 

"You can understand why the attackers might have wanted to do that, in order to hide themselves," Hannigan said. "And doing it at the scale, and going to the trouble of doing it through AI would probably be at high risk for them."

From there the subject of AI in cyber security flipped, with Hannigan expressing concerns about the security of AI. He said the issue was "high on everyone's list" because technologies such as driverless cars and automated medical diagnostics were rapidly becoming the norm. 

"The data is a huge vulnerability, and there have been lots of studies on so-called data poisoning, adversarial models, which basically say, we can trick the machine into misdiagnosing, for example, an MIT study on chest X rays," he said. 

"And if you have a malicious actor, or even an accidental actor, it is perfectly possible to see how data poisoning or incorrectly categorised data can lead the machine to do something completely wrong with potentially very serious consequences."

Featured Resources

Choosing a collaboration platform

Eight questions every IT leader should ask

Download now

Performance benchmark: PostgreSQL/ MongoDB

Helping developers choose a database

Download now

Customer service vs. customer experience

Three-step guide to modern customer experience

Download now

Taking a proactive approach to cyber security

A complete guide to penetration testing

Download now

Recommended

HackBoss malware is using Telegram to steal cryptocurrency from other hackers
cryptocurrencies

HackBoss malware is using Telegram to steal cryptocurrency from other hackers

16 Apr 2021
FBI shuts down web shells in hacked Exchange servers
cyber security

FBI shuts down web shells in hacked Exchange servers

14 Apr 2021
Russia launched over a million cyber attacks in three months
hacking

Russia launched over a million cyber attacks in three months

13 Apr 2021
Hackers leak data from dark web marketplace
cyber security

Hackers leak data from dark web marketplace

9 Apr 2021

Most Popular

Microsoft is submerging servers in boiling liquid to prevent Teams outages
data centres

Microsoft is submerging servers in boiling liquid to prevent Teams outages

7 Apr 2021
How to find RAM speed, size and type
Laptops

How to find RAM speed, size and type

8 Apr 2021
UK exploring plans to launch its own digital currency
digital currency

UK exploring plans to launch its own digital currency

19 Apr 2021