<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Survey of On-line Risks Faced by Internet Users in the Nigerian Telecommunication Space</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Elizabeth. N. Onwuka</string-name>
          <email>onwukaliz@futminna.edu.ng</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">3</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>David O. Afolayan</string-name>
          <email>david.afolayan@st.futminna.edu.ng</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">3</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Wasiu Abubakar</string-name>
          <email>wasiu.abubakar@st.futminna.edu.ng</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">3</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Joshua. I. Ibrahim</string-name>
          <email>joshua.ibrahim@st.futminna.edu.ng</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">3</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Department of Computer Science, Federal University of Technology</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Minna</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="NG">Nigeria</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>Department of Cyber Security Science, Federal University of Technology</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Minna</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="NG">Nigeria</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2">
          <label>2</label>
          <institution>Department of Telecommunications Engineering, Federal University of Technology</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Minna</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="NG">Nigeria</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3">
          <label>3</label>
          <institution>Federal University of Technology</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Minna</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="NG">Nigeria</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>2016</year>
      </pub-date>
      <fpage>28</fpage>
      <lpage>33</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>-In the past ten years, mobile broadband has made an inroad into the country and just in the last six years a twenty-two percent leap has been gained with respect to Internet use penetration. To this end the use of Information and Communication Technology by Nigerians for their various daily activities has gradually but steadily grown. This has remarkably created new jobs, raised the national GDP, and has generally improved ways people live and do business. This advancement however has proven to be a double edged sword as a good number of Nigerians have reportedly fallen victim to different forms of threats online or might have heard about victims of such crimes, which has led to gross distrust in new and existing innovations in the world of ICT. The negative consequence of this on the potential economic alongside technological development that the country could enjoy from the ICT sector is quite obvious. This paper investigates the nature of threats posed at Nigerians as they go online via an online survey. The survey shows 95.2% of respondents are regular internet users with 14.4% as victims of online fraud.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>-cybercrime</kwd>
        <kwd>cybersecurity</kwd>
        <kwd>internet</kwd>
        <kwd>online risk</kwd>
        <kwd>telecommunication</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>Nigeria;
I.</p>
      <p>INTRODUCTION</p>
      <p>In the early days of telephony, telephone service
comprised mainly voice and there were little or no worries
about dangers to the user. However, as developments in the
field of Information and Communication Technology began
to emerge accompanied by the advent of Internet technology,
electronic communication began to take a new face. The
Internet, which is a network of networks, was designed to
support data communications and has played a major role in
the advancements recorded in digital technologies. It has
resulted to the convergence of computing and
telecommunications, and therefore the expansion of
conventional telephony and data communications.</p>
      <p>
        There has been an estimated 22% increase with respect to
Internet use penetration in the Nigerian population just
between 2010 and 2016, having the national Internet use
penetration to be 46.1% in 2016, as opposed to 24% in 2010
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ]. This means that the Nigerian cyber space has
experienced some growth over the past years with individual
users seeing the Internet services to be quite an imperative
aspect of their daily lives. This rapid escalation in users of
Internet services as well as the varieties of services available
online has, no doubt, contributed to the level of growth the
Nigerian economy has experienced. However, this great feat
is not without setbacks as it has given rise to diverse kinds of
criminal activities including the very popular “419 attacks”.
Due to the various threats posed by the Internet coupled with
the concept of online anonymity, a good number of
Nigerians have little or no trust for online activities thereby
leveraging the chances of Nigeria gaining possible
advancements that could be acquired via exploiting the rich
resources provided through telecommunication.
      </p>
      <p>
        Nigeria currently ranks seventh amongst the top internet
users globally with an Internet penetration of 46.1% of her
population as at July 1st, 2016, consisting of persons who
possess the capabilities to access Internet services from
within the reach of their homes, with the aid of any form of
device and mode of connection [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ]. However, according to
the report of G. Sesan et al [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ] on the survey they carried out
in the year 2013, 30% of the respondents affirmed to having
been victims of cybercrime activities in the year 2012. Also
recorded from a news report according to THISDAY
newspaper, the estimated annual cost of cybercrime to the
nation is roughly 0.08% of her Gross Domestic Product
(GDP), equivalent to N127 billion cash worth[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ]. To this
end, it is therefore imperative to have a cybersecurity
framework that is suitable to meet the evolving safety
requirements in the field of telecommunication and
cybersecurity as it concerns the nation. It is expected that
with the aid of this framework an immense measure of
confidence in the Nigerian telecommunication space will be
instilled in her populace. This will boost the economy by
making the nation connect to the world market via
ecommerce. The moral development of the young will also be
ensured. The rest of this paper is organized as follows:
Section II presents various types of online risk, Section III
discusses the methodology adopted for this on-going
research, Section IV presents the results as well as relevant
discussions, while Section V concludes the paper.
      </p>
      <p>TYPOLOGY OF ONLINE RISK</p>
      <p>
        Online Risk is any form of Internet related danger that
internet users are prone to. Online risk can still mean the
vulnerability of an organization's internal assets that emerges
from the organization utilizing the Internet to conduct
business [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ]. All organizations that conduct some part of
their business on the Internet encounter some type of online
danger. Vulnerable data can incorporate individual
information, data about ventures or information made by
frameworks or procedures by which the association works.
Online threat does not limit to only organizations rather it
involves every internet consumer in one way or the other.
Online risk typology is as shown Fig. 1 below.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>A. Internet Technology Risk</title>
      <p>Internet technology risk can be grouped into two
categories namely:</p>
      <p>1) Content risk: Content risks comprise three main
subcategories: (i) illegal content; (ii) age-inappropriate or
harmful content; (iii) harmful advice.</p>
      <p>2) Contact risk: Contact risks comprises of (i)
cybergrooming (ii) online harassment (iii) cyberbullying</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>B. Consumer Related Risk</title>
      <p>
        Consumer related risk is a type of risk that occur to
Internet user that engages in buying and selling of goods and
services on the Internet [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ]. Consumer related risk can be
further broken down into two categories namely.
      </p>
      <p>1) Online Marketing which is a category of consumer
related risk that involves online advertisement for regulated
or age-restricted products to minors such as alcohol,
cigarettes and prescription medicines. It raises concerns that
such marketing downplays risky lifestyles and links children
to suppliers online.</p>
      <p>2) Fraudulent Transactions occur when an Internet user
enters into a distance sales contract but, having paid do not
receive adequate value for money or find themselves tied
into subscriptions. The fear of fraudulent transactions is
very high in Nigeria which is one of the limitation affecting
the growth of E-commerce in the country. Fraudulent
transactions can be sub-categorized into 2 groups namely:
 Online fraud and
 Identity theft</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>C. Internet Privacy and Security Risks (Mobile Devices and Malware)</title>
      <p>
        Over the years, smartphones and tablets have gained a
worldwide penetration with over 1.4 billion smartphones
bought in the year 2015. And it was observed that for every
six new phones that were bought five of them ran on an
android operating system [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ]. From a survey carried out by
S. Kempt et al it’s observed that 82% of webpages viewed in
Nigeria were served to mobile devices 66% of which were
requested by users of android devices [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        Over the past few years it has been observed that the
different variants of malware that affect android devices have
been on a very high increase even as they grow very much
stealthy. Hackers all over the world have been working so
hard to develop means by which malware can evade security
software that make use of a signature-based solution. In the
year 2015 there was a 40% increase in the volume of android
malware variants present in cyberspace as against the
volume in 2014 [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        The possibility of having Trojan embedded apps on
Google Play store, the official android app store as well as
other intermediary app stores is a leading motivating factor
why hackers are up and about coding up more sophisticated
variants of these malware class [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ]. In a report by
AlcatelLucent [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ], it was stated that in the bid to have users install
malware infected apps, hackers run a social engineering
campaign to gain the trust and confidence of such users. An
instance was given of the Not Compatible proxy; whose
name came about as a result of the events surrounding it
being that prospective victims on visiting infected websites
are notified that their browsers cannot view the site, the
notification will further include recommendations about
downloading and installing an update provided, which surely
contained in it the intended to be propagated malware. The
following are some of the most common categories of
malware that affect mobile devices.
      </p>
      <p>
        1) Madware: Basically the most prevalent of all the
classes is the madware also known as aggressive mobile
adware. The term aggressive emanates from the fact that
madware are normally applications that make use of
aggressive methods to put up advertisements on the
notification bar, gallery, messaging application as well as
other applications of an android phone user [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ]. As at the
first half of the year 2013, it was observed that madware had
gained a well over 23% presence on the Google Play
appstore and that of the sixty-five renowned ad libraries,
over 50% were ranked as being aggressive [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        2) Ransomware: The current rate at which people are
faced with the challenge of extortion in Nigeria and
ultimately the entire world is quite alarming, the trending
utilities provided by Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) made use of by almost everyone all over
the world everyday aggravates the success-rate experienced
by perpetrators of this appalling trend. Malicious persons
often use this type of malware to commandeer victims’
electronic resources as well as demand for a “ransom” in
order that the resources be released [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ]. There are currently
two types of this malware in existence, the first of which is
the crypto-ransomware designed with the intent of finding
and encrypting relevant data saved on a computer system
rendering such data inaccessible to the user except he gets
the decryption key. The next type of ransomware is the
locker-ransomware with the aim of denying a legitimate
user access to his computer or mobile device by locking it,
leaving him with only the capability to relate with the
ransomware so as to pay the demanded ransom [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ]. A very
renowned variant of ransomware is “CryptoWall”, from the
group of file-encrypting ransomware and came into
limelight near the beginning of the year 2014 [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
        ].
CryptoWall is famous for the fact that it makes use of a
well-developed AES encryption scheme which is known to
be impenetrable, a distinctive CHM infection mechanism
and finally a quite robust C2 activity system running on
dark web (i.e. the Tor Anonymous Network). This variant of
ransomware is disseminated ubiquitously via spamming
campaigns, malvertising schemes along with countless
exploit kits [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        3) Banking-Trojans: Over the years the battle between
financial institutions and attackers have never ceased, the
internet and various smart devices have also had their role to
play in this tug-of-war both towards the positive as well as
the negative axis [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">16</xref>
        ]. One of the most illustrious weapons
used by attackers against financial institutions is the
Banking-Trojan, with the central purpose to gather relevant
banking information from a certain victim so as to have
adequate information to carry out sham transactions [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref17">17</xref>
        ]. A
good example of a Banking-Trojan is “Infostealer.Shifu”
which is a quite sophisticated Trojan with the classic
constituents of a well calculated financial fraud. It operates
by pilfering a wide selection of authentication details made
use of by an infected victim, this is made possible by virtue
of a keylogging system that records keystrokes of
authentication details typed into web forms, covert
operations that harvest private certificates, rootkits that
grant the attacker remote access and control over infected
system and block channels for external authentication [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref18">18</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>III.</p>
      <p>RESEARCH METHOD</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>A. Research Scope and Setting</title>
      <p>The scope identifies the region or domain from which
relevant data were gathered for the purpose of carrying out
this research. The survey participants were basically obtained
from all six geopolitical zones in the federation, having a
substantial representation of residents from various parts of
the country. The instrument of the survey was a web-based
questionnaire administered via social media, e-mail as well
as text-messages to various Internet users all over the
country. The questionnaire was designed to consist of a six
level categorization, category one handled general survey
data (i.e. basic demographic data), the next category
consisted of questions that cover general internet usage,
category three comprised of questions on social media usage,
the forth category included questions that compile email
usage data, category five contained e-commerce questions
and finally the last category probes the user on their level of
awareness about online security.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>B. Data Collection Instrument</title>
      <p>For this study a web-based questionnaire platform served
as the primary data collection instrument. The motivation
behind selecting this method was as a result of:
 Its capacity to reach out to a larger geographical area
as opposed to manually distributed questionnaires or
interviews.
 The ease in processing data, being that responses can
be automatically collected into a database for the
purpose of storage, or directly sent to a data analysis
application as well as a spreadsheet for further
analysis of the data.
 The possibilities to make available audio and visual
directives in order to simplify concepts.
 Existing provisions for sending out reminders to as
many participants who are yet to respond to the
questionnaire.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>C. Proposed Framework Structure</title>
      <p>The framework sought to highlight information security
measures in the area of business confidentiality as well as
modes of governmental security strategy implementation,
and also processes put in place to maintain the protection of
every Nigerian citizen’s privacy and civil liberty.</p>
      <p>
        With an understanding that telecommunication in Nigeria
has the potential to cause a quantum leap in the level of
development experienced as a nation and is being confronted
with various threats present in cyber space that must be
abated pronto, this framework is to be established on the
basis of the following four areas, which were adopted from
the model of the [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ] Jamaican national cyber security
strategy
1) Technical Measures: This makes sure that critical
infrastructure remains in state of optimal operation by
reason of maximum resilience to cyber threats. It adopts a
risk based tactic having both private and public sectors of
the federation carry out different levels of risk assessments
as well as promoting the adoption of relevant precautionary
measures which will include proper utilization of best
practises and standards.
      </p>
      <p>2) Human Resource and Capacity Building: This
section involves the institution alongside sustenance of a
consortium of well-trained Cyber-Security experts who will
be instrumental to the detection, response and recovery from
whatever incidence of cyber-attack and would also be at the
helm of developmental research in the area of National
Cyber-Security.</p>
      <p>3) Legal and Regulatory Setup: Here efforts are made
to bring up existing policy documents and frameworks to
ensure that the public is aware of them as well as possible
reviews of such legislative documents in order to provide
surety of resort for business stakeholders in cases where
they stand as objects of a cybercrime incident.</p>
      <p>4) Public Education and Awareness: Stands to be a
pivotal part of this framework as it entails fostering
educative campaigns targeted at Internet users in both the
public and private sectors to retsrain them on matters
concerning cyber risks and threats they are exposed to as
well as apt actions they could possibly take to stay safe from
such incidences.</p>
      <p>IV.</p>
      <p>RESULTS AND DISCUSSION</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-8">
      <title>A. Description of Collated Data</title>
      <p>From the data collected under Category One: General
survey data, Male gender has 89.1% while female gender has
10.9% of the total respondents as seen in Fig. 3, showing that
male gender gave more responses as compared to female
gender. Fig. 4 shows that, 56.2% of the respondents are aged
between 21-30, 24% are aged between 11-20, 10.4% are
aged between 31-40 while between age 41-50 we have 6.3%
and respondents above age 50 take 3.1%. 83% of the
respondents stays in urban area as compared to those
respondents that stay in rural area of 17% as described in
Fig. 5. This still shows that those in urban have more access
to internet than those in rural area.</p>
      <p>Category Two: General Internet Usage Data shows that,
95.2% of the respondents agree they use the internet
regularly while 4.8% do not access the internet regularly as
represented in Fig. 6. Fig. 7 shows 55.8%, 43.8%, 46.1%,
48%, 25.2%, 4.4% and 4.8% of respondents use Mozilla
Firefox, Google Chrome, UC Browser, Opera, Internet
Explorer, Safari and Other browser vendors respectively as
means of accessing the internet. On devices used to access
the internet seen in Fig. 8, 60.2% of all respondents use
laptops, 18.8% use desktop devices, 13.3% use tablets,
66.5% use smartphones and 30% use mobile phones.
The responses collated from Category Three: Social
Media Usage Data, showed that 97.5% of respondents are on
social media while just 2.5% are not. This shows that quite a
number of internet users in Nigerian are engaged in social
networks making the social platform a wide and easy access
to launch unscrupulous activities. Fig. 9 shows 91.2% use
Facebook while 81.1% use Whatsapp with 43.5% of the
respondents having very frequent access to these platforms
and 41.4% accessing it often. Other platforms like Twitter
(47.7%), Google+ (45.2%), Skype (20.4%) and 2go (12.8%)
had below 50% access by the respondents. A total of 76.3%
receive unwanted messages on their social platforms with
12.8% receiving these messages very often, 33.6% often,
31.1% not often and 22.5% rarely as depicted in Fig. 10.
This shows that quite a number of this users have privacy
breaches not therefore ensuring the confidentiality of their
data online. 14.4% have fallen victims of fraud via their
social media accounts with 45.5% of this incident resulting
to financial and money loss, 23.4% resulting to damaged
reputation and a total of 6.5% leading to business
discontinuities as seen in Fig. 12 below.
the users had other information requested as seen in Fig. 15.
74% of the users took such mails to be a scam which shows
quite a high sense and awareness of security, 22.8%
considered it a beneficiary but uninteresting one and 12.9%
took it to be a legitimate one.</p>
      <p>Results gotten from Category Four: Email Usage Data,
reveal that 94.4% of respondents use electronic mail. Fig 13.
Shows that only 53.3% checking their mails very often and
28.5% having often checks of their mails. 64.2% read all
their mails while 35.8% do not. 8.2% do not go through
spam messages, 10.9% go through them very often, 17.1%
go through them often, 30% rarely go through them and
33.8% do not often go through them. This shows that quite a
number of Nigerian internet users pay little or no attention to
spam messages coupled with the 26.2% of respondents
follow referral links provided in spam messages. 67.5% of
respondents receive mails requesting their personal
information through links and emails unknown to them with
Fig. 14 showing 8.9% receiving such mails very often,
24.5% rarely, 27.3% often and 39.3% not often. Information
such as personal bio data were requested from 63.2% of
respondents, CV from 27.6% of the users and about 4.4% of</p>
      <p>From the data collected under Category Five:
ecommerce, 78.2% of the respondents indicated that they
perform bank transactions online with 28.5% of them as
users who utilize the services always, 54.2% perform
transactions online once in a while and 17.3% only when
they have no other choice. Of the various possible
transactions online 79.5% of the respondents pay bills online,
44.2% purchase items individually while 11.1% make bulk
purchases online and 64.7% take advantage of internet for
money transfer purposes as shown in Fig. 16. This shows
that a good number of Nigerians are knowledgeable about
ebusiness portals which means they are also exposed to the
various forms of fraudulent attacks by means of imposters
posing to be legitimate online store outlets as well as persons
who showcase inexistent products online for the sole purpose
of duping gullible persons.
From Category Six: Security Awareness, 88.1% of
respondents attested to using antivirus software which is an
obvious indicator of the fact that Nigerians understand the
importance of antivirus software for security over and above
safety purposes, though for reasons best known to them
11.9% of the respondents do not use antivirus. However,
70.3 % of all respondents make use of free antivirus software
mostly because of the cost-implications, 28.4% use paid
versions while 22.1 % use cracked antivirus software. With
only 28.4% of respondents making use of paid antivirus as
depicted in Fig. 17. It is not far from the truth that only this
percentage have full authentic protection from threats and
various malware over the internet which leaves a tangible
sum of the populace exposed. In mobile device use, 72.6%
have devices running on android OS, 4% on iOS, 6.7% use
Windows mobile devices, 9.9% use Blackberry devices,
0.4% and 4.9% still use devices running on Symbian and
Java platforms while a striking 1.3% use other mobile device
operating systems. For the category of desktop operating
systems, 41.6% of respondents primarily use Windows 7,
3.9% still use Windows XP, 26.9% use Windows 8/8.1,
24.2% use Windows 10 while 1% and 2.4% use Linux and
MacOS respectively. This shows that we have more of our
respondents prone to various malware attacks as stated in
Section II being that more of the respondents are on the
android platform, however for the desktop users with no
steady firewall protection would still be liable to suffer
various threats online. On matters that concerned user
awareness, as seen in Fig. 18, 2.5% of respondents classified
their knowledge about applications and devices they use to
access the internet as poor, 18% as excellent, 35.4% as
satisfactory while 44.1% as good. 37.6% of respondents also
indicated their knowledge of the settings and configuration
of those devices and applications as good, 33.6% as
satisfactory, 15.5% as excellent, with 8% and 5.3 as poor and
having no knowledge of settings and configurations
respectively shown in Fig. 19. Though a substantial amount
of the respondents indicated to be aware of their devices and
settings it is still important that a more of the Nigerian
populace get acquainted with their devices and relevant
settings as it is key to averting attacks such as social
engineering. For those who look out for security indicators
while surfing the internet 60.9% of respondents do while
39.1% do not look out for such indicators. Of the four
security indicators specified in the questionnaire, 64.5% of
respondents look out for HTTPS, 54.9% for the padlock
icon, 23.9% for TRUSTe and 19.8% for Symantec Norton
Secure.</p>
      <p>V.</p>
      <p>CONCLUSION</p>
      <p>This paper is posed to discover how vulnerable Nigerians
are online. It started by discussing the various types and
classes of online risks that users of the Internet are likely to
encounter. It also highlighted on the methods of spreading
these dangerous wares to unsuspecting users of the Internet.
It then went ahead to report thoroughly on the survey carried
out to discover how protected or not and how aware are
Nigerian Internet users are of online risks. This is done in a
bid develop a framework for protecting unsuspecting
Nigerian citizens who carry out their daily legitimate
businesses online. Doing this will give a boost to the
Nigerian telecommunication space and strengthen
ecommerce in the country. The paper also gave a brief
highlight on the steps towards developing this online
protection.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1] InternetLiveStats, “Statistics of Internet Users in Nigeria,”
          <year>2016</year>
          . [Online]. Available: http://www.internetlivestats.com/internetusers/nigeria/.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
            <surname>Sesan</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Soremi</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Oluwafemi</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “Economic Cost of Cybercrime in Nigeria,”
          <year>2013</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3] THISDAY, “
          <article-title>Nigeria Loses over N127bn Annually through Cybercrime</article-title>
          ,”
          <year>2016</year>
          . [Online]. Available: http://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/
          <year>2016</year>
          /04/19/nigeria-loses
          <article-title>-overn127bn-annually-through-cybercrime/.</article-title>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>[4] TechTarget, “Risk managment in Business.”</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5] OECD, “The Protection of Children Online,”
          <year>2012</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Symantec</given-names>
            <surname>Corporation</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “
          <source>Internet Security Threat Report</source>
          <year>2016</year>
          ,”
          <year>2016</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [7]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Kemp</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <surname>wearesocial</surname>
            <given-names>SG</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <source>“DIGITAL IN</source>
          <year>2016</year>
          ,”
          <year>2016</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          [8]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Gaines</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
            <surname>Martin</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
            <surname>Rieger</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Rupp</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Aukschlat</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>V.</given-names>
            <surname>Jasny</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Pirk</surname>
          </string-name>
          , E. Bericht,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Shahd</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Dehmel</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Datenschutz</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Ruggiero</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Foote</surname>
          </string-name>
          , C. Reich, D. Wandel,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Security</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A. L.</given-names>
            <surname>Ahead</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R. O.</given-names>
            <surname>Hornung</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Kaspersky Lab, INTERPOL,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
            <surname>Büllingen</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>and</article-title>
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Hillebrand</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “MOBILE CYBER THREATS,”
          <year>2014</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          [9]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Alcatel-Lucent</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “
          <article-title>Mobile malware : A network view Black Hat Mobile Security Summit -</article-title>
          <year>London 2015</year>
          ,”
          <year>2015</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          [10]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D. R.</given-names>
            <surname>Tobergte</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Curtis</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “Norton Madware Fact Sheet,”
          <year>2013</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          [11]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Uscilowski</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “Mobile Adware and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Malware</given-names>
            <surname>Analysis</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,”
          <year>2013</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          [12]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Lipovský</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
            <surname>Štefanko</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and G. Braniša, “The Rise of Android Ransomware,”
          <year>2015</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          [13]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
            <surname>Savage</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Coogan</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
            <surname>Lau</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “The Evolution of Ransomware,”
          <year>2015</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          [14]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Beek</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Castillo</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Cochin</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Hinchliffe</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Jarvis</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
            <surname>Li</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Q.</given-names>
            <surname>Liu</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Mandal</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Rosenquist</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Samani</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Sherstobitoff</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Simon</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Snell</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Sommer</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Sun</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Walter</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Xu</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Zhu</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “
          <article-title>McAfee Labs 2016 Threats Predictions McAfee Labs offers a</article-title>
          ,”
          <year>2016</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          [15]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Wyke</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Ajjan</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “The Current State of Ransomware,”
          <year>2015</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          [16]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Krysiuk</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Doherty</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “The World of Financial Trojans,”
          <year>2013</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref17">
        <mixed-citation>
          [17]
          <string-name>
            <surname>S. S. E. R. T. SERT</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “
          <article-title>BlackHole Exploit Kit , Banking Trojans and</article-title>
          ACH Transfers,” North America,
          <year>2012</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref18">
        <mixed-citation>
          [18]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Wueest</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “Financial threats
          <year>2015</year>
          ,”
          <year>2016</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>