Listen to this Post
Introduction: A New Attempt to Bring Transparency Into the Cybersecurity Crisis
For decades, cybersecurity has been surrounded by statistics, predictions, and alarming headlines, yet organizations still struggle to answer one fundamental question: How much damage are cyberattacks actually causing, and how often are companies truly failing?
A new initiative called The Hacker in a Hoodie (HIH) Index aims to change that by creating a continuously updated public record of major cybersecurity incidents. Developed by veteran cybersecurity executive Richard Bird, the project attempts to bring structure, transparency, and accountability to a field where data has often been fragmented, inconsistent, and heavily influenced by speculation.
Unlike many industry reports that rely on estimates and broad projections, the HIH Index focuses on documented events, evidence quality, and publicly available disclosures. Its goal is not to create another dramatic cybercrime number, but to build a trustworthy source where researchers, journalists, security professionals, policymakers, and businesses can examine what actually happened.
The Birth of the Hacker in a Hoodie Index: A Search for Cybersecurity Truth
Richard Bird, a longtime cybersecurity executive and current Chief Strategy and Chief Security Officer at enterprise AI governance company Singulr AI, created the HIH Index as part of his research for his upcoming book, Built Wrong: Why Cybersecurity Keeps Failing and How We Can Rebuild It.
Bird’s career includes leadership positions at major financial institutions such as JPMorgan Chase and several cybersecurity organizations. Through decades of observing the industry, he believes cybersecurity has developed a measurement problem.
The industry frequently tracks security activities, including the number of tools deployed, security assessments completed, and compliance requirements fulfilled. However, Bird argues that these measurements often fail to answer the question businesses care about most: Did cybersecurity actually reduce damage and prevent losses?
The HIH Index was created to provide a clearer picture by focusing on real-world outcomes rather than security theater.
Two Cybersecurity Ledgers Designed to Track Real Breaches
The foundation of the HIH Index consists of two continuously updated breach ledgers.
The first ledger collects information from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s EDGAR database. Since 2023, publicly traded companies have been required to disclose material cybersecurity incidents through SEC Form 8-K filings.
These filings provide one of the most reliable sources of breach information because companies are legally required to report significant cyber events.
The second ledger gathers information from company announcements and cybersecurity-related news reports. Since many incidents never receive detailed regulatory filings, this additional source helps capture a broader range of events.
Together, the two ledgers attempt to create a more complete picture of cybersecurity failures across industries.
Turning Chaotic Breach Reports Into Structured Intelligence
Cybersecurity breach information is rarely clean.
A company announcement may reveal that customer data was exposed but provide no financial impact. A regulatory filing may mention operational disruption but avoid revealing exact losses. News reports may include estimates that are difficult to verify.
The HIH Index attempts to organize this inconsistent information into a structured database.
Each entry receives a reliability classification:
Verified: Information directly supported by SEC filings.
Attested: Information confirmed by the affected company.
Inferred: Information based on external reporting.
This classification system helps readers understand how much confidence they should place in each incident.
Instead of presenting every cyber event as equal, the index highlights the difference between confirmed facts and unverified estimates.
More Than 100 Cyber Incidents Already Recorded
Although still relatively new, the HIH Index has already collected information on more than 100 cybersecurity incidents.
Recent entries have included breaches involving organizations such as Coca-Cola’s Fairlife, Centers Lab, Mount Royal University, and Accenture.
The purpose of the database is not simply to create a list of victims. Instead, it aims to create a searchable historical record that allows analysts to understand patterns.
Researchers can examine:
Which industries suffer the most attacks.
How companies disclose cyber incidents.
How long organizations take to reveal breaches.
Whether cybersecurity investments actually reduce damage.
Over time, Bird hopes the dataset can become a valuable measurement tool for understanding cyber risk.
Why the HIH Index Refuses to Create Another Fake Cybercrime Number
One of the biggest arguments behind the project is Bird’s rejection of simplistic cybercrime loss calculations.
The cybersecurity industry often references massive financial estimates, including trillion-dollar cybercrime predictions. Bird believes these numbers can create a false sense of precision because many cyber incidents are never fully measured.
Many HIH Index entries currently show “not yet quantified” because companies frequently do not disclose financial losses.
Even when a dollar figure exists, the quality of evidence varies. A confirmed SEC disclosure is not equivalent to a media estimate.
Adding all numbers together would create a statistic that appears scientific but may actually be misleading.
Bird argues that cybersecurity needs fewer dramatic predictions and more measurable facts.
Cybersecurity Has a Measurement Problem, Not Just a Security Problem
The deeper argument behind the HIH Index is that cybersecurity has historically been treated as an expense rather than a business performance function.
Most business departments are evaluated through measurable outcomes:
Sales through revenue.
Manufacturing through production.
Finance through profitability.
Operations through efficiency.
Cybersecurity, however, is often evaluated through activities rather than results.
Companies count:
Security tools purchased.
Employees trained.
Compliance audits completed.
But they rarely measure:
How much risk was reduced.
How much financial damage was avoided.
How effectively security investments performed.
Bird believes this outdated approach has allowed cybersecurity failures to continue because organizations are measuring the wrong things.
The Connection Between the HIH Index and Future Cybersecurity Accountability
The importance of the HIH Index extends beyond tracking breaches.
A reliable cybersecurity incident database could eventually influence:
Corporate security strategies.
Government cybersecurity policies.
Insurance risk models.
Investor decision-making.
Executive accountability.
If companies can compare real cybersecurity outcomes across industries, security may become less about purchasing products and more about demonstrating measurable protection.
The project represents a shift from fear-based cybersecurity discussions toward evidence-based analysis.
Deep Analysis: Using Data and Linux Tools to Study Cybersecurity Failures
Understanding Breach Intelligence Through Technical Analysis
Security professionals can use publicly available breach data combined with technical tools to identify trends.
A simple Linux workflow can help researchers analyze collected cybersecurity records.
Example commands:
mkdir breach-analysis cd breach-analysis
Create a dataset file:
touch incidents.csv
Search cybersecurity records:
grep -i "breach" incidents.csv
Count affected organizations:
awk -F',' '{print $2}' incidents.csv | sort | uniq -c
Analyze frequently targeted sectors:
cut -d',' -f3 incidents.csv | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr
Monitor changes over time:
diff old_dataset.csv new_dataset.csv
Security analysts can combine these methods with tools such as:
jq
for JSON-based intelligence feeds:
jq '.incidents[] | .company' data.json
Network defenders can also compare breach trends against internal security telemetry:
grep "failed login" /var/log/auth.log
Review suspicious activity:
journalctl | grep -i suspicious
The future of cybersecurity measurement will depend on combining public breach intelligence with technical evidence.
Data alone does not prevent attacks, but accurate data helps organizations understand where defenses fail.
What Undercode Say:
The creation of the Hacker in a Hoodie Index highlights one of cybersecurity’s biggest weaknesses: the industry has more security products than reliable measurements.
For years, organizations have invested billions into cybersecurity platforms.
Firewalls became stronger.
Endpoint protection became smarter.
Artificial intelligence entered security operations.
Cloud security expanded rapidly.
Yet major breaches continue.
The problem is not simply a lack of technology.
The deeper issue is that companies often cannot clearly measure cybersecurity success.
A security team may report that thousands of vulnerabilities were patched, but executives still struggle to understand whether business risk actually decreased.
The HIH Index introduces a different philosophy.
Instead of asking:
“How many security tools do we have?”
It asks:
“What happened when attackers targeted us?”
This difference is critical.
Cybersecurity should be measured by outcomes.
A company with fewer security products but strong incident response may perform better than a company with dozens of expensive tools but poor execution.
The cybersecurity industry has historically depended on fear.
Reports often highlight massive financial losses.
Predictions warn about catastrophic future attacks.
Marketing campaigns emphasize threats.
However, without accurate historical data, organizations cannot make intelligent decisions.
A breach database based on verified evidence can improve strategic planning.
It can help identify repeated failures.
It can reveal industries experiencing higher risks.
It can show whether security investments are producing measurable improvements.
The HIH Index also demonstrates the importance of transparency.
Cybersecurity incidents should not disappear after headlines fade.
Each breach contains lessons.
Every failure reveals weaknesses.
Every disclosure provides information that can help another organization avoid similar damage.
The biggest challenge will be maintaining accuracy as the database grows.
Cybersecurity data is difficult because organizations often disclose limited information.
Some companies minimize incidents.
Others delay reporting.
Some losses remain unknown for years.
This means cybersecurity measurement must always include uncertainty.
The future of security leadership will require better data collection, better analysis, and better accountability.
The organizations that succeed will not be those that simply buy the most security products.
They will be those that understand their actual risk, measure performance honestly, and continuously improve.
The HIH Index represents a small but important step toward making cybersecurity a measurable business function rather than an unpredictable expense.
✅ Richard Bird created the Hacker in a Hoodie Index to track publicly disclosed cybersecurity incidents and improve breach transparency.
✅ SEC cybersecurity disclosure rules for public companies began requiring material incident reporting through Form 8-K filings in 2023.
❌ A complete global calculation of all cyber losses does not currently exist because many incidents remain unreported or financially unquantified.
Prediction
(+1)
The HIH Index could become an important cybersecurity reference platform if organizations, researchers, and journalists adopt it as a trusted source.
Better breach transparency may push companies to measure cybersecurity effectiveness through business outcomes rather than only compliance activity.
Publicly available incident intelligence could improve cyber insurance models and government cybersecurity strategies.
The project may struggle with incomplete reporting because many organizations still avoid revealing detailed breach impacts.
Maintaining accurate classifications may become increasingly difficult as the number of tracked incidents grows.
Without broad industry adoption, the index could remain valuable but limited in influence.
Final Perspective: Moving Cybersecurity From Guesswork to Evidence
The cybersecurity industry has spent decades trying to predict the next major attack, but understanding past failures may be equally important.
The Hacker in a Hoodie Index represents an attempt to replace assumptions with evidence.
Cybersecurity cannot improve if organizations measure the wrong things.
Real progress requires understanding what failed, why it failed, and how much damage occurred.
A future where cybersecurity performance is measured with the same seriousness as revenue, operational efficiency, and financial risk could fundamentally change how businesses defend themselves.
The battle against cyber threats will not be won only with better technology.
It will be won with better information.
▶️ Related Video (70% Match):
🕵️📝Let’s dive deep and fact‑check.
🎓 Live Courses & Certifications:
Join Undercode Academy for Verified Certifications
🚀 Request a Custom Project:
Secure, high-velocity infrastructure and disruptive technological engineering. Contact our engineering team for high-tier development and proprietary systems:
[email protected]
💎 Smart Architecture | 🛡️ Secure by Design | ⭐ Trusted by Thousands
References:
Reported By: www.securityweek.com
Extra Source Hub (Possible Sources for article):
https://www.quora.com/topic/Technology
Wikipedia
OpenAi & Undercode AI
Image Source:
Unsplash
Undercode AI DI v2
🔐JOIN OUR CYBER WORLD [ CVE News • HackMonitor • UndercodeNews ]
📢 Follow UndercodeNews & Stay Tuned:
𝕏 formerly Twitter 🐦 | @ Threads | 🔗 Linkedin | 🦋BlueSky | 🐘Mastodon | 📺Youtube
