The drumbeat for “hacking back” resurfaces in public policy circles every few years, usually coinciding with a rise in cyber attacks. It’s a logical, emotional response. An attacker has stolen sensitive data, and frustrated victims ask, “How can we fight back?”

Emotionally, it feels justified. Technically, it’s a minefield. From a policy standpoint, it’s an issue that bogs down in liability, unintended consequences, and geopolitics.

On the Advancing Cyber Podcast, cybersecurity experts Nathan Case and Stacy O'Mara join host Cristin Flynn Goodwin to debate the pros and cons of hacking back, and the very real risk that collateral damages are greater than the original harm itself.