Anonymous claims to have taken down 5500 ISIS-affiliated Twitter accounts. Opinions differ over how effective an Anonymous cyber offensive against the Caliphate will prove to be (many predict that rickrolling with a Guy Fawkes mask will be of small consequence). Some of the breathless denizens of Fleet Street look at attack maps and see Britain suffering in an ISIS-Anonymous cyber crossfire, but this appears much exaggerated.
Observers wonder why ISIS hasn't undertaken cyber terrorism, by which they mean cyber attacks with physical consequences. (ISIS sympathizers have certainly engaged in cyber-vandalism against soft targets like Jewish schools and small-market US media outlets, but that's a different matter.) In all probability ISIS lacks capability and is more interested in direct massacre than SCADA takedowns.
Some experts, speaking more-or-less on behalf of Western security services, think ISIS profited from Snowden's revelations, but how much terrorists actually use encrypted communications remains unclear. French authorities appear to have foreseen an attack based on their own surveillance capabilities, but were off in predicting dates and places — the familiar difficulty of extracting signal from noise. The encryption debate continues, with the tech industry (minus Blackberry but plus some US Representatives) largely pro-encryption and law enforcement (especially in the UK, and supported by the Manhattan DA) often anti.
Criminals resort to some familiar, albeit upgraded, malware: Blackhole is back, as are Destover and Dark Seoul.
Analysts think Microsoft has upped its security credibility.
Nations continue to grope toward cyber norms, but many think recent diplomacy has changed little.