2 ms·

I'm completely lost. I work in affiliate marketing and I don't understand what you're saying. Could you explain very slowly how this would work in your mind? W

I'm completely lost. I work in affiliate marketing and I don't understand what you're saying. Could you explain very slowly how this would work in your mind? Who is paying the money, and who is receiving the money?

robjan 10y ago
In a simplified model, a legitimate set of actors for a legitimate product would be a. publisher b. affiliate network c. person selling a product You are saying that the affiliate network would block the publishers for distributing malware. Yes, that's true. But what is stopping someone from creating another affiliate network? That would replace the actors with the following: a. malware distributor b. illicit affiliate network c. malware publisher selling key In this case, the "product" is the key to decrypt the files. The network could be anyone. It could even be the same person who wrote the malware.
- rahrahrah 10y ago
  Ok, now I understand what you're saying. I imagine that anyone who is willing and skilled enough to be a malware distributor would rather just do the whole thing himself, ie code the malware himself and collect himself.
  - bigtunacan 10y ago
    It doesn't take a genius to spread malware. Install said malware on a USB stick and then drop it in a parking lot, or just go ahead and use it on a "friend's" computer etc. Using an existing affiliate network is much less effort than building one.
    - rahrahrah 10y ago
      My point wasn't using an existing affiliate network versus bulding one. Was having the skills to spread malware and using an affiliate network to get the malware, versus having the skills to spread malware and coding your own malware. But ok I got your main idea.
      - jwatte 10y ago
        Yes, the creators of the malware could also run the network. But they would spread wider by paying a bounty for each ransom, based on through whom the targeted system got infected. The benefits are that the creators get more people to hero then spread their blackmail. Call it affiliate, call it MLM, call it resellers, call it a distributed crime syndicate. Same thing.

robjan 10y ago

In a simplified model, a legitimate set of actors for a legitimate product would be a. publisher b. affiliate network c. person selling a product You are saying that the affiliate network would block the publishers for distributing malware. Yes, that's true. But what is stopping someone from creating another affiliate network? That would replace the actors with the following: a. malware distributor b. illicit affiliate network c. malware publisher selling key In this case, the "product" is the key to decrypt the files. The network could be anyone. It could even be the same person who wrote the malware.

rahrahrah 10y ago
Ok, now I understand what you're saying. I imagine that anyone who is willing and skilled enough to be a malware distributor would rather just do the whole thing himself, ie code the malware himself and collect himself.
- bigtunacan 10y ago
  It doesn't take a genius to spread malware. Install said malware on a USB stick and then drop it in a parking lot, or just go ahead and use it on a "friend's" computer etc. Using an existing affiliate network is much less effort than building one.
  - rahrahrah 10y ago
    My point wasn't using an existing affiliate network versus bulding one. Was having the skills to spread malware and using an affiliate network to get the malware, versus having the skills to spread malware and coding your own malware. But ok I got your main idea.
    - jwatte 10y ago
      Yes, the creators of the malware could also run the network. But they would spread wider by paying a bounty for each ransom, based on through whom the targeted system got infected. The benefits are that the creators get more people to hero then spread their blackmail. Call it affiliate, call it MLM, call it resellers, call it a distributed crime syndicate. Same thing.