9 ms·

Marcus Hutchins pleads not guilty in US

59 points by 0xbadf00d 9y ago

DKnoll 9y ago
This headline is editorialised. Some basic OSINT will show he also sold a banking trojan previously, which is what he is facing charges for.
- willstrafach 9y ago
  That is an allegation which has not been proven without a doubt. The headline, while complimentary, makes sense as it identifies him in the way most folks would recognize.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    That's the point of a criminal conspiracy: to be well-known only for positive things, and for nobody to know about your involvement in negative things. Obviously, he hasn't been found guilty of anything, and you're entitled to argue that the evidence suggests he isn't. The only thing you can't reasonably argue is what you've tried to argue here, which is that we should judge this person by what they were previously best known for.
    - willstrafach 9y ago
      The only judgement which should occur at this point is in the courtroom. I am making no argument beyond a reply to this part of the comment: > This headline is editorialised.
      - ryanlol 9y ago
        >The only judgement which should occur at this point is in the courtroom. But why? Why can't other people judge him for him previously selling other malware similar to Kronos under the handles "Gone With The Wind" and "iarkey" on Hackforums? Surely it's not for lack of evidence as anyone with access to google can easily verify this. If he's being framed, we're talking about at least a 7 year long operation to do so: https://i.succ.in/CWcDhXxi.png https://i.succ.in/CWcDhXxi.png
        willstrafach 9y ago
        The context was: > The only thing you can't reasonably argue is what you've tried to argue here, which is that we should judge this person by what they were previously best known for. I did not try to argue that at all, so I was clarifying my opinion. Nobody will stop you if you choose to judge him based on that allegation, I am choosing to wait on that due to the fact that it will get figured out (with actual evidence either way) in court.
        tptacek 9y ago
        I don't think I wrote this clearly and so I don't blame you for misunderstanding what I'm saying. Judge guilty, judge innocent, don't judge at all: all of those are reasonable options open to you. The only option I am pushing back on is the one that says the only reasonable way to frame somebody is in terms of the good thing they're best known for. Because, of course, it is in the nature of criminal conspiracies to work hard not to be known for them.
        nthcolumn 9y ago
        @ryanlol aka @weev aka @hitler aka @polpot shouldn't take someone with a -45 reputation's word for anything. favorite pastime of skids is false doxxing. do you have any actual evidence?
        ryanlol 9y ago
        Are you suggesting someone has been actively trying to frame Marcus Hutchins for 7 years? I'm sorry but that sounds a bit too tinfoily for me without any evidence. Not only that, but the key parts of this dox from 2010 have been confirmed by the media and now the FBI. What do you consider actual evidence? This is the kind of stuff they use every day in court, and there's lots of it if you bother to take 10 minutes to look on google. Courts aren't videogames, you don't win by outsmarting the computer. I suppose it's also worth pointing out that the reputation system on that site isn't very useful, when you get banned the staff usually wipes out all of your positive reputation as happened to the poster I screenshotted.
      - cortesoft 9y ago
        If you are talking about someone's trial, it makes sense to describe them as a 'defendant accused of x'. You don't pretend they are just there for no reason. You think during the OJ Simpson trial, we should never have talked about what the trial was for? Just kept talking about his football career and what a great athlete he was? No, you are allowed to talk about the alleged crimes during a trial.
        willstrafach 9y ago
        > You think during the OJ Simpson trial, we should never have talked about what the trial was for? Just kept talking about his football career and what a great athlete he was? This tells me you may have misunderstood the intention of my comment. I am talking only about the headline. People are more likely to know who it is with the NHS mention, as he was not known at all for the Kronos allegations until his arrest. We will see the truth during trial, the only point I intended to make here was regarding the headline making perfect sense.
    - nthcolumn 9y ago
      You don't prove that he isn't or need evidence to that effect. He doesn't prove the negative. A prosecutor and the only judge that counts should have to prove positive beyond reasonable doubt that he did something. Him - not somebody else, not a handle. With actual evidence. As for 'OSINT' aka 'google/twitter' I've seen a lot of chat logs and hearsay from rivals but not one shred of evidence. Certainly not enough even for an arrest warrant. I suspect somebody trying to make a name for themselves and see a lot of professional jealousy disappointingly. These and other forthright pronouncements are prejudicial to these sub-judicial proceedings. He has been tried already. Release @malwaretech.
- dang 9y ago
  Ok, we can take the epithet out of the title. We do that anyway when someone's name is well known to the HN community.
hacker_9 9y ago
You would think the UK government would help him out here, given what he did for us.
- tptacek 9y ago
  You think the UK government would intervene to stop the trial of someone accused of operating a conspiracy to spread banking trojans? Why?
  - hacker_9 9y ago
    Because he's not just a 'someone', he's a hero for stopping the disgusting attack on the NHS and letting doctors and nurses get on with their job of saving lives.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      This doesn't make any sense. It's not how justice works. You can't do one useful thing to excuse a series of grave crimes.
      - hacker_9 9y ago
        Ok, so where is the arrests and trials for the people from the NSA, who designed the exploit that was stolen and became a key part of the WannaCry virus? The very same exploit that was used in a bunch of other viruses too, which has stolen tens of thousands of dollars to date?
      - shubb 9y ago
        Occasionally it does in the UK. A man who was videoed appealingly for calm during the London riots was let off I believe an assault charge. The magistrate told him something like 'we're even now '. However this was mitigation at sentencing following a trial.
      - literallycancer 9y ago
        I know this probably isn't what you meant, but it's actually often the case that doing useful things helps people get over the other things you did, see Francis Drake, any number of founders of post-colonial and early 20th century countries, conquistadors/founding fathers/revolutionaries, etc. In short, justice is what most other influential people deem just, not some universal measure of conduct. Those responsible for the firebombing of Dresden never stood trial, because the victims belonged to the losing side. The "scientists" of Unit 731 never stood trial.[1] Only 13 out of 24 directors of IG Farben were found guilty and all were released early.[2] The church effectively killed hundreds of thousands (very conservative guess) by telling people not to use condoms. No one was tried. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731#Surrender_and_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731#Surrender_and_immunit... 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben#IG_Farben_Trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben#IG_Farben_Trial
thephyber 9y ago
Does anyone have a technical breakdown of what code he admits to have written? TIA I'm late to the party and most of the articles I've seen so far focus more on the person and WannaCry as opposed to the 2013-2014 aspect.
- armada651 9y ago
  Apparently it's about this code: https://www.malwaretech.com/2015/01/inline-hooking-for-programmers-part-2.html https://www.malwaretech.com/2015/01/inline-hooking-for-progr... This is function hooking code. It's useful when you need to change the behaviour of an application, by redirecting a function call to your own function. Like any piece of code it has both legitimate and nefarious uses. However, function hooking is very basic stuff. Anyone who has ever tried to learn how things work under the hood will have written function hooking code before.
  - lawnchair_larry 9y ago
    What's your source on that being the code in question?
    - icpmacdo 9y ago
      Not OP and idk but do you think Rob[0] it referencing this hooking code or something else on his Github[1] https://twitter.com/ErrataRob/status/893197917493882880 https://twitter.com/ErrataRob/status/893197917493882880 https://github.com/MalwareTech/BasicHook https://github.com/MalwareTech/BasicHook

59 points by 0xbadf00d 9y ago

This headline is editorialised. Some basic OSINT will show he also sold a banking trojan previously, which is what he is facing charges for.

willstrafach 9y ago
That is an allegation which has not been proven without a doubt. The headline, while complimentary, makes sense as it identifies him in the way most folks would recognize.
- tptacek 9y ago
  That's the point of a criminal conspiracy: to be well-known only for positive things, and for nobody to know about your involvement in negative things. Obviously, he hasn't been found guilty of anything, and you're entitled to argue that the evidence suggests he isn't. The only thing you can't reasonably argue is what you've tried to argue here, which is that we should judge this person by what they were previously best known for.
  - willstrafach 9y ago
    The only judgement which should occur at this point is in the courtroom. I am making no argument beyond a reply to this part of the comment: > This headline is editorialised.
    - ryanlol 9y ago
      >The only judgement which should occur at this point is in the courtroom. But why? Why can't other people judge him for him previously selling other malware similar to Kronos under the handles "Gone With The Wind" and "iarkey" on Hackforums? Surely it's not for lack of evidence as anyone with access to google can easily verify this. If he's being framed, we're talking about at least a 7 year long operation to do so: https://i.succ.in/CWcDhXxi.png https://i.succ.in/CWcDhXxi.png
      - willstrafach 9y ago
        The context was: > The only thing you can't reasonably argue is what you've tried to argue here, which is that we should judge this person by what they were previously best known for. I did not try to argue that at all, so I was clarifying my opinion. Nobody will stop you if you choose to judge him based on that allegation, I am choosing to wait on that due to the fact that it will get figured out (with actual evidence either way) in court.
        tptacek 9y ago
        I don't think I wrote this clearly and so I don't blame you for misunderstanding what I'm saying. Judge guilty, judge innocent, don't judge at all: all of those are reasonable options open to you. The only option I am pushing back on is the one that says the only reasonable way to frame somebody is in terms of the good thing they're best known for. Because, of course, it is in the nature of criminal conspiracies to work hard not to be known for them.
      - nthcolumn 9y ago
        @ryanlol aka @weev aka @hitler aka @polpot shouldn't take someone with a -45 reputation's word for anything. favorite pastime of skids is false doxxing. do you have any actual evidence?
        ryanlol 9y ago
        Are you suggesting someone has been actively trying to frame Marcus Hutchins for 7 years? I'm sorry but that sounds a bit too tinfoily for me without any evidence. Not only that, but the key parts of this dox from 2010 have been confirmed by the media and now the FBI. What do you consider actual evidence? This is the kind of stuff they use every day in court, and there's lots of it if you bother to take 10 minutes to look on google. Courts aren't videogames, you don't win by outsmarting the computer. I suppose it's also worth pointing out that the reputation system on that site isn't very useful, when you get banned the staff usually wipes out all of your positive reputation as happened to the poster I screenshotted.
    - cortesoft 9y ago
      If you are talking about someone's trial, it makes sense to describe them as a 'defendant accused of x'. You don't pretend they are just there for no reason. You think during the OJ Simpson trial, we should never have talked about what the trial was for? Just kept talking about his football career and what a great athlete he was? No, you are allowed to talk about the alleged crimes during a trial.
      - willstrafach 9y ago
        > You think during the OJ Simpson trial, we should never have talked about what the trial was for? Just kept talking about his football career and what a great athlete he was? This tells me you may have misunderstood the intention of my comment. I am talking only about the headline. People are more likely to know who it is with the NHS mention, as he was not known at all for the Kronos allegations until his arrest. We will see the truth during trial, the only point I intended to make here was regarding the headline making perfect sense.
  - nthcolumn 9y ago
    You don't prove that he isn't or need evidence to that effect. He doesn't prove the negative. A prosecutor and the only judge that counts should have to prove positive beyond reasonable doubt that he did something. Him - not somebody else, not a handle. With actual evidence. As for 'OSINT' aka 'google/twitter' I've seen a lot of chat logs and hearsay from rivals but not one shred of evidence. Certainly not enough even for an arrest warrant. I suspect somebody trying to make a name for themselves and see a lot of professional jealousy disappointingly. These and other forthright pronouncements are prejudicial to these sub-judicial proceedings. He has been tried already. Release @malwaretech.
dang 9y ago
Ok, we can take the epithet out of the title. We do that anyway when someone's name is well known to the HN community.

hacker_9 9y ago

You would think the UK government would help him out here, given what he did for us.

tptacek 9y ago
You think the UK government would intervene to stop the trial of someone accused of operating a conspiracy to spread banking trojans? Why?
- hacker_9 9y ago
  Because he's not just a 'someone', he's a hero for stopping the disgusting attack on the NHS and letting doctors and nurses get on with their job of saving lives.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    This doesn't make any sense. It's not how justice works. You can't do one useful thing to excuse a series of grave crimes.
    - hacker_9 9y ago
      Ok, so where is the arrests and trials for the people from the NSA, who designed the exploit that was stolen and became a key part of the WannaCry virus? The very same exploit that was used in a bunch of other viruses too, which has stolen tens of thousands of dollars to date?
    - shubb 9y ago
      Occasionally it does in the UK. A man who was videoed appealingly for calm during the London riots was let off I believe an assault charge. The magistrate told him something like 'we're even now '. However this was mitigation at sentencing following a trial.
    - literallycancer 9y ago
      I know this probably isn't what you meant, but it's actually often the case that doing useful things helps people get over the other things you did, see Francis Drake, any number of founders of post-colonial and early 20th century countries, conquistadors/founding fathers/revolutionaries, etc. In short, justice is what most other influential people deem just, not some universal measure of conduct. Those responsible for the firebombing of Dresden never stood trial, because the victims belonged to the losing side. The "scientists" of Unit 731 never stood trial.[1] Only 13 out of 24 directors of IG Farben were found guilty and all were released early.[2] The church effectively killed hundreds of thousands (very conservative guess) by telling people not to use condoms. No one was tried. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731#Surrender_and_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731#Surrender_and_immunit... 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben#IG_Farben_Trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben#IG_Farben_Trial

thephyber 9y ago

Does anyone have a technical breakdown of what code he admits to have written? TIA I'm late to the party and most of the articles I've seen so far focus more on the person and WannaCry as opposed to the 2013-2014 aspect.

armada651 9y ago
Apparently it's about this code: https://www.malwaretech.com/2015/01/inline-hooking-for-programmers-part-2.html https://www.malwaretech.com/2015/01/inline-hooking-for-progr... This is function hooking code. It's useful when you need to change the behaviour of an application, by redirecting a function call to your own function. Like any piece of code it has both legitimate and nefarious uses. However, function hooking is very basic stuff. Anyone who has ever tried to learn how things work under the hood will have written function hooking code before.
- lawnchair_larry 9y ago
  What's your source on that being the code in question?
  - icpmacdo 9y ago
    Not OP and idk but do you think Rob[0] it referencing this hooking code or something else on his Github[1] https://twitter.com/ErrataRob/status/893197917493882880 https://twitter.com/ErrataRob/status/893197917493882880 https://github.com/MalwareTech/BasicHook https://github.com/MalwareTech/BasicHook