4 ms·

Ransomware: Another great "feature" of difficult to trace digital currencies.

by kasperni 5y ago

amoshi 5y ago
Ransomware: Another great "feature" of non-backdoored encryption. See how silly you sound?
- 0xfaded 5y ago
  This is what-about-ism. There are valid reasons for strong encryption, e.g. protecting the very data that has been compromised here.
  - azangru 5y ago
    It is not a whataboutism; it's a reductio ad absurdum.
- ChainOfFools 5y ago
  that's malware, not new. the ransom part, at the scale possible with cryptocurrency, is new. those who sound "silly" are the ones elaborately pretending that this formerly obscure class of electronic extortion didn't suddenly explode into an epidemic with the concomitant rise of cryptocurrency.
  - grlass 5y ago
    true, though arguably it's a good thing. In the sense that it moves more of the costs of malware to the organisations that are meant to be securing the data. Previously, these costs were more borne by customers/clients/etc, and thus not taken as seriously - abstract costs and externalities. Putting a clear number of the cost of poor cybersecurity should push more organisations to actually do something about it.
    - ChainOfFools 5y ago
      no. mugging is not "good" because it incentivizes people to take karate classes. what an inhumane and cynical take.
      - grlass 5y ago
        Theft was happening anyway via malware, it's just fewer of the costs were being borne directly. And as data collection increases, those indirect costs are getting higher. Now the organisation has more at to lose at first pass, rather than just data subjects.
argvargc 5y ago
Said the medieval King: Ransom: Another great "feature" of difficult-to-trace personal gold coinage What you're actually saying is: Bad thing: Another great "feature" of any kind of positive development in personal sovereignty Or Bad thing: Another great "feature" of any kind of progress --- Progress comes with pitfalls. Sharp knives prepare food and also kill people. You argument effectively reduces to: never innovate.
- dTal 5y ago
  Your argument reduces to: "progress" is always good, even if it's bad. I think we're perfectly allowed to discuss whether we think a particular kind of change is a good or bad thing.
  - argvargc 5y ago
    I'm not making an argument "for progress" at all. I actually 100% agree that we are allowed to, and should, discuss the ramifications of any kind of change. My point is only that the original comment didn't attempt make any argument, other than the reduced one I outlined.
    - dTal 5y ago
      But they did. They said that digital currencies are difficult to trace and lead to an increase in ransomware. The closest thing to a response you made was "Progress comes with pitfalls".
    - dalbasal 5y ago
      That's not really a reduction... more of a random association to a generality you feel strongly about. You "reduced" difficult to trace digital currencies to "any kind of positive development in personal sovereignty." No need to keep defending a mistake. Just reread your own comment and the OP's. Respond to the comment itself, not other discussions you've had on the topic. If you think the argument implies something you disagree with, make the connection. Don't just assert that the argument reduces to this. Besides being mistake prone, it's unfriendly and unproductive. I've made plenty of comments myself that I don't/shouldn't stand behind, in short retrospect. I suspect this is one of yours. Minor foul. Happens. Shake hands and make good.
Quarrelsome 5y ago
apparently the traceability of digital currencies is proving effective in tracking down criminals that might otherwise operate in just cash.
- Jolter 5y ago
  Cryptocurrencies are what allows criminals to scale these attacks. They also significantly decrease the risk of getting caught, compared to accepting cash in a briefcase. I’m not sure what point you are trying to make.
  - Quarrelsome 5y ago
    im saying the traceability/digitalization is a double-edged sword.
- tgv 5y ago
  So, did they get the people that r'wared the US pipeline then?
  - sbarre 5y ago
    Infosec Twitter this morning seems to imply that perhaps they did. https://twitter.com/hashtag/REvil?src=hashtag_click&f=live https://twitter.com/hashtag/REvil?src=hashtag_click&f=live caveat that this world is full of rampant speculation and lies so take it with a grain of salt. ;-)
  - Enginerrrd 5y ago
    If they haven't yet, give it a little time. Fucking with US oil supplies is a really good way to get the opportunity to feel the full engine of US intelligence and military might.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
dmos62 5y ago
Ransomware: another great feature of cryptography.
GrumpyNl 5y ago
I have always understood that all payments were traceable with digital currencies. Am I wrong?
- trompetenaccoun 5y ago
  Not all cryptocurrencies but it's true for something like Bitcoin. The problem is you can trace the transaction to the attackers wallet, but where does it go from there? It might sit there, they might throw the money in a tumbler, maybe they sell it for cash... If or when it shows up in a KYC-compliant exchange it could have changed hands many times already and it might not be possible to say anything about the actual criminal at that point.
  - bagacrap 5y ago
    So it's up to the individual to make sure they're not accepting dirty money. Shouldn't be hard to write software to accomplish that. The exchanges can do it --- flag incoming dirty money. Average users don't accept btc from strangers as a payment for goods or services anyway.
    - trompetenaccoun 5y ago
      Yes, but for example when you use a tumbler (mixer) the whole idea is to receive random coins back. Also you can not rely on everyone to know and care about this. And not all dirty money is publicly known anyway. So there will always be ways to get rid of dirty BTC. The non-fungibility of bitcoins can be seen as an advantage or one of its largest flaws, depending on how you look at it. Either way it's the reason quite a few people have switched to Monero and other completely fungible coins. >Shouldn't be hard to write software to accomplish that There are startups offering exactly this as a service already.
gccs 5y ago
The crypto-revolution and its consequences were a disaster for the human race...
- andrewnicolalde 5y ago
  What specifically do you mean by the crypto-revolution?
  - fuzzer37 5y ago
    It's a reference to the Unabomber's Manifesto
    - andrewnicolalde 5y ago
      Christ..
swiley 5y ago
This was done before crypto currencies.
- rjmunro 5y ago
  But it only became a serious problem because of them.
Graffur 5y ago
Ransomware: Another great "feature" of computers.

Ransomware: Another great "feature" of difficult to trace digital currencies.

amoshi 5y ago

Ransomware: Another great "feature" of non-backdoored encryption. See how silly you sound?

0xfaded 5y ago
This is what-about-ism. There are valid reasons for strong encryption, e.g. protecting the very data that has been compromised here.
- azangru 5y ago
  It is not a whataboutism; it's a reductio ad absurdum.
ChainOfFools 5y ago
that's malware, not new. the ransom part, at the scale possible with cryptocurrency, is new. those who sound "silly" are the ones elaborately pretending that this formerly obscure class of electronic extortion didn't suddenly explode into an epidemic with the concomitant rise of cryptocurrency.
- grlass 5y ago
  true, though arguably it's a good thing. In the sense that it moves more of the costs of malware to the organisations that are meant to be securing the data. Previously, these costs were more borne by customers/clients/etc, and thus not taken as seriously - abstract costs and externalities. Putting a clear number of the cost of poor cybersecurity should push more organisations to actually do something about it.
  - ChainOfFools 5y ago
    no. mugging is not "good" because it incentivizes people to take karate classes. what an inhumane and cynical take.
    - grlass 5y ago
      Theft was happening anyway via malware, it's just fewer of the costs were being borne directly. And as data collection increases, those indirect costs are getting higher. Now the organisation has more at to lose at first pass, rather than just data subjects.

argvargc 5y ago

Said the medieval King: Ransom: Another great "feature" of difficult-to-trace personal gold coinage What you're actually saying is: Bad thing: Another great "feature" of any kind of positive development in personal sovereignty Or Bad thing: Another great "feature" of any kind of progress --- Progress comes with pitfalls. Sharp knives prepare food and also kill people. You argument effectively reduces to: never innovate.

dTal 5y ago
Your argument reduces to: "progress" is always good, even if it's bad. I think we're perfectly allowed to discuss whether we think a particular kind of change is a good or bad thing.
- argvargc 5y ago
  I'm not making an argument "for progress" at all. I actually 100% agree that we are allowed to, and should, discuss the ramifications of any kind of change. My point is only that the original comment didn't attempt make any argument, other than the reduced one I outlined.
  - dTal 5y ago
    But they did. They said that digital currencies are difficult to trace and lead to an increase in ransomware. The closest thing to a response you made was "Progress comes with pitfalls".
  - dalbasal 5y ago
    That's not really a reduction... more of a random association to a generality you feel strongly about. You "reduced" difficult to trace digital currencies to "any kind of positive development in personal sovereignty." No need to keep defending a mistake. Just reread your own comment and the OP's. Respond to the comment itself, not other discussions you've had on the topic. If you think the argument implies something you disagree with, make the connection. Don't just assert that the argument reduces to this. Besides being mistake prone, it's unfriendly and unproductive. I've made plenty of comments myself that I don't/shouldn't stand behind, in short retrospect. I suspect this is one of yours. Minor foul. Happens. Shake hands and make good.

Quarrelsome 5y ago

apparently the traceability of digital currencies is proving effective in tracking down criminals that might otherwise operate in just cash.

Jolter 5y ago
Cryptocurrencies are what allows criminals to scale these attacks. They also significantly decrease the risk of getting caught, compared to accepting cash in a briefcase. I’m not sure what point you are trying to make.
- Quarrelsome 5y ago
  im saying the traceability/digitalization is a double-edged sword.
tgv 5y ago
So, did they get the people that r'wared the US pipeline then?
- sbarre 5y ago
  Infosec Twitter this morning seems to imply that perhaps they did. https://twitter.com/hashtag/REvil?src=hashtag_click&f=live https://twitter.com/hashtag/REvil?src=hashtag_click&f=live caveat that this world is full of rampant speculation and lies so take it with a grain of salt. ;-)
- Enginerrrd 5y ago
  If they haven't yet, give it a little time. Fucking with US oil supplies is a really good way to get the opportunity to feel the full engine of US intelligence and military might.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

dmos62 5y ago

Ransomware: another great feature of cryptography.

GrumpyNl 5y ago

I have always understood that all payments were traceable with digital currencies. Am I wrong?

trompetenaccoun 5y ago
Not all cryptocurrencies but it's true for something like Bitcoin. The problem is you can trace the transaction to the attackers wallet, but where does it go from there? It might sit there, they might throw the money in a tumbler, maybe they sell it for cash... If or when it shows up in a KYC-compliant exchange it could have changed hands many times already and it might not be possible to say anything about the actual criminal at that point.
- bagacrap 5y ago
  So it's up to the individual to make sure they're not accepting dirty money. Shouldn't be hard to write software to accomplish that. The exchanges can do it --- flag incoming dirty money. Average users don't accept btc from strangers as a payment for goods or services anyway.
  - trompetenaccoun 5y ago
    Yes, but for example when you use a tumbler (mixer) the whole idea is to receive random coins back. Also you can not rely on everyone to know and care about this. And not all dirty money is publicly known anyway. So there will always be ways to get rid of dirty BTC. The non-fungibility of bitcoins can be seen as an advantage or one of its largest flaws, depending on how you look at it. Either way it's the reason quite a few people have switched to Monero and other completely fungible coins. >Shouldn't be hard to write software to accomplish that There are startups offering exactly this as a service already.

gccs 5y ago

The crypto-revolution and its consequences were a disaster for the human race...

andrewnicolalde 5y ago
What specifically do you mean by the crypto-revolution?
- fuzzer37 5y ago
  It's a reference to the Unabomber's Manifesto
  - andrewnicolalde 5y ago
    Christ..

swiley 5y ago

This was done before crypto currencies.

rjmunro 5y ago
But it only became a serious problem because of them.

Graffur 5y ago

Ransomware: Another great "feature" of computers.