3 ms·
"This means that cryptocurrencies are the only tool left for ransomware purveyors. So, if governments take meaningful action against Bitcoin and other cryptocur
by arberx 5y ago
"This means that cryptocurrencies are the only tool left for ransomware purveyors. So, if governments take meaningful action against Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, they should be able to disrupt this new ransomware plague and then eradicate it, as was seen with the spam Viagra industry."
This is the totally incorrect approach. Imagine banning Polaroids because they led to an explosive growth in underage pornography.
These exploits are happening not because of crypto but because of insecure systems that public, money making companies haven't invested in making secure.
- hannasanarion 5y agoThe difference is that polaroids are useful for legitimate purposes. Every conversation I've ever had with a crypto purveyor, even as a person who has worked for crypto companies before, always comes down to "crypto is a good thing because it helps people commit financial crimes". There are no other benefits.
- okareaman 5y agoWhile I mostly agree with you about cryptocurrencies, the idea that companies don't invest in security is a lazy argument. It's not that simple. Companies can't secure themselves against bugs in software that no one knows about (zero days) no matter how much they invest.
- TingPing 5y agoThey can audit the projects they use. It will never be perfect but most do nothing.
- matoro 5y agoWhile this is true, the overwhelming majority of these incidents do not use or require zero-days. The attack vector is nearly always basic phishing/social engineering, or wildly misconfigured/unpatched systems exposed to the internet. Implementing a bare-bones security program, or giving an existing security program the tools & authority to enforce policies, would cut down on ransomware incidents by a factor of 5-10, easily, without touching cryptocurrency in the slightest.