19 ms·

The simplest solution remains to ban the formal exchange of crytpo for fiat, across Western nations. Its a lot harder to justify giant ransomware campaigns whe

The simplest solution remains to ban the formal exchange of crytpo for fiat, across Western nations. Its a lot harder to justify giant ransomware campaigns when you're paid in Amazon gift cards instead of easily exchangeable cryptocoins.

cyberlurker 5y ago
So you don’t actually want to ban the exchange of crypto for fiat, you want to ban companies from being able to pay the ransom (with crypto)? I don’t think yours is a simple solution or the right one (banning cryptocurrency). But I do think bans on payment of the ransom are interesting.
- ttyprintk 5y ago
  I can’t speak to the parent comment’s intent, but it’s becoming harder and harder to look like an innocent crypto whale. While some can prove that they originated their balance, what if the wallets used in certain transactions are (or must be) confiscatable, say at exploited tumblers?
blondie9x 5y ago
Brilliant.
- redisman 5y ago
  Why improve overall cyber security which is at completely garbage levels at most companies when you can blame crypto instead? It just seems like the bill on security has come due and I recommend paying it. Otherwise you leave the economy open for much more serious attacks than asking a few million in crypto.
__MatrixMan__ 5y ago
I think you'd just get a new category of bad guy--the one who charges you $500 to help you circumvent whatever legal restrictions are preventing you from paying your $10000 ransom. Or I guess two new categories, because the victims are all criminals now too.
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  > Or I guess two new categories, because the victims are all criminals now too. The victims won't become criminals because you'll never find a senior executive willing to go to prison to pay a ransomware ransom. And no, "pay someone to pay it" or "have a random low-level nobody pay someone to pay it" is not going to work. Judges/juries aren't that stupid and senior leadership typically know judges/juries aren't that stupid. Criminalizing paying ransoms would work, and this particular "they'd just pay someone to pay the ransom" argument against criminalizing paying ransoms is beyond specious. Criminalizing paying has worked with other, much more serious types of ransoms. Why wouldn't it work here?
- ttyprintk 5y ago
  The parent comment is not about fiat->crypto, but the other way around. A similar effect to stronger kyc on someone suddenly inexplicably trying to pay for a yacht with crypto.
swiley 5y ago
Ransomware existed before crypto, also banning crypto is very hard to do and arguably not legal.
majic 5y ago
This works great, until some nation state adversary wants to shut down the entire US infrastructure. Or even better some script kiddy decides that it would be fun to feel powerful And they won't care about if companies pay ransome or not. Treat the cause of the sickness, not the symptoms.
NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
Authoritarian control of currency is only good for the authoritarians.

cyberlurker 5y ago

So you don’t actually want to ban the exchange of crypto for fiat, you want to ban companies from being able to pay the ransom (with crypto)? I don’t think yours is a simple solution or the right one (banning cryptocurrency). But I do think bans on payment of the ransom are interesting.

ttyprintk 5y ago
I can’t speak to the parent comment’s intent, but it’s becoming harder and harder to look like an innocent crypto whale. While some can prove that they originated their balance, what if the wallets used in certain transactions are (or must be) confiscatable, say at exploited tumblers?

blondie9x 5y ago

Brilliant.

redisman 5y ago
Why improve overall cyber security which is at completely garbage levels at most companies when you can blame crypto instead? It just seems like the bill on security has come due and I recommend paying it. Otherwise you leave the economy open for much more serious attacks than asking a few million in crypto.

__MatrixMan__ 5y ago

I think you'd just get a new category of bad guy--the one who charges you $500 to help you circumvent whatever legal restrictions are preventing you from paying your $10000 ransom. Or I guess two new categories, because the victims are all criminals now too.

throwawaygh 5y ago
> Or I guess two new categories, because the victims are all criminals now too. The victims won't become criminals because you'll never find a senior executive willing to go to prison to pay a ransomware ransom. And no, "pay someone to pay it" or "have a random low-level nobody pay someone to pay it" is not going to work. Judges/juries aren't that stupid and senior leadership typically know judges/juries aren't that stupid. Criminalizing paying ransoms would work, and this particular "they'd just pay someone to pay the ransom" argument against criminalizing paying ransoms is beyond specious. Criminalizing paying has worked with other, much more serious types of ransoms. Why wouldn't it work here?
ttyprintk 5y ago
The parent comment is not about fiat->crypto, but the other way around. A similar effect to stronger kyc on someone suddenly inexplicably trying to pay for a yacht with crypto.

swiley 5y ago

Ransomware existed before crypto, also banning crypto is very hard to do and arguably not legal.

majic 5y ago

This works great, until some nation state adversary wants to shut down the entire US infrastructure. Or even better some script kiddy decides that it would be fun to feel powerful And they won't care about if companies pay ransome or not. Treat the cause of the sickness, not the symptoms.

NaturalPhallacy 5y ago

Authoritarian control of currency is only good for the authoritarians.