3 ms·

Ransomware predates crypto. It does not rely on crypto, crypto just has some superior characteristics which make it attractive to both legal and illegal venture

by toolz 5y ago

Ransomware predates crypto. It does not rely on crypto, crypto just has some superior characteristics which make it attractive to both legal and illegal ventures. Criminals regularly adopt new tech faster than businesses as they are naturally less risk averse. The implication that someone or some industry is acting antisocial simply because they utilize a tech that criminals also utilize is short sighted.

MereInterest 5y ago
Sporadic instances of ransomware predate cryptocurrencies. However, ransomware didn't start becoming dominant until the early 2010s, with the rise of Bitcoin. Before then, building a botnet was the profit motive for most viruses.
- toolz 5y ago
  Ransomware might end up costing in the hundreds of billions a year (according to some random security blog I googled just now, point is there's a lot of money at risk here). Are you implying that without an easier way to move wealth around criminals are just going to leave billions on the table? Seems unlikely given todays criminal landscape of global sex trafficking among other far more difficult crimes to pull off than moving fiat around undetected. I'm sure it's just a vocal minority but this implication I keep happening across that ransomware would drastically decrease without crypto around seems rather obviously false. As mentioned, sex trafficking still exists in high quantities and possibly affects less money than ransomware. Certainly both types of crime move billions of dollars yearly. edit: further - I would suggest trying to shame people out of their desire to buy crypto is as fruitless as the war on drugs. Crypto is here and it's here to stay. It's every bit as impossible (if not more) to regulate out of existence as drugs. If this is true, it seems rather toxic to blame (implied or otherwise) the prosocial players in crypto (which represent the _vast_ majority) for the bad apples.
  - marcosdumay 5y ago
    > Are you implying that without an easier way to move wealth around criminals are just going to leave billions on the table? That's what they did before that way to move wealth appeared. And by the way, it didn't increase because bitcoin is easy to collect, but because it's easy to trace. Before bitcoin, the ransomware author would never actually decrypt the data after they were paid. That's the main difference that made the scam explode. Anyway, yes, it's fruitless to argue people into not using bitcoin. It being the cause of something bad does not lead immediately to policy viability.
    - ryanlol 5y ago
      >That's what they did before that way to move wealth appeared. What are you basing this on? It doesn’t line up with reality. Zeus (and spyeye) gangs were very succesful in stealing huge amounts long before cryptocurrency was a thing. Sure, those techniques have evolved. BEC is easier, earns more money than ransomware. Yet, somehow, the evolution of BEC has no obvious link with cryptocurrency.
  - ARandumGuy 5y ago
    Before cryptocurrency, how was a ransomware attacker supposed to get paid without immediately getting caught by authorities? Bank transfers or checks don't work, because a bank account contains a bunch of contact information that law enforcement can access. Western Union or gift cards can work, but they have practical transfer limits, putting a cap on the amount of money an attacker can receive. There's always cash, but that requires the attacker to go to a specific place, which is very risky. Ransomware attacks can certainly happen without cryptocurrency. However, there was no practical way for criminals to get multi-million dollar payouts previously. This payout potential changes the attack risks significantly. Few criminals will bother to target hospitals or gas pipelines if all they can get is a few thousand dollars worth of gift cards.
    - ryanlol 5y ago
      Google winlockers, they were plentiful before “ransomware” term became popular. Ransomware was already booming when cryptocurrency first hit the cybercrime scene after the Liberty Reserve seizure. Gift cards were a common method of cashing out, you can anonymously cash out millions of those at around 80% of face value. IRS scammers still use gift cards for this reason. > However, there was no practical way for criminals to get multi-million dollar payouts previously. This is just bullshit. Read up on Zeus, SpyEye and various contemporary BEC gangs. Read up on the craigslist scammers stealing billions selling non existent cars.
      - ARandumGuy 5y ago
        I'm not disputing that before cryptocurrency people made a lot of money stealing, scamming, and hacking people. And people will continue to do so as long as we have money and computers. What's new is demanding millions of dollars in ransom against large companies and organizations. This is a fundamentally different scale then locking grandma's computer and demanding some iTunes gift cards. Without cryptocurrency, most "ransomware" relied on getting a small amount of money from a lot of victims. These high profile attacks rely on getting a lot of money from a single victim. That's what changed with cryptocurrency. > Read up on Zeus, SpyEye and various contemporary BEC gangs. I spent a bit of time reading up on those, and none of those seem like ransomware to me. Ransomware involves locking down a computer (or group of computers), then demanding a ransom to unlock it. That's a different attack then stealing bank account information or social engineering scams.

by toolz 5y ago

MereInterest 5y ago

Sporadic instances of ransomware predate cryptocurrencies. However, ransomware didn't start becoming dominant until the early 2010s, with the rise of Bitcoin. Before then, building a botnet was the profit motive for most viruses.

toolz 5y ago
Ransomware might end up costing in the hundreds of billions a year (according to some random security blog I googled just now, point is there's a lot of money at risk here). Are you implying that without an easier way to move wealth around criminals are just going to leave billions on the table? Seems unlikely given todays criminal landscape of global sex trafficking among other far more difficult crimes to pull off than moving fiat around undetected. I'm sure it's just a vocal minority but this implication I keep happening across that ransomware would drastically decrease without crypto around seems rather obviously false. As mentioned, sex trafficking still exists in high quantities and possibly affects less money than ransomware. Certainly both types of crime move billions of dollars yearly. edit: further - I would suggest trying to shame people out of their desire to buy crypto is as fruitless as the war on drugs. Crypto is here and it's here to stay. It's every bit as impossible (if not more) to regulate out of existence as drugs. If this is true, it seems rather toxic to blame (implied or otherwise) the prosocial players in crypto (which represent the _vast_ majority) for the bad apples.
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  > Are you implying that without an easier way to move wealth around criminals are just going to leave billions on the table? That's what they did before that way to move wealth appeared. And by the way, it didn't increase because bitcoin is easy to collect, but because it's easy to trace. Before bitcoin, the ransomware author would never actually decrypt the data after they were paid. That's the main difference that made the scam explode. Anyway, yes, it's fruitless to argue people into not using bitcoin. It being the cause of something bad does not lead immediately to policy viability.
  - ryanlol 5y ago
    >That's what they did before that way to move wealth appeared. What are you basing this on? It doesn’t line up with reality. Zeus (and spyeye) gangs were very succesful in stealing huge amounts long before cryptocurrency was a thing. Sure, those techniques have evolved. BEC is easier, earns more money than ransomware. Yet, somehow, the evolution of BEC has no obvious link with cryptocurrency.
- ARandumGuy 5y ago
  Before cryptocurrency, how was a ransomware attacker supposed to get paid without immediately getting caught by authorities? Bank transfers or checks don't work, because a bank account contains a bunch of contact information that law enforcement can access. Western Union or gift cards can work, but they have practical transfer limits, putting a cap on the amount of money an attacker can receive. There's always cash, but that requires the attacker to go to a specific place, which is very risky. Ransomware attacks can certainly happen without cryptocurrency. However, there was no practical way for criminals to get multi-million dollar payouts previously. This payout potential changes the attack risks significantly. Few criminals will bother to target hospitals or gas pipelines if all they can get is a few thousand dollars worth of gift cards.
  - ryanlol 5y ago
    Google winlockers, they were plentiful before “ransomware” term became popular. Ransomware was already booming when cryptocurrency first hit the cybercrime scene after the Liberty Reserve seizure. Gift cards were a common method of cashing out, you can anonymously cash out millions of those at around 80% of face value. IRS scammers still use gift cards for this reason. > However, there was no practical way for criminals to get multi-million dollar payouts previously. This is just bullshit. Read up on Zeus, SpyEye and various contemporary BEC gangs. Read up on the craigslist scammers stealing billions selling non existent cars.
    - ARandumGuy 5y ago
      I'm not disputing that before cryptocurrency people made a lot of money stealing, scamming, and hacking people. And people will continue to do so as long as we have money and computers. What's new is demanding millions of dollars in ransom against large companies and organizations. This is a fundamentally different scale then locking grandma's computer and demanding some iTunes gift cards. Without cryptocurrency, most "ransomware" relied on getting a small amount of money from a lot of victims. These high profile attacks rely on getting a lot of money from a single victim. That's what changed with cryptocurrency. > Read up on Zeus, SpyEye and various contemporary BEC gangs. I spent a bit of time reading up on those, and none of those seem like ransomware to me. Ransomware involves locking down a computer (or group of computers), then demanding a ransom to unlock it. That's a different attack then stealing bank account information or social engineering scams.