4 ms·

I wouldn't be surprised if some ransomeware gangs are frontends of national (in)security agencies. They don't care about profits. Sure it's good to have some.

kramerger 3y ago
Well, every time Boeing tried to bribe a country, someone leaked emails and audio recordings from their secret meetings. Usually we blame the Chinese, but in this case I think its a toss between CIA and NSA. (I think I'm on some kind of list now) Edit: I am an idiot. I was thinking of Airbus, see @perihelions comment below
- perihelions 3y ago
  Which incident are you referring to? The NSA took credit for hacking Airbus, but that's Boeing's foreign competitor—not Boeing. https://www.economist.com/special-report/2003/06/12/airbuss-secret-past https://www.economist.com/special-report/2003/06/12/airbuss-... - "According to a European Parliament report, published in 2001, America's National Security Agency (NSA) intercepted faxes and phone calls between Airbus, Saudi Arabian Airlines and the Saudi government in early 1994. The NSA found that Airbus agents were offering bribes to a Saudi official to secure a lion's share for Airbus in modernising Saudi Arabian Airlines' fleet. The planes were in a $6 billion deal that Edouard Balladur, France's then prime minister, had hoped to clinch on a visit to see King Fahd in January 1994. He went home empty-handed." - "James Woolsey, then director of the Central Intelligence Agency, recounted in a newspaper article in 2000 how the American government typically reacted to intelligence of this sort. “When we have caught you [Europeans]...we go to the government you're bribing and tell its officials that we don't take kindly to such corruption,” he wrote. Apparently this (and a direct sales pitch from Bill Clinton to King Fahd) swung the aircraft part of the deal Boeing's and McDonnell Douglas's way."
  - kramerger 3y ago
    You are correct. I think my brain was on a break while I was writing that :)
- bee_rider 3y ago
  I imagine at least some (probably many) of the engineers who work for Boeing have a basically lawful-good/lawful-neutral temperament and are just disgusted by things like bribery. Maybe one of the parties in the conversation leaked it, no intelligence agencies needed.
- emodendroket 3y ago
  Why exactly would the CIA or NSA want to do that? Boeing works so closely with the security apparatus they're practically an unofficial member so I don't understand what the motivation would be.
  - hnthrowaway0315 3y ago
    It doesn't hurt to hack into any corporation. You never know what kind of intelligence you might get out. There are also considerations of different factions I guess.
    - emodendroket 3y ago
      But we're not talking about getting information and keeping it but actually making it public. One doesn't get much leverage that way so the only real aim would seem to be damaging the target.
jowea 3y ago
For North Korea sure quite believable. Some links existing also sound likely for the Russian gangs.
jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
It's an open secret that FSB et all work with ransomware gangs. As long as they don't target Russian companies they don't care what they do otherwise. So it's not so much they're a front as they're in a sort of quasi officially sanctioned middle ground.
- terminous 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque
- r00fus 3y ago
  Digital privateers
- hnthrowaway0315 3y ago
  Yeah. I'm also thinking about ways to "promote" malware without getting impacted. Let's say some three digit agencies create sort of malware distribution forums in the darknet. They make sure to only broadcast to people who wants to play with malwares so the net catches the "bad guys" mostly, except for a few curious researchers or journalists maybe. Then they start to share recent generarion malwares they created. They don't need to distribute them by themselves because they already have the CCC servers. Some malware gangs would eventually be the frontend and start the distribution. In this way you not only distribute the malwares without getting impacted, you also get to know the gangs so whenever you want to catch a few fishes you just pull the net. Once the darknet forum dies out or they need to wipe the records, they would just leave and create a new one. Just my wild thought.
- sofixa 3y ago
  As an example, the DarkSide malware (the one used against the Colonial Pipeline) explicitly checks if it's running on a computer in the CIS (Russia+countries nostalgic of the Soviet Union / without a better choice) and exits.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
    Oh interesting, I'd not heard that. Thanks.
beambot 3y ago
> How North Korea’s Hacker Army Stole $3 Billion in Crypto, Funding Nuclear Program https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-north-koreas-hacker-army-stole-3-billion-in-crypto-funding-nuclear-program-d6fe8782 https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-north-koreas-hacker-army-st...
nimih 3y ago
> They don't care about profits. This isn't really true in general: intelligence agencies often want access to funds with less/no oversight from (or to skirt controls enacted by) other parts of the government. As an example, that was the dynamic at the basis of the Iran-Contra affair in the US.

kramerger 3y ago

Well, every time Boeing tried to bribe a country, someone leaked emails and audio recordings from their secret meetings. Usually we blame the Chinese, but in this case I think its a toss between CIA and NSA. (I think I'm on some kind of list now) Edit: I am an idiot. I was thinking of Airbus, see @perihelions comment below

perihelions 3y ago
Which incident are you referring to? The NSA took credit for hacking Airbus, but that's Boeing's foreign competitor—not Boeing. https://www.economist.com/special-report/2003/06/12/airbuss-secret-past https://www.economist.com/special-report/2003/06/12/airbuss-... - "According to a European Parliament report, published in 2001, America's National Security Agency (NSA) intercepted faxes and phone calls between Airbus, Saudi Arabian Airlines and the Saudi government in early 1994. The NSA found that Airbus agents were offering bribes to a Saudi official to secure a lion's share for Airbus in modernising Saudi Arabian Airlines' fleet. The planes were in a $6 billion deal that Edouard Balladur, France's then prime minister, had hoped to clinch on a visit to see King Fahd in January 1994. He went home empty-handed." - "James Woolsey, then director of the Central Intelligence Agency, recounted in a newspaper article in 2000 how the American government typically reacted to intelligence of this sort. “When we have caught you [Europeans]...we go to the government you're bribing and tell its officials that we don't take kindly to such corruption,” he wrote. Apparently this (and a direct sales pitch from Bill Clinton to King Fahd) swung the aircraft part of the deal Boeing's and McDonnell Douglas's way."
- kramerger 3y ago
  You are correct. I think my brain was on a break while I was writing that :)
bee_rider 3y ago
I imagine at least some (probably many) of the engineers who work for Boeing have a basically lawful-good/lawful-neutral temperament and are just disgusted by things like bribery. Maybe one of the parties in the conversation leaked it, no intelligence agencies needed.
emodendroket 3y ago
Why exactly would the CIA or NSA want to do that? Boeing works so closely with the security apparatus they're practically an unofficial member so I don't understand what the motivation would be.
- hnthrowaway0315 3y ago
  It doesn't hurt to hack into any corporation. You never know what kind of intelligence you might get out. There are also considerations of different factions I guess.
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    But we're not talking about getting information and keeping it but actually making it public. One doesn't get much leverage that way so the only real aim would seem to be damaging the target.

jowea 3y ago

For North Korea sure quite believable. Some links existing also sound likely for the Russian gangs.

jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago

It's an open secret that FSB et all work with ransomware gangs. As long as they don't target Russian companies they don't care what they do otherwise. So it's not so much they're a front as they're in a sort of quasi officially sanctioned middle ground.

terminous 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque
r00fus 3y ago
Digital privateers
hnthrowaway0315 3y ago
Yeah. I'm also thinking about ways to "promote" malware without getting impacted. Let's say some three digit agencies create sort of malware distribution forums in the darknet. They make sure to only broadcast to people who wants to play with malwares so the net catches the "bad guys" mostly, except for a few curious researchers or journalists maybe. Then they start to share recent generarion malwares they created. They don't need to distribute them by themselves because they already have the CCC servers. Some malware gangs would eventually be the frontend and start the distribution. In this way you not only distribute the malwares without getting impacted, you also get to know the gangs so whenever you want to catch a few fishes you just pull the net. Once the darknet forum dies out or they need to wipe the records, they would just leave and create a new one. Just my wild thought.
sofixa 3y ago
As an example, the DarkSide malware (the one used against the Colonial Pipeline) explicitly checks if it's running on a computer in the CIS (Russia+countries nostalgic of the Soviet Union / without a better choice) and exits.
- jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
  Oh interesting, I'd not heard that. Thanks.

beambot 3y ago

> How North Korea’s Hacker Army Stole $3 Billion in Crypto, Funding Nuclear Program https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-north-koreas-hacker-army-stole-3-billion-in-crypto-funding-nuclear-program-d6fe8782 https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-north-koreas-hacker-army-st...

nimih 3y ago

> They don't care about profits. This isn't really true in general: intelligence agencies often want access to funds with less/no oversight from (or to skirt controls enacted by) other parts of the government. As an example, that was the dynamic at the basis of the Iran-Contra affair in the US.