Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The ransomware surge

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 216 posts

Re: The ransomware surge

#201

Post by matheusmoreira »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #23

I think it is likely that there will be a real world kidnapping where the kidnappers demand a Bitcoin ransom. Once this happens, Bitcoin will get rapidly regulated out of existence by governments. Imagine if it follows the usual stereotypical news coverage. An attractive, photogenic American woman goes to a foreign country and gets kidnapped. Later the kidnappers send ransom demands with a Bitcoin address. This would…

> Bitcoin will get rapidly regulated out of existence by governments

One can only hope. Bitcoin is obsolete and if that happens better coins will finally get the chance to replace it.

Re: The ransomware surge

#202

Post by matheusmoreira »

louwrentius wrote: post #11

> "The hackers were the Ryuk ransomware gang and they demanded we pay them 45 Bitcoin, which was about half a million dollars. Make no mistake: this ransomware surge is 100% enabled / facilitated by Bitcoin and possibly other cryptocurrencies. This would not have been so bad if cryptocurrencies would actually provide anything of really significant value to our societies, but no. Aside from a mixture of Ponzi scheme,…

Hell no. Cryptocurrency is absolutely necessary, you just think it isn't because your government or bank never froze your money for arbitrary reasons and demanded you prove your innocence in order to give it back. It's just like the "got nothing to hide" argument in privacy.

It literally doesn't matter how much energy it consumes or how much crime it enables, if it allows us to escape government stupidity it's more than worth it. Actually, crime is proof that cryptocurrencies work and and actually provide the necessary privacy we all need. The harder it is for authorities to trace, the better.

Re: The ransomware surge

#203

Post by matheusmoreira »

user-the-name wrote: post #170
seibelj wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crypto also risks the ability of central banks to print infinite amounts of money

Cryptocurrencies are being printed in massive amounts all the time.

He said infinite amounts. Cryptocurrencies usually have a fixed supply.

Re: The ransomware surge

#204

Post by user-the-name »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #203
user-the-name wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cryptocurrencies are being printed in massive amounts all the time.

He said infinite amounts. Cryptocurrencies usually have a fixed supply.

So you're saying he is wrong in the weirdest way possible, by literally implying that central banks print infinite money, in a finite universe?

Re: The ransomware surge

#205

Post by matheusmoreira »

user-the-name wrote: post #204
matheusmoreira wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He said infinite amounts. Cryptocurrencies usually have a fixed supply.

So you're saying he is wrong in the weirdest way possible, by literally implying that central banks print infinite money, in a finite universe?

By infinite supply people mean the bank's ability to create any amount of money at will. Most cryptocurrencies have limits on the money supply.

Re: The ransomware surge

#207

Post by user-the-name »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #205
user-the-name wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying he is wrong in the weirdest way possible, by literally implying that central banks print infinite money, in a finite universe?

By infinite supply people mean the bank's ability to create any amount of money at will. Most cryptocurrencies have limits on the money supply.

From the perspective of cryptocurrencies in general, those limits don't mean much when you can create new cryptocurrencies at a whim. The supply is equally limitless.

Re: The ransomware surge

#208

Post by WrtCdEvrydy »

the_duke wrote: post #86
korethr wrote: post #80

Backups. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of backups. Take backups, verify your ability to restore from them, and keep them segregated from the rest of your infrastructure. It doesn't matter how inelegant and hacky your backup solution is, so long as you can restore from it. Any backup you can restore from is better than no backup. You might get a call from one of your application engineers shortly before bed…

I sometimes do infrastructure consulting. One of the first questions I ask is if they have at least one fully independent, full/incremental off-site backup that can't be corrupted from the main infrastructure, and if they have ever checked if they actually work and are restorable. I'm continuously surprised how often the answer turns out to be no after dinner digging, even in larger companies with otherwise well-run…

The horror stories I had shared with my boss are as relevant today as when they happened.

His is from the early 90s, the RAID card on the backup server was bad so it was just randomly flipping bits on the files being stored... nothing was ever tested until they needed one of those backups.

Mine was about a tape setup that followed the correct 3-2-1 setup... one of the CLI tools had an update and the agreement was waiting for user input so it would just drop and the rest of the script continued... no one had ever tested a backup so the tapes being shuffled around were empty.

Re: The ransomware surge

#209

Post by [deleted] »

networkimprov wrote: post #193
naturalauction wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There a few issues with DMARC, but the main one - adoption by senders is well below 100% so you just cannot block mail without DMARC. I wonder if this could be fixed by email clients marking emails that fail DKIM as spam/attaching a large warning. Most users use email clients and they really don't do a great job of notify users of potential spoofing issues (with Gmail, you have to find "view original" to see that DK…

My understanding is that most phishing attacks are launched from webmail accounts, which implement DMARC.

[deleted]

Re: The ransomware surge

#210

Post by louwrentius »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #202
louwrentius wrote: post #11

> "The hackers were the Ryuk ransomware gang and they demanded we pay them 45 Bitcoin, which was about half a million dollars. Make no mistake: this ransomware surge is 100% enabled / facilitated by Bitcoin and possibly other cryptocurrencies. This would not have been so bad if cryptocurrencies would actually provide anything of really significant value to our societies, but no. Aside from a mixture of Ponzi scheme,…

Hell no. Cryptocurrency is absolutely necessary, you just think it isn't because your government or bank never froze your money for arbitrary reasons and demanded you prove your innocence in order to give it back. It's just like the "got nothing to hide" argument in privacy. It literally doesn't matter how much energy it consumes or how much crime it enables, if it allows us to escape government stupidity it's more t…

> if it allows us to escape government stupidity it's more than worth it.

It doesn't and it won't. If governments outlaw crypto currencies you have no way to use them.

I live in a country where my government and the banks are OK, there is no problem to be solved.

Inventing non-existing problems to justify this crypto-madness is dishonest.

Post reply on HN