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

The Oncoming Ransomware Storm

stephendiehl.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 147 posts

Re: The Oncoming Ransomware Storm

#101

Post by Dah00n »

meowface wrote: post #93
upofadown wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did some searching and didn't find anything about use of the OpenPGP standard in ransomware. It appears that ransomware creators don't care about interoperability, which makes sense for their biz. A doubt that anyone has ever been motivated to try to break an encryption method just because it was used in some particular ransomware. The methods used are generally not breakable, the mistakes come from stuff like leav…

I'm not sure how satirical the parent's comment was, but every single point is completely inaccurate, irrelevant, and/or nonsensical.

How so? Seems it's spot on. Since the birth of the internet companies haven't given a damn about leaks and there're no real consequences. Now they care because it hurts them instead of just us.

Re: The Oncoming Ransomware Storm

#103

Post by jodrellblank »

robot_no_419 wrote: post #100
jodrellblank wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this article being discussed the author's own words are: " 'legislation and intervention in the financial system at only the level nation states can act. The free flow of money from US banks to cryptocurrency exchanges is the root cause and needs to halt' " Which is a call for regulating, not banning. If you want to use something different which the author said somewhere else, to back some other point and say that…

How about this article, titled "The Political Case for a Blanket Cryptocurrency Ban"? https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog/banbitcoin.html The author is extremely prolific and vocal about his support for outright banning cryptocurrency. It's all over his blog, it's all over his Twitter. He is proud to admit it. It could have taken you 30 seconds to verify what I was saying, but instead you chose to double down on your i…

That article doesn't call for a ban? It says:

    The most expedient actions would be fourfold:
        Halt all wire transfers of dollars in and out of cryptocurrency exchanges.
        Halt foreign entities trading in dollar cash-equivalent crypto assets.
        Add Chinese and other foreign cryptocurrency exchanges hiding in tax-havens to sanctioned entities lists.
        Regulate the sale of any existing cryptocurrency assets to US persons by classifying them as securities investment contracts moving forward.
If you can still sell existing cryptocurrency assets, and exchanges still exist, that's not banned, is it?

> "It could have taken you 30 seconds to verify what I was saying, but instead you chose to double down on your ignorance."

I'm asking what relevance your comment has. "He calls for a ban" - so what? Make a point.

Re: The Oncoming Ransomware Storm

#104

Post by splithalf »

literally_lit wrote: post #30
splithalf wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incentives matter. Bitcoin incentivizes certain types of criminal activity. As Bitcoin grows the negative externalities will become more pronounced. I truly don’t get the ethics of it. It is killing people, literally blood money as a great new technology. Bonus points for incentivizing climate destruction and burning of fossil fuels. I don’t understand the ethics of it.

Wealth incentivizes that activity. Cryptocurrency is one easy way to transfer it, but it's not the "singular" reason ransomware is "possible." > literally blood money ("Blood money" is an idiom, a colloquial metaphor. So a virtual currency is "literally" a metaphor? Ugh.)

I am trying to say that Bitcoin has caused a change in the types of crimes that are being committed. It’s easily quantifiable. When I say it is blood money I mean that it is a way to pay for assassinations. Assassination markets are not new but Bitcoin as technology changes scale. Scale matters, regardless of what you believe.

Re: The Oncoming Ransomware Storm

#105

Post by McDyver »

xxxtentachyon wrote: post #50
McDyver wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replace "Bitcoin" with "Banks", in your argument. Doesn't change anything

It only works if you ignore everything in the “pro” column. Try to imagine what a world without credit would look like. It’s a much poorer world.

Without consumerism and unneeded use of resources, you mean?

Re: The Oncoming Ransomware Storm

#106

Post by dragontamer »

VectorLock wrote: post #98
dragontamer wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd ask for cash. A middleman would pick it up, convert it to gift cards or Tide laundry detergent (so that the traced cash would go cold) and then pass it forward through the criminal network. The middleman needs to be paid because it's high risk (cops would trace the cash to the middleman... but no further). So cryptocoin are way cheaper. But still, there's plenty of ways to do things using old school techniques.

You also need to trust that your criminal middleman with $100M doesn't just abscond with your money. With cryptocurrency when its in your wallet, its yours, and the risk of relying on a 3rd party to transport your ill gotten gains is much lower.

I assume a money-laundering step (aka: a cryptocoin mixer service) needs to be used to practically extract wealth from a criminal activity.

If you directly use the money from a wallet directly related to a ransomware attack, the police would be on your tail almost immediately.

A cryptocoin mixing service is cheaper than traditional money laundering. So cryptocoins are the ideal solution to criminal activities (at least, better than Tide Laundry pod trading, or gift-card exchanges).

Re: The Oncoming Ransomware Storm

#107

Post by pja »

meowface wrote: post #99

I'm not an unequivocal fan of cryptocurrencies or any particular cryptocurrency by any means, but it appears this author really hates cryptocurrency and this is just an opportunity for them to argue that governments should ban cryptocurrency. Which is completely understandable and obviously in good faith given ransomware is bad and they think cryptocurrencies are bad, but I just wanted to point out their stance and t…

This is just an ad hominem response to Stephen's argument.

Re: The Oncoming Ransomware Storm

#108

Post by [deleted] »

jodrellblank wrote: post #103
robot_no_419 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about this article, titled "The Political Case for a Blanket Cryptocurrency Ban"? https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog/banbitcoin.html The author is extremely prolific and vocal about his support for outright banning cryptocurrency. It's all over his blog, it's all over his Twitter. He is proud to admit it. It could have taken you 30 seconds to verify what I was saying, but instead you chose to double down on your i…

That article doesn't call for a ban ? It says: The most expedient actions would be fourfold: Halt all wire transfers of dollars in and out of cryptocurrency exchanges. Halt foreign entities trading in dollar cash-equivalent crypto assets. Add Chinese and other foreign cryptocurrency exchanges hiding in tax-havens to sanctioned entities lists. Regulate the sale of any existing cryptocurrency assets to US persons by cl…

[deleted]

Re: The Oncoming Ransomware Storm

#109

Post by VectorLock »

dragontamer wrote: post #106
VectorLock wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also need to trust that your criminal middleman with $100M doesn't just abscond with your money. With cryptocurrency when its in your wallet, its yours, and the risk of relying on a 3rd party to transport your ill gotten gains is much lower.

I assume a money-laundering step (aka: a cryptocoin mixer service) needs to be used to practically extract wealth from a criminal activity. If you directly use the money from a wallet directly related to a ransomware attack, the police would be on your tail almost immediately. A cryptocoin mixing service is cheaper than traditional money laundering. So cryptocoins are the ideal solution to criminal activities (at lea…

Some places the cops don't care.

And $100M would be a lot of Tide pods.

Re: The Oncoming Ransomware Storm

#110

Post by mytherin »

daaang wrote: post #86
mytherin wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article directly addresses your point in the paragraph surrounding the sentence you cherry picked. > Now this is not a new phenomenon by any means. But what is new is that the level of these attacks has gone parabolic in the last few years because of one simple fact. With the addition of bitcoin to the problem it’s insanely profitable, low-risk, and almost the perfect crime. It’s also a very real economic tool th…

I agree, the author contradicts themselves immediately. Cryptocurrency is not the "singular" reason, and it is not why these attacks are even "possible." The hypothetical they picked might not work. The methods that ransomware was using for decades to extort hundreds of thousands of dollars did, and will continue to work.

You are still taking words out of context. Clearly the author agrees that cryptocurrency is not the singular reason behind *all* ransomware, considering he states it is not a new phenomenon. The sentence you took out of context relates to *modern* ransomware:

> The singular reason why these attacks are even possible is due entirely to rise of cryptocurrency.... Modern ransomware could not exist without Bitcoin, it has poured gasoline on a fire we may not be able to put out.

The question is not if ransomware would still exist without cryptocurrency (obviously it would, it existed before then). The question is if it would still be as pervasive as it has become in the last few years without cryptocurrency.

Post reply on HN