If he wanted 20 btc all he had to do was put up one of those shitty livestream YouTube scam videos that you always see (Elon Musk was a 2020 favorite). And he would not have been arrested either.
Ubiquiti developer charged with extortion, causing 2020 “breach”
51–60 of 239 posts
Re: Ubiquiti developer charged with extortion, causing 2020 “breach”
#52The funny thing is that krebsonsecurity.com are the ones that published the false information in the first place. Good summary of the whole saga by Crosstalk youtube channel which covers mostly Ubiquiti: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paLm0tP5GbI
I give Krebs a little credit here because the "whistleblower" from his original article was really an insider that was part of the investigation into the breach. Obviously this source was also the hacker, but knowing that was impossible. Now, I believe Krebs should at least acknowledge he made this mistake, sadly he hasn't here yet.
From my cursory reading of Brian Krebs' blog, most posts seem written by a ghostwriter.
Re: Ubiquiti developer charged with extortion, causing 2020 “breach”
#53> Investigators say they were able to tie the downloads to Sharp and his work-issued laptop because his Internet connection briefly failed on several occasions while he was downloading the Ubiquiti data. Those outages were enough to prevent Sharp’s Surfshark VPN connection from functioning properly — thus exposing his Internet address as the source of the downloads. Not the first time I’ve read about a VPN unable to…
VPNs are not intended to mask illegal behavior. The assumption is no one will care enough to try to get the real IP. So blatantly breaking the law throws that out the window.
Re: Ubiquiti developer charged with extortion, causing 2020 “breach”
#54Re: Ubiquiti developer charged with extortion, causing 2020 “breach”
#55The funny thing is that krebsonsecurity.com are the ones that published the false information in the first place. Good summary of the whole saga by Crosstalk youtube channel which covers mostly Ubiquiti: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paLm0tP5GbI
Wait. So his big "whistleblower" source for this article in April was actually the hacker?
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2021/04/ubiquiti-all-but-confirm...
Bad on Krebs for not at least mentioning this.
Re: Ubiquiti developer charged with extortion, causing 2020 “breach”
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
use tor. it's specifically designed to avoid traffic leaks (as long as you don't open an external application). I trust that far more than whatever "killswitch" VPN providers have, or properly implementing a home rolled solution with iptables/network namespaces/raspberry pis. the "bouncing your traffic across 3 servers to obfuscate tracking" is a nice bonus as well.
I'm confident enough that 3 letter agencies control most of the network that I'd feel safer using vpn.
they were able to infiltrate various NGOs (that host tor nodes) and/or set up fake NGOs, but they weren't able to infiltrate and/or set up fake VPN providers?
Re: Ubiquiti developer charged with extortion, causing 2020 “breach”
#57> Investigators say they were able to tie the downloads to Sharp and his work-issued laptop because his Internet connection briefly failed on several occasions while he was downloading the Ubiquiti data. Those outages were enough to prevent Sharp’s Surfshark VPN connection from functioning properly — thus exposing his Internet address as the source of the downloads. Not the first time I’ve read about a VPN unable to…
Proper opsec is you blackhole all traffic when the vpn isn’t active.
Personally I’d feel most comfortable with a separate hardware VPV solution that won’t let anything through leaving the local software to do its thing.
Re: Ubiquiti developer charged with extortion, causing 2020 “breach”
#58> Investigators say they were able to tie the downloads to Sharp and his work-issued laptop because his Internet connection briefly failed on several occasions while he was downloading the Ubiquiti data. Those outages were enough to prevent Sharp’s Surfshark VPN connection from functioning properly — thus exposing his Internet address as the source of the downloads. Not the first time I’ve read about a VPN unable to…
VPNs are not intended to mask illegal behavior. The assumption is no one will care enough to try to get the real IP. So blatantly breaking the law throws that out the window.
Yeah and I don’t trust that a vpn would really care for my $5 a month or whatever when faced with state actions that if it came to that.
Re: Ubiquiti developer charged with extortion, causing 2020 “breach”
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn't sound too good for VPN users
It's an operating system issue. OS's are really difficult to give absolute invariants that you can trust. If network connectivity security is vital, then the only real solution is to setup your environment in a VPN or on a separate box that will lose the adapter routing info if it goes down.
There’s a huge gap in operational security for a hack of this size.
At minimum, use a burner IP address and hardware from Craigslist.
Re: Ubiquiti developer charged with extortion, causing 2020 “breach”
#60> Investigators say they were able to tie the downloads to Sharp and his work-issued laptop because his Internet connection briefly failed on several occasions while he was downloading the Ubiquiti data. Those outages were enough to prevent Sharp’s Surfshark VPN connection from functioning properly — thus exposing his Internet address as the source of the downloads. Not the first time I’ve read about a VPN unable to…
Most come with a killswitch, so if it wonks out you can't access the net.
Kill-switches are a misnomer. What you really want is a firewall external from your "target" system that blackholes all traffic not to the VPN gateways IP address. Than make sure packets traveling the parent interface are ONLY VPN traffic or nothing in case of the tunnel dropping (wireshark is good here.)