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

GoodWill ransomware forces victims to donate to the poor

cloudsek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 366 posts

Re: GoodWill ransomware forces victims to donate to the poor

#151

Post by jeroenhd »

dontbenebby wrote: post #77
jeroenhd wrote: post #68

I can see a younger version of myself making something like this and intentionally letting it slip to the media for attention. I th8nk this line is telling: "Since there are no known victims/ targets for the ransomware group, their Tactics, Techniques and Procedures remain unknown." I don't think there's a risk if any great outbreak here. A bunch of scriptkiddies took some open source project and modified it with som…

Don't be dismissive of script kiddies, they can cause a lot of chaos, and often do it because they feel like no amount of self education or self improvement will improve their chances of stable full time employment. (Hence many of them operating out of the former USSR.)

They certainly can cause a lot of chaos. In fact, I'd say that most malicious chaos normal internet users may be subjected to is done by these scriptkiddies.

Theres a difference, though, between an extensive ransomeware attack and an experiment by a bunch of amateurs. The chance of key recovery is much greater if there are dedicated criminals behind the attack, but amateurs also don't get the widespread reach that the media coverage might suggest.

I think the characterization of scriptkiddies as hopeless people is a bit romantic. I was something of a skiddie when I was young and I think a lot of their behaviour can be attributed to teenage recklessness.

The former USSR certainly has their fair share of scriptkiddies but they're around in every country. When the USSR was still around, the west had its fair share of phreakers that developed into the hacker subculture and established the code of honour that evolved into the cybersecurity communities of today.

Re: GoodWill ransomware forces victims to donate to the poor

#152

Post by chasd00 »

kordlessagain wrote: post #76
rutierut wrote: post #59

This is probably obvious to anyone but there isn't anything "good" about this, I expected this to be something along the lines of a crypto donation to GiveDirectly but this is just a sick wannabe Blackmirror power play.

It's the specifics that give it away. "Take 5 poor children from your neighborhood to Pizza Hut." Screaming kids at Pizza Hut aside, we can't make other people have empathy. They have to find it and explore it themselves, perhaps by seeing others do the same. It's especially ironic that someone with lowered empathy would be demanding someone else show fake empathy publicly before giving them back control of their own…

wouldn't taking 5 poor kids to a pizza hut be an act of sympathy and not empathy?

Re: GoodWill ransomware forces victims to donate to the poor

#153

Post by surement »

maxerickson wrote: post #140
surement wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

taking something with the threat of force is not the same as owning something that you traded for in a mutually agreed upon transaction

My point is that it's perfectly valid to argue that ownership itself is coercive.

I don't think you understand what coercive means

Re: GoodWill ransomware forces victims to donate to the poor

#154

Post by dentemple »

rutierut wrote: post #59

This is probably obvious to anyone but there isn't anything "good" about this, I expected this to be something along the lines of a crypto donation to GiveDirectly but this is just a sick wannabe Blackmirror power play.

A "sick wannabe Blackmirror power play" is a little much.

This is probably the cheapest ransomware unlock that's ever been put out there (unless you're based in the US, then good fucking luck on the medical care clause). If you're a company whose security policies are too terrible to survive a ransomware attack, then you'd rather be hit with this one than any of the others.

Re: GoodWill ransomware forces victims to donate to the poor

#155

Post by surement »

DarylZero wrote: post #144
surement wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

taking something with the threat of force is not the same as owning something that you traded for in a mutually agreed upon transaction

There still needs to be an initial act of taking by force to set up the initial ownership, creating the possibility of trade.

No, there doesn't. You can own and trade something you built. That's what remunerated work is.

Re: GoodWill ransomware forces victims to donate to the poor

#156

Post by chasd00 »

nvr219 wrote: post #33
t67576567567 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Nobody gets arrested for buying pizza for a bunch of kids.

it's unfair but a woman may be able to pull this off with kids that live on her street with parents she's at least waved at. A man? not so much, and the police will definitely be engaged.

Re: GoodWill ransomware forces victims to donate to the poor

#157

Post by seoaeu »

pid-1 wrote: post #127
cuttysnark wrote: post #113

Tangentially, I dislike strongly when people record videos of themselves doing "goodwill" for others—especially for social media; it always reeks [to me] of insincerity. Not to mention the often unwanted spotlight it casts onto the receiver of said goodwill. If one cares, one does acts of goodwill privately, without thinking about how others will react—including and especially—on the internet. "The true test of a man…

IDK, my family was poor and had no concept of charity. The first time I donated something was after a friend shared a social project they helped in LinkedIn. That was when I thought "hey, I'm kinda wealthy now, I probably could help.". So, I understand where you are coming from, influencers and shit, but there's a real chance that by doing any charity publicly you might trigger others to do as well.

I think the difference is whether you’re sharing that you donated, or parading around some disadvantaged people for your social media followers. Making a hungry person chose between a meal and their dignity isn’t charitable.

Re: GoodWill ransomware forces victims to donate to the poor

#158

Post by DarylZero »

surement wrote: post #155
DarylZero wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There still needs to be an initial act of taking by force to set up the initial ownership, creating the possibility of trade.

No, there doesn't. You can own and trade something you built. That's what remunerated work is.

You still have to build it out of something.

An economy of pure traded labor, like trading foot massages or whatever, wouldn't actually have property.

Re: GoodWill ransomware forces victims to donate to the poor

#159

Post by Cyclical »

krzyk wrote: post #25
spicybright wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of treatments? How regularly?

Universal healthcare is well overrated in the US. From a country that had it, it usually means: ugly hospitals, sad faces, long queues for treatments (I mean wait time for "free" treatment can be well over a year). There is no free lunch. On the other hand, I usually can get my kid to doctor same day, while using private healthcare provider (paid by my employer) it is almost impossible, 2-3 days wait. On yet another…

Coming from Canada, and having had multiple large surgeries and hospital visits over the years, I've had an entirely different experience. We have universal healthcare and some of the best hospitals in the world. As well, the NHS in the UK is consistently ranked among the best healthcare in the world. I have experienced just as long wait times at U.S. hospitals as I have at Canadian ones, but with honestly far worse service as it felt like the doctors were trying to get me out of their sight as fast as humanly possible.

Re: GoodWill ransomware forces victims to donate to the poor

#160

Post by mathlover2 »

rutierut wrote: post #59

This is probably obvious to anyone but there isn't anything "good" about this, I expected this to be something along the lines of a crypto donation to GiveDirectly but this is just a sick wannabe Blackmirror power play.

I can see a scenario in which a "chaotic good" hacker uses a customized form of ransomware on some large corporation or extremely wealthy person in order to force them to make a donation or do some majorly positive action for the world.¹ Pulling this off without going against the "good" qualification would require appropriately selecting the target and files to encrypt, and appropriately phrasing the demands made to that target: you want to choose a target that has a lot of unused money to give, you have to make sure that the files tied up are not things that other, more disadvantaged people would need, and you want to make sure that the requested positive action is both positive and not reversible by the other party after the fact.

Needless to say, deploying the ransomware discussed in the link would not be a chaotic good act. More like neutral or chaotic evil.

¹ And just to be clear, don't actually do this. I'm never going to do this, never have done this, certainly am not doing it at the moment, and I advise that no one else actually do this. There are better ways to use your time.

Post reply on HN