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

U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

krebsonsecurity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 305 posts

Re: U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

#201

Post by recursivecaveat »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #126
jerry1979 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is horrifying. From your perspective, what's the hook that gets a person to hand over the money? Is it to make return on investment, or is it because they think the scammer loves them, or some other reason?

I cannot find the article again, it was posted here a few months ago so maybe someone knows of it but, A guy intentionally went down the rabbit hole of one of these and wrote about the anatomy of it. In his case it was a young (like 30 something young) woman who graduated at the top of dentistry school in Uzbekistan and got a large grant to start a practice in the UK. Something like that. They talked/flirted for week…

I found it again: https://www.bentasker.co.uk/posts/blog/security/seducing-a-r...

Re: U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

#202

Post by creato »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #29
abletonlive wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I experienced the same thing in my family. It sucks. I still haven't fully forgiven them (the supposed victim). As much as I agree it's partially mental decline, it's hard for me to imagine it's not at least also partially a character flaw that would get you into this situation

I, tiptoeing here, kind of agree. Am I missing something or do these scams operate on a person's greed? To be sure, I invest in order to see a return. That's greed, I guess? Or maybe not? I think having (unrealistic) expectations of doubling your money in anything shorter than ... about a decade ... should be sending up red flags for anyone. "Make money fast" should fire the same neurons as "Put it all on zero and sp…

Some of these scam victims are duped into trying to help someone they trust with a financial problem. In that case, the victims are being the opposite of greedy. The only character "flaw" I can think of in these cases is being naive/too trusting.

I don't know how common the "savior" victims are vs. the "get rich quick" victims, but they definitely exist, at least according to various mini-documentaries on pig butchering I've watched. Maybe these victims were modifying the story to seem more sympathetic, I can't say.

Re: U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

#203

Post by ty6853 »

DrillShopper wrote: post #191
johtso wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like the correct way to go though.. if you want reversibility, then introduce escrow into the situation, the foundational building block should be irreversible.. as there's no way to make a means of transfer _more_ irreversible if you're inherently giving control to a 3rd party with no choice.

That just kicks the can of trust to the entity performing the escrow, and there have been many, many cases of fly by night escrow companies (or companies pretending to be escrow companies) who just take the money and run. So introducing another third party to trust makes it more complicated than the alternative of allowing transactions to be reversable.

Banking reversibility is also kicking the can to a trusted third party.

Several years ago my credit card was stolen. I contacted my bank, who then accused my wife of cheating on me in another state (I know this didn't happen because there is no way she left 1000 miles away for several days multiple times between me seeing her, unless she has a hidden personal jet). By 'lying' about it being a fraudster instead of my wife who 'had cheated on me' the bank then accused me of bank fraud.

The bank then obtained fraudulent invoices, which were used to 'prove' I owed the money. They just buried me in false paperwork to the point I could never win. When the bank was done with all that, they closed my regular checking account too, because they had now flagged me as a criminal.

I will take anyday, an 'irreversible' crypto account over a banking system where they just close my other accounts because they think one was fraudulent because I was defrauded.

Re: U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

#205

Post by ty6853 »

mrguyorama wrote: post #167
johtso wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like the correct way to go though.. if you want reversibility, then introduce escrow into the situation, the foundational building block should be irreversible.. as there's no way to make a means of transfer _more_ irreversible if you're inherently giving control to a 3rd party with no choice.

Why? Irreversible transactions are not desired by anyone in payment networks. Consumers don't want to get scammed out of money. Merchants want customers to feel like transactions are low risk so they are more willing to make them. That's a big reason why merchants put up with the outright hostile to them system of chargebacks. Sure, you will lose some money to chargebacks you might think were not valid, but you have…

I've intentionally used irreversible crypto payments to a merchant that is an an industry with high chargebacks. It is highly useful in transactions where the merchant is highly trusted but the buyers tend to be weasels. Such merchants tend to charge high premiums for reversible payment methods.

In such cases it is win-win for both the merchant and customer, the customer doesn't have to foot the reversibility overhead and the merchant is able to offer goods at the same profit margins but lower price which should yield more sales.

Re: U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

#206

Post by fuddy »

kalaksi wrote: post #109
johtso wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like the correct way to go though.. if you want reversibility, then introduce escrow into the situation, the foundational building block should be irreversible.. as there's no way to make a means of transfer _more_ irreversible if you're inherently giving control to a 3rd party with no choice.

I agree. Smart contracts or other functionality integrated into wallets could also improve usability e.g. regarding irreversibility and user mistakes. Base layer doesn't have to be the final way to use cryptocurrencies and it isn't.

This just bring in new problems like people thinking they got paid but there being a refund trick.. This happens in the traditional system too, but at least when it exhibits total indifference to an account serving no purpose besides refund scams it is violating KYC principles instead of running as expected.

Re: U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

#207

Post by BenjiWiebe »

ianburrell wrote: post #195
Workaccount2 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Phone numbers should just be deprecated and move towards a DNS like system.

Phone numbers have nothing to do with the spoofing problem. Hierarchical identifiers would have the exact same problem. The problem is that VOIP callers can set whatever phone number they want. Email is also vulnerable to spoofing. The solution is to roll out signing for phone numbers. The owner of each phone number is known. It could even be published in DNS with ENUM. Most phone calls are from big companies like te…

Afaik, VoIP is just the easiest onramp to spoofing numbers.

Anyone with BGP-equivalent access to the phone network can spoof numbers, even if they're coming from a landline. Might even be able to when you have a business landline terminated in a PBX.

i.e. the phone network backend is built on trust.

Re: U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

#208

Post by xsmasher »

tayo42 wrote: post #170
lupusreal wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crypto is hard for most scam victims to buy. Ban gift cards. Gift cards have always been a lame thoughtless gift anyway.

This is what I'm wondering. How do you get the typical person to fall for a scam to open a crypto account, buy it, go through kyc, etc

I think they are doing bank transfers directly to the scammers, who give them a FAKE website that shows a crypto balance + great investment returns. I'm not sure crypto is involved at all; it's just the old Spanish prisoner / Nigerian prince scam with a new coat of paint.

Re: U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

#209

Post by compootr »

fennecfoxy wrote: post #134
naet wrote: post #25

Cryptocurrency enables a big part of this. Not saying that there weren't any wire scams before crypto, but crypto has made it much easier for average people to make anonymous international money transfers that can't be reversed. Not to start a big argument, but to my eyes the main usecases of cryptocurrency are to bet on them as a speculative asset or to use them for various forms of crime. Someone will probably tell…

Totally agree, I think crypto is cool from a technological standpoint, but I don't think I've seen one common genuine use of BTC, etc. And before someone comes in with very specific, anecdotal examples - notice I said "common", ie not buying your indie music from a retro-Serb band that plays using the concept of instruments as instruments and from abandoned sewers; but only on Mondays. I definitely feel like the majo…

Just this week, I received a bug bounty from a company in bitcoin. No BS with banks or anything!*

*: until I convert it to fiat

Re: U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

#210

Post by lxgr »

gradschool wrote: post #156
naet wrote: post #25

Cryptocurrency enables a big part of this. Not saying that there weren't any wire scams before crypto, but crypto has made it much easier for average people to make anonymous international money transfers that can't be reversed. Not to start a big argument, but to my eyes the main usecases of cryptocurrency are to bet on them as a speculative asset or to use them for various forms of crime. Someone will probably tell…

> Someone will probably tell me about some theoretical situation where it is a positive force Challenge accepted. My positive use case for cryptocurrency pertains to someone like me being over sixty and worried about being swept up into the guardianship system. With most of my assets in crypto and assuming decent opsec, they would be inaccessible to the guardian. If a judge ordered me to grant access, could I be cite…

> With most of my assets in crypto and assuming decent opsec, they would be inaccessible to the guardian.

The flip side of this is that there’s also a decent chance of your assets becoming completely inaccessible to anyone, including you or any of your successors (if applicable), unless you’ve made careful preparations involving time locked contracts or similar.

And yes, you’re probably safer against the enforcement of court rulings you might disagree with, but you are extremely vulnerable to blackmail or cyberattacks compared to traditional bank accounts.

Post reply on HN