121–130 of 267 posts
A federal ban on paying ransomeware would reduce the incentive to commit these attacks.
Would this result in not paying or them hiring consultants who pay on their behalf and just invoice them for "resolution services"?
Loopholes exist, but in general the government is not terrible at figuring out basic schemes like this and adapt administration of the law.
I'd really like to see/hear/read a breakdown of some of related issues from some experts. Even on HN it's the same knee-jerk reactions every time one of these stories hit. This is one of the most pressing technology issues of this moment and the discourse just sucks. * Does banning ransom payments do anything? Good idea/bad idea? Historical analogues? * Do we need to pay rewards to cyber privateers to take down cyber…
And in my opinion it's only a matter of time till something so crucial will be affected that the big guns will be rolled out. (I.e. targeted 3 letter agencies efforts) The podcast argued that touching the energy delivery / pipeline was already it - Fox asking daily how the current administration fails to deal with securing energy may be the point when some real action happens.
A federal ban on paying ransomeware would reduce the incentive to commit these attacks.
It wouldn't reduce the incentive for state-level or state-funded attackers to target foreign infrastructure, though.
No, that’s what our military is for. That said, we have limited evidence any of these recent attacks were state backed.
I'd really like to see/hear/read a breakdown of some of related issues from some experts. Even on HN it's the same knee-jerk reactions every time one of these stories hit. This is one of the most pressing technology issues of this moment and the discourse just sucks. * Does banning ransom payments do anything? Good idea/bad idea? Historical analogues? * Do we need to pay rewards to cyber privateers to take down cyber…
Another issue I don't see discussed much is how cryptocurrencies basically enable the business of ransomware. It's not like we're less secure than we were 20 years ago, the difference is now hackers can actually get paid.
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if our systems are on average far less secure simply because so much more is online now, to speak nothing of increases in the complexity of and opportunities for errors and misconfigurations in today’s systems.
Clearly they are messing with the wrong people from Martha's Vineyard :).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You won't even be able to get private insurance if the industry has to insure against complete destruction of a given business. Are you expecting the US gov to backstop every business regardless of size against ransomware? Who is going to pay for that? Additionally, how do you protect against the obvious opportunities for fraud and abuse (business deliberately attacks itself to collect the insurance payout, business…
You would be able to get affordable private insurance if you had a cyber security team.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another issue I don't see discussed much is how cryptocurrencies basically enable the business of ransomware. It's not like we're less secure than we were 20 years ago, the difference is now hackers can actually get paid.
That gets discussed every time, hackers were using prepaid cash services. Ransomware predates cryptocurrencies by decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, no point banning the thing the criminals use, because they don’t follow the law anyway. Ban paying ransoms, the corporations are much more likely to follow the law.
Of the three most common ransomware-combating suggestions I've been observing over the past few months, I'm strongly opposed to the first two (banning cryptocurrencies or banning ransom payments) and would instead strongly advocate for the third: reinstitute letters of marque for privateers. Enable activity instead of futilely trying to ban activity. Instead of focusing on punishing the victims and unrelated third pa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would this result in not paying or them hiring consultants who pay on their behalf and just invoice them for "resolution services"?
I wonder where this pop-understanding of the law that seems prevalent on HN comes from. Loopholes exist, but in general the government is not terrible at figuring out basic schemes like this and adapt administration of the law.
The US is going to end up tracking and assassinating these people, if we're not already. Messing with the old money usually doesn't turn out well for whoever's doing it.
Most of the blame is going to Russia, though North Korea is a possible source of this, as are a few random countries scattered around. Most stand to lose more than they gain from allowing such crime. (their military might be interested in the ability, but those will be more careful about who they target)