Live data from Hacker News

You’re infected—if you want to see your data again, pay us $300 in Bitcoins

arstechnica.com

291–295 of 295 posts

Re: You’re infected—if you want to see your data again, pay us $300 in Bitcoins

#291
post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We only use that language because it's an order of magnitude easier to explain to novice computer users, and because as you stated, the problem still hasn't been fixed at the OS permissions / UI level. A modern OS lets us do that because lots of users are the sole user of their PC and do not understand the idea of permissions.

People understand that webapps are safe, because they have less permissions.

That really isn't telling the whole story at all. Webapps have their own problems -- like no ownership or control over your data.

Re: You’re infected—if you want to see your data again, pay us $300 in Bitcoins

#293
What I find funny is that this piece of software actually tells you more about what it does than software you pay money for and even uninstalls itself, after it is not needed anymore. It's kinda weird how malware is better quality than most other software.

Re: You’re infected—if you want to see your data again, pay us $300 in Bitcoins

#294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But sometimes you want to just "open" a file. The fact that your computer may choose to save it is an implementation detail. In fact, most systems don't actually 'save' it in many senses of the word. Instead they write it to the file system in a way that indicates that it may be removed at any time without notifying the user. In fact, on Linux (I can't speak to any other OS), it is common for these temporary files ne…

In a way, that's worse! You'll have someone "open" a file, maybe make some edits to it, save it -- and it won't indicate a problem with that because it's considered as a file on disk somewhere -- and then when they go to send it, they can't find it and it may have been overwritten / deleted.

If the file is opened read-only, then programs should fall back to save as. Unfourtuantly, the only standard way to signal read-only is with file permisions. This will work, but many programs would likely have report a permisions error prior to the save as. Also it will cause problems for programs that transparently modify the file on disk while viewing. I suppose you could hard code the read only parameter into the command that is used to execute the external program. Or have the external programs check if they are in a tmp-directory.

Re: You’re infected—if you want to see your data again, pay us $300 in Bitcoins

#295
post #66
post #32

I've gotten a few copies of this, all to an email address that was only ever given out to AT&T, and is not guessable.

Would you consider posting a screenshot of what the initial (infection) e-mail looks like?

Wouldn't be particularly meaningful since I use mutt.
Post reply on HN