Live data from Hacker News

Negotiating ransoms: when to play and when to fold

zetter.substack.com

31–35 of 35 posts

Re: Negotiating ransoms: when to play and when to fold

#31
post #3

Before it gets mentioned here is a good post why ransomware gangs love (traceable) Bitcoin. Most of ransomware gangs are more or less well known, not really anonymous. http://jpkoning.blogspot.com/2021/06/why-do-ransomware-gangs...

Bitcoin recent changes now allow for untraceable atomic swaps with Monero, breaking any hope of traceability in bitcoin.

Tracebility has been hideable for long time with coin join transactions and Ethereum bridges. However ransomware gangs have not utilized them, so it is a sign that they do not care.

Re: Negotiating ransoms: when to play and when to fold

#32
post #15
post #3

Before it gets mentioned here is a good post why ransomware gangs love (traceable) Bitcoin. Most of ransomware gangs are more or less well known, not really anonymous. http://jpkoning.blogspot.com/2021/06/why-do-ransomware-gangs...

The FBI could set up a website where you can check whether your Bitcoins were involved in some crime. This would set up an interesting experiment. Would you accept a $20 dollar bill in the supermarket if you knew it was used in some ransom case? And what if suddenly you knew you owned such a $20 dollar bill? Would you try to get rid of it as quickly as possible?

2% of money on bank accounts have been involved in some crime.

What would you set as a threshold?

Re: Negotiating ransoms: when to play and when to fold

#33
post #14
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Link to the interesting “60 secs or she dies” roleplay: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_NWElrHgbGo

There's a bunch of videos (some better than others), that's why i didn't link to one or another. The goal of this exercise is to control your emotions and behavior. Easier said than done. I can see how the author above had a problem being logical about the situation. I still have those issues myself even knowing what needs to be done, things just happen. Tough skills and even tougher for a "natural born assertive".

I just delved into this. Fascinating stuff. I think in part it's not that I'm naturally assertive but that I'm the opposite. I can't put myself in the mindset of the attacker. So I'm looking for a technical fix, a way around. I also thought clearly, if I pay, they'll just ask for more. Because how can you possibly expect someone doing something like that to keep their word? So to me it's a bit like the boundary described in that video where giving the hostage-taker a car is just not a viable option.

Tangentially related to technical fixes: There was an incident recently where my brother had his phone simjacked, and the attackers changed his google password. He recovered access by email but they kept changing the password as quickly as he did. Both parties were still logged in. I called his phone number, someone picked up and then hung up. So I got on Skype on a couple different machines and basically DOSd the phone with calls from random skype numbers nonstop. After about 15 minutes of this they either turned off the phone or the 4G. It bought enough breathing room to change the 2FA on the account and lock down his bank accounts that used gmail as his verification address. If they'd been smart or fast enough to change both the recovery email and the SMS 2FA it would have been game over.

Re: Negotiating ransoms: when to play and when to fold

#34
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FBI could set up a website where you can check whether your Bitcoins were involved in some crime. This would set up an interesting experiment. Would you accept a $20 dollar bill in the supermarket if you knew it was used in some ransom case? And what if suddenly you knew you owned such a $20 dollar bill? Would you try to get rid of it as quickly as possible?

2% of money on bank accounts have been involved in some crime. What would you set as a threshold?

I'd invalidate that 2%.

Re: Negotiating ransoms: when to play and when to fold

#35
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2% of money on bank accounts have been involved in some crime. What would you set as a threshold?

I'd invalidate that 2%.

That's exactly as stupid as invalidating, say, a 20€ note that I got in change from paying a taxi ride, and the driver received in good faith from some crook who took a ride with him before me. By "invalidating" it, you're robbing me of the worth of that note, those 20€, even though I had nothing to do with that crook.
Post reply on HN