421–430 of 435 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's always seemed like the best way to end ransomware is to launch hundreds of variants that demand money but don't actually decrypt anything. Unethical, to be sure, but eventually people would learn not to give them money. All the competent ransomware authors are probably quite unhappy whenever a defective ransomware strain pops up.
Is it not cryptographically possible to create a transparent provably-operational decryptor on top of something like ethereum?
All blockchain state is public, since it needs to be calculated by and verified by all nodes, so there's nowhere to stash a private key without revealing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If it gets big enough then people just hear from each other if paying unlocks the data or not. The idea would be to create "fake" ransomware that looks exactly like the real one >The best way to end ransomware is to get serious about security No matter how serious you get there always gonna be bugs, there isn't a single piece of mass distributed software in human history without bugs. That said, we should try to imp…
If forging digital signature is not that hard, then you can release some great scientific paper moving crypto decades ahead, or alternatively you can make billions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[citation needed]
Seriously ? The whole idea is so fundamentally stupid. 1) Ransomware authors have obvious economic incentive to decrypt, and no reason not to. This makes it a herculean task to convince the general public that they wouldn't do so. 2) By the time your data is encrypted, you'll be researching your specific ransomware strain and will find out if it's legit or not. Googling the onion address is an obvious choice and some…
Its irrelevant, this has nothing to do with the fake ransomwares.
>2) By the time your data is encrypted, you'll be researching your specific ransomware strain and will find out if it's legit or not. Googling the onion address is an obvious choice and something the ransomware author can just tell you to do.
The search results of any onion address are just as fake-able.
> 3) 3) Most people will need someone more technical to arrange the bitcoin payment anyway, these people will verify if the ransomware seems to be legit or not.
Sure, with their ransomware-detecting powers
>4) People don't magically get smarter, phishing still works if you pass the spam filters.
What has to do with anything
I got bored to keep answering, in general your points seem week which make you sound a bit too much like a ransomware creator. Probably not because you have 3 years here but otherwise you do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously ? The whole idea is so fundamentally stupid. 1) Ransomware authors have obvious economic incentive to decrypt, and no reason not to. This makes it a herculean task to convince the general public that they wouldn't do so. 2) By the time your data is encrypted, you'll be researching your specific ransomware strain and will find out if it's legit or not. Googling the onion address is an obvious choice and some…
> 1) Ransomware authors have obvious economic incentive to decrypt, and no reason not to. This makes it a herculean task to convince the general public that they wouldn't do so. Its irrelevant, this has nothing to do with the fake ransomwares. >2) By the time your data is encrypted, you'll be researching your specific ransomware strain and will find out if it's legit or not. Googling the onion address is an obvious c…
Not a ransomware creator but I understand the economics at play. Ransomware is more profitable than sending spam, unless you're spamming to spread malware.
The value of individual installs has historically averaged at significantly less than a dollar each, ransomware is bringing that way up.
You aren't going to stop ransomware unless you figure out a solution to all other malware, or invent a more profitable scheme. People need to do something with their bots and ransomware is always going to make more money than spamming from bots that haven't been able to inbox anything for 5 years.
There's simply no way you'll stop enough people from paying to make viagra spam beat ransomware.
i said this before and it was met with mostly hostility, but im still wondering... bitcoin has enabled ransomware, so its a boon to crooks. what has it done for non-crooks? i dont mean conceptually (no fed! decentralized! etc. etc.), i mean since its come into being, what has it done for you personally? for me: i bought a vpn subscription, anonymously. probably not able to do that as easily without btc. but, i would…
Depends on where you live. I doubt you'd have faced any repercussions for buying that VPN subscription with your credit card, but the governments of other countries might not be so understanding. Bitcoin should exist for the same reasons Tor exists. Just because Tor is used by child predators and of little practical use to the average Western citizen doesn't negate its positive value.
I think at the end of the day, it comes down to the fact that with every new tool comes the opportunity to use it for good or evil. So I wouldn't blame the tool, but rather the person who uses it for good purposes or for ill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because YOU cant figure out how it works, does not mean its not possible my friend. But I will say, that when you have a backdoor, and suddenly that backdoor stop providing intel/data/whatever, its usually a good indicator.
I do not know what you mean by this. Again, my point was that any backdoor is highly unlikely to stay hidden.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If forging digital signature is not that hard, then you can release some great scientific paper moving crypto decades ahead, or alternatively you can make billions.
I was talking about pixel-made signatures; you know, the one the user actually sees when the computer its already infected; not cryptography between public/private keys; otherwise its a chicken and egg problem; how do you know what signature its the "real"; you google it and hope nobody added its own search results? Go to the official website of the ransomware developer?
But even without it, there are so many options, e.g. timestamp signed message on the blockchain before the release. After just one confirmed message you don't care about pretenders because people can check if the signature matches with the previous message.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was talking about pixel-made signatures; you know, the one the user actually sees when the computer its already infected; not cryptography between public/private keys; otherwise its a chicken and egg problem; how do you know what signature its the "real"; you google it and hope nobody added its own search results? Go to the official website of the ransomware developer?
The ransomware can present the key fingerprint for example. But even without it, there are so many options, e.g. timestamp signed message on the blockchain before the release. After just one confirmed message you don't care about pretenders because people can check if the signature matches with the previous message.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 1) Ransomware authors have obvious economic incentive to decrypt, and no reason not to. This makes it a herculean task to convince the general public that they wouldn't do so. Its irrelevant, this has nothing to do with the fake ransomwares. >2) By the time your data is encrypted, you'll be researching your specific ransomware strain and will find out if it's legit or not. Googling the onion address is an obvious c…
>I got bored to keep answering, in general your points seem week which make you sound a bit too much like a ransomware creator. Probably not because you have 3 years here but otherwise you do.  Not a ransomware creator but I understand the economics at play. Ransomware is more profitable than sending spam, unless you're spamming to spread malware. The value of individual installs has historically averaged at signifi…