81–90 of 267 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would it? For some businesses, the reality is going to be that paying is necessary to continue to exist. What happens when that option, as crappy as it is, is off the table?
> the reality is going to be that paying is necessary to continue to exist. What happens when that option, as crappy as it is, is off the table? Insurance. Back-ups. Bail outs. Go out of business. That ransom paid has negative externalities that manifest nationally.
A federal ban on paying ransomeware would reduce the incentive to commit these attacks.
You can imagine it just being easier to code indiscriminate attacks where they only review the results to pick who it is worth collecting the ransom from. Unencrypting for vicitims in the US that couldn't pay would just add more exposure risk to them of getting caught, so they would have no incentive to actually do it. It would take a large bit of money out of the system, but it seems like you need all countries to c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not the IT workers saying that their secure, it's us telling the business that we need X dollars to mitigate risk of Y. And then the accounting people are like "But it hasn't happened yet, why would we pay to prevent something that hasn't happened yet!???"
Can we go after these decision makers for negligence, then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I saw a badly written headline yesterday that combined the meat industry hack with something about colonial pipeline, and it briefly brought to mind a mental image of a liquefied meat slurry/pink goo pipeline.
https://xkcd.com/1649/
A federal ban on paying ransomeware would reduce the incentive to commit these attacks.
A federal ban on paying ransomeware would reduce the incentive to commit these attacks.
It would cause companies to pay secretly and illegally instead, something which cryptocurrencies enable. Ban cryptocurrencies. They are the cause of the ransomware epidemic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would cause companies to pay secretly and illegally instead, something which cryptocurrencies enable. Ban cryptocurrencies. They are the cause of the ransomware epidemic.
> Ban cryptocurrencies. This is meant sincerely, not glibly: How? How can cryptocurrencies be banned in any meaningful sense? We can "ban" them in a legal sense ("Use of cryptocurrencies are illegal after 1 Jan 2022"), great. But how can they be practically banned so long as computers themselves are not invaded by governments to observe every detail of their operation and private overlay networks are still technicall…
The only way to buy or sell cryptocurrency for the vast majority of people is through exchange companies that have the blessing of the US to continue operating. Even LocalBitcoins goes out of their way to follow KYC laws.
Time to ban bitcoin. https://newrepublic.com/article/162589/ban-bitcoin-cryptocur...
Isn't this like banning cash to stop muggings?
Many store open after 19:00 don't have much cash on hand so robbing them is not really attractive any more. There are almost no bank robberies, as even banks doesn't actually have cash.
The people who get mugged are normally forced to go to an ATM to withdraw cash.
I'm not suggesting we just randomly ban stuff to avoid the criminals from exploiting it, but it is working.