2021-06-17 at 12:29 PM UTC
..aka Biden gives Putin a list of things he should definitely cyber attack.
Stupid old fuck.
2021-06-17 at 12:31 PM UTC
aldra
JIDF Controlled Opposition
I really want to see the video of that interview because I'd put money on Biden forgetting what he was talking about and calling him Yeltsin at least three times
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2021-06-17 at 12:41 PM UTC
If that turns out to be true didn't he just tell any country that wants to cause trouble what to hack? Or is the list not public knowledge?
By the way, Putin had nothing to do with the oil pipeline hack that occurred. The laws in Russia are such that hacking isn't illegal as long as you're not hacking anything that has to do with the Russian Federation. Only the sovereign territories of Russia are off limits. Anything else is good to go. So if you're a successful black hat you might wanna move to Russia.
Or at the very least make use of Russian infrastructure like VPS and proxy services or even just a domain for your command and control operations.
2021-06-17 at 12:48 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson
..aka Biden gives Putin a list of things he should definitely cyber attack.
Stupid old fuck.
What an ice cold take.
This is basically drawing a red line in the sand, and saying "no one better cross this, or we'll come for you". So an impossible demand and a de facto declaration of war, because the thing about any attack, cyber or otherwise, is you usually never really know who was actually behind it.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2021-06-17 at 12:51 PM UTC
Shouldn't everything be off limits to cyber attacks? Is he saying it's okay if they cyber attack small businesses or people, just not other things?
Biden is soft and not intimidating at all so no one will give a fuck what he says.
2021-06-17 at 1:16 PM UTC
aldra
JIDF Controlled Opposition
Originally posted by aldra
the only two things that make sense are:
1. the entire thing was orchestrated by the FBI - the hack, the ransom and the 'recovery'
2. the 'hackers' were super retarded and had no idea what they were doing; bought ransomware code and got lucky due to horrible security practices inside the gas company.
I don't think it's plausible that someone would be capable enough to pull off an attack like this but dumb enough to request the ransom be paid in Bitcoin, to NOT split or mix the funds in any way, and to move the entire $4 million ransom to an exchange that's known to co-operate with the authorities. that last part is really the crux of it - it's not about Bitcoin being insecure, it's about these guys taking no precautions whatsoever. it'd be like demanding a ransom of $4 million dollars in cash, then opening a domestic bank account the next day and trying to dump the exact amount into it.
Bitcoin is decentralised and anonymous, but the blockchain clearly shows where funds are moved to and from. when you move the entire sum around it's extremely easy for authorities (or anyone else) to track the transfer - the very least you'd do to cover your tracks is split it up and send small amounts to multiple different wallets.
it'd make a hell of a lot more sense to demand the ransom in Monero or one of the other security-oriented coins because in that case the blockchain ledger is at least partially obfuscated, making it much more difficult to track where funds are moved to.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
