Jump to content

Cyber Warfare / Cyber Crime


NurembergVillan

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, PaulC said:

So seemingly the attacks came from North Korea. It wouldn't be some ordinary hackers there it would have come straight from the top Kim Jong-un

But how ? 

Did they glue a Commodore 64 and a Nokia 3210 together ?

Edited by Brumerican
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, PaulC said:

lol not personally but orders must have come from the top

They probably did, but seeing as the world may have to address the threat of North Korea's nukes sooner than later it might be wise not to let them know in advance what and where their cyber vulnerabilities are (I'm not suggesting you were advocating some form of retaliation). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Awol said:

They probably did, but seeing as the world may have to address the threat of North Korea's nukes sooner than later it might be wise not to let them know in advance what and where their cyber vulnerabilities are (I'm not suggesting you were advocating some form of retaliation). 

no prevention rather than retailation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PaulC said:

no prevention rather than retailation

Sure prevention is very good, but also a distributed responsibility across public and private sectors - good career paths in cyber security these days.

Incidentally it was the UK National cyber security centre that led the (international) investigation. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/05/2017 at 21:29, limpid said:

I trust all the updates from my OS supplier. I would change OS if I didn't. 

That seems unwise and i don't think you are unwise - quite the opposite.  Surely you don't actually trust them. I mean presumably you back up and so forth beforehand because you don't totally trust that everything will be fine afterwards. Most people place a level of trust/hope in the updates, but also have a level of distrust which compels them to take some preventative steps before installing updates?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Errr... an entire CIA toolset was released showing how to mask and mis-attribute your work. If I'm up to no good, I'm putting some of Russia/NK/Iran/China in there. Get off scot free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Brumerican said:

But how ? 

Did they glue a Commodore 64 and a Nokia 3210 together ?

They used a cheat code in Donkey Kong. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-6-16 at 15:55, blandy said:

That seems unwise and i don't think you are unwise - quite the opposite.  Surely you don't actually trust them. I mean presumably you back up and so forth beforehand because you don't totally trust that everything will be fine afterwards. Most people place a level of trust/hope in the updates, but also have a level of distrust which compels them to take some preventative steps before installing updates?

My data isn't stored locally. I continuously backup so that if something happens to my endpoint, I can move to another.

If your risk is different, you might find it harder to describe your relationship with your provider as "trust".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Amber Rudd seams like a particular bright spot :huh:

UK home secretary Amber Rudd says 'real people' don't need end-to-end encryption

Then she let this nugget to the BBC

Quote

“We want [technology companies] to work more closely with us on end-to-end encryption, so that where there is particular need, where there is targeted need, under warrant, they share more information with us so that we can access it.”

She said companies should give up more metadata about messages being sent via their services.

Metadata refers to information about a conversation - such as who took part, when and for how long - but not the contents itself.

When pressed on what kind of metadata she wanted, she replied: “I’m having those conversations in private.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The British guy who disabled the WannaCry malware by registering a killswitch domain has been arrested whilst returning from America where he was attending a computer security conference. The indictment claims he was arrested under suspicion of being responsible for the Kronos malware of 2015.

Article on Ars Technica: British slayer of WannaCry worm detained after attending Defcon

Quote

Marcus Hutchins, the 23-year-old security professional who accidentally stopped the spread of the virulent WCry ransomware worm in May, has been named in a federal indictment that alleges he was part of a conspiracy that created and distributed a piece of unrelated malware that steals banking credentials from unsuspecting computer users.

There is a *lot* of interest in this case with conspiracy theories and accusations abounding. 

The sudden emptying of the WannaCry bitcoin wallets shortly after the arrest is only fuelling the speculation.

This story is going to rumble on for a long long time I expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â