lilredrooster
lilredrooster
Joined: May 8, 2015
  • Threads: 203
  • Posts: 4643
May 24th, 2021 at 2:33:03 AM permalink
.....................

Bloomberg reports that CNA Financial paid $𝟒𝟎 𝐌𝐈𝐋𝐋𝐈𝐎𝐍 to hackers demanding a ransom

this is insane.................it looks like the black hats are smarter than the white hats

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-20/cna-financial-paid-40-million-in-ransom-after-march-cyberattack



*
Last edited by: lilredrooster on May 24, 2021
"𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳"______Edgar Allan Poe
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 153
  • Posts: 20172
May 24th, 2021 at 4:23:14 AM permalink
Quote: lilredrooster

.....................

Bloomberg reports that CNA Financial paid $𝟒𝟎 𝐌𝐈𝐋𝐋𝐈𝐎𝐍 to hackers demanding a ransom

this is insane.................it looks like he black hats are smarter than the white hats

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-20/cna-financial-paid-40-million-in-ransom-after-march-cyberattack



*

There should be a law forbidding ransom payments.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 8717
May 24th, 2021 at 4:33:56 AM permalink
Quote: AxelWolf

There should be a law forbidding ransom payments.



Ive thought that too! If it was a law with teeth, it would then dissuade further hacks.
DRich
DRich
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 8614
May 26th, 2021 at 7:19:41 AM permalink
Quote: AxelWolf

There should be a law forbidding ransom payments.



I disagree. Why shouldn't each person get to decide on their own? If someone hijacked all of your financial assets except for the $20 cash in your pocket, wouldn't you pay the $20 to get it all back immediately? I would pay the $20 to not have to wait potentially 2 years to get it back or to never get it back. I wouldn't know how to live my life without my financial assets so I would gladly pay $20 to get it back and over with.
Order from chaos
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 8717
May 26th, 2021 at 12:53:26 PM permalink
Quote: DRich

I disagree. Why shouldn't each person get to decide on their own? If someone hijacked all of your financial assets except for the $20 cash in your pocket, wouldn't you pay the $20 to get it all back immediately? I would pay the $20 to not have to wait potentially 2 years to get it back or to never get it back. I wouldn't know how to live my life without my financial assets so I would gladly pay $20 to get it back and over with.



I am of mixed feelings. Of course given the scenario you present it clearly makes sense to take the action you suggest. What if the next day they do the same but ask for $30? And the next day they ask for $100....? Etc..... I think it is in societys best interests to not allow you to pay. If NO ONE was EVER allowed to pay, the activity would decrease substantially.

There are so many things society (the government) prevents me from doing.... I cant freely give a friend $20k. I cant park near my favorite restaurant without a handicapped sticker. I cant drive 35mph on Delaware Avenue in Tonawanda despite any reasonable person feeling 45mph is safe on that road.

Im ok if the gubmint decided to ban paying those ransoms.
mcallister3200
mcallister3200
Joined: Dec 29, 2013
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 3163
May 26th, 2021 at 1:07:51 PM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

I am of mixed feelings. Of course given the scenario you present it clearly makes sense to take the action you suggest. What if the next day they do the same but ask for $30? And the next day they ask for $100....? Etc..... I think it is in societys best interests to not allow you to pay. If NO ONE was EVER allowed to pay, the activity would decrease substantially.




You are using the terms cant and not allowed to rather than discouraged from or choose not to.

How would you prevent someone from being EVER allowed to pay with a law?

And then when it is inevitably broken, presumably you would want to punish the original victim with a significant criminal penalty to effectively discourage the behavior? The penalty would have to be quite severe to be effective given the incentive to break it some situations, and a severe penalty seems unjust.
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 8717
May 26th, 2021 at 1:22:34 PM permalink
Quote: mcallister3200

You are using the terms cant and not allowed to rather than discouraged from or choose not to.

How would you prevent someone from being EVER allowed to pay with a law?

And then when it is inevitably broken, presumably you would want to punish the original victim with a significant criminal penalty to effectively discourage the behavior? The penalty would have to be quite severe to be effective given the incentive to break it some situations, and a severe penalty seems unjust.

.

Correct. Make it illegal punishable by jail time. If someone you know swindles you, you are already prevented by law from blowing their brains out.

If society decides that to severely discourage these hacks requires a firm law preventing paying the criminal, Im ok with that.
mcallister3200
mcallister3200
Joined: Dec 29, 2013
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 3163
May 26th, 2021 at 1:41:13 PM permalink
Discouraged, not prevented. The existence of a law discourages me from breaking that law it does not prevent me from doing so. Its an option thats there. Semantics I know.

Anyways, I just think in this specific situation there is no reasonable punishment that would both fit the action and be severe enough to be effective. Anything severe enough to be effective in a situation where someone might not feel like they have a better option would be extreme overkill in comparison to the action.
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 8717
May 26th, 2021 at 1:59:38 PM permalink
Quote: mcallister3200

Discouraged, not prevented. The existence of a law discourages me from breaking that law it does not prevent me from doing so. Its an option thats there. Semantics I know.

Anyways, I just think in this specific situation there is no reasonable punishment that would both fit the action and be severe enough to be effective. Anything severe enough to be effective in a situation where someone might not feel like they have a better option would be extreme overkill in comparison to the action.

.
Then I guess we should have no laws and no punishments because no law is 100% effective at stopping criminal behavior, and no punishment enough of a dissuasion?

I truly believe, if, say, armed robbery resulted in a minimum 20 year prison sentence, no out early for good behavior, no pre trial plea bargain, then there would be substantially less armed robberies.

If it was KNOWN that if you paid the ransom youd be in JAIL for 7 years, then there would be far fewer ransoms paid.
DRich
DRich
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 8614
May 26th, 2021 at 2:07:09 PM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

I am of mixed feelings. Of course given the scenario you present it clearly makes sense to take the action you suggest. What if the next day they do the same but ask for $30? And the next day they ask for $100....? Etc.....



Simple, protect your assets better or expect it to happen again.

In my example if they got all my money from Wells Fargo, ETrade, and Fidelity. I would probably withdraw from each of those institutions and find safer places to keep my assets.
Order from chaos

  • Jump to: