Banks buy Bitcoin formula to trigger blackmail virus

5. November 2018 at 16:52Category:blackmail

So-called Ransomware occupies the computer or laptop and demands a payment from the victim in order to unlock and use the device again. Sometimes they threaten to delete the files. Even banks do not come around the blackmail viruses and are forced to pay Bitcoins for the unblocking.

Who would have imagined that banks would get into Bitcoins so early? Probably nobody. So far, banks are less likely to be on the move in the Bitcoin environment for strategic reasons. Rather, banks are dependent on Bitcoins because they are constantly victims of Ransomware attacks due to their size.

Banks protect themselves against Ransomware with Bitcoin formula

As can be seen in particular from a statement by Malwarebytes CEO Marcin Kleczynski, banks even keep a not too small amount of Bitcoin formula in their wallet in order to be able to react and pay quickly in the event of cases. Such ransomware is particularly dangerous in the banking sector because Bitcoin formula is in danger of being deleted or passed on.

Kleczynski even confirms: “I talked to some banks and they said they had 50 to 100 bitcoins on the wallets in case of an unexpected Ransomware attack.

Banks: Dependent on large information systems

Banks are heavily dependent on huge internal information systems and networks in their day-to-day business. An attack on this network can bring the entire work process to a standstill. There is a constant race between security experts and Ransomware hackers.

Kleczynski suspects that there has been a shift in the targets of hackers. According to him, the goal is no longer individual private users, who offer a lucrative attack surface through the masses, but increasingly individual companies. Hackers are often expected to use more or less anonymous means of payment such as Paysafecards or Bitcoins.

When Ransomware Decides Life and Death
A Ransomware attack alongside the financial sector can have a particularly dramatic effect on companies in the healthcare sector. A failure of the IT system could not only have economic consequences, but could also block important (possibly life-supporting) devices and thus endanger the lives of patients. In most cases, these companies pay the required amount to the hacker instead of trying to eliminate the virus themselves. Kleczynski supports this approach:

“It should never be about human lives, but if it is – for whatever reason – the case, I would pay the amount. It’s just money…Likewise as a student who wrote his dissertation for four years and didn’t make a backup. I wouldn’t pay for someone who’s about family photos that are still copies on the digital camera anyway”.

Especially people who have some previous knowledge in technical fields refuse to pay blackmail software providers. Thus one tries mostly in self direction to solve the problem with the help of the Internet. Any private user who manages to unlock the PC has saved a lot of money in the process.

The situation is different for institutional users: Their business life often depends on whether access to certain data is possible. It can quickly become very expensive if access is blocked and paying the ransom may be an even more economically viable alternative. This idea seems to have recently found acceptance among hackers, so that an increased concentration on enterprise victims of Ransomware is to be expected.

The 10 Greatest Myths about the Bitcoin secret

1. November 2018 at 22:34Category:crypto currencies

In the series “The 10 biggest myths about crypto currencies” we would like to take a closer look at the 10 most common claims concerning crypto currencies and their chances and risks. We will daily a new myth vorknöpfen and check this for correctness.

A regulated trade with the Bitcoin secret is not possible

The regulation of the Bitcoin secret has developed into one of the central, if not the central topic in the area of blockchain, especially in the course of the last six months. As a reaction to the increasing popularity of Bitcoin secret crypto currencies on the one hand and the new crypto currencies created by countless ICOs on the other, more and more countries around the globe are currently being urged to think about regulatory measures and create framework conditions for this growing sector.

A crypto currency as a non-physical, decentrally organized digital currency naturally poses challenges to central banks and financial market regulators all over the world. Especially under many legal aspects, the emergence of crypto currencies creates precedents that cannot be easily integrated into the existing legal framework.

The second part of this series already wrote about the different handling of the regulation of crypto currencies. If one refrains from radical measures of crypto-regulation, above all practised in China, the majority of constructive approaches on the part of the state can indeed be discerned.

In the course of this, some of the crypto exchanges operating in Japan were closed

Japan, for example, can be named as one of the most brilliant examples at this point. At the beginning of October, a broad-based regulatory action was launched to implement a law to regulate digital currency exchanges. Rules were enacted to prevent crypto currencies and their trading on stock exchanges from being misused for money laundering and thus involved in criminal activities. In addition, the Know Your Customer Principle (KYC) has set a standard that is subject to an annual audit. The same law had also officially declared Bitcoin legal tender in Japan at that time.

However, those providers who were able to meet the requirements demanded by the Japanese government were provided with official state licenses. Such a regulatory solution can have a decisive long-term effect on the acceptance of crypto currencies and – despite partial restrictions – even contribute to their further growth. A clearly defined set of rules that sets a framework for trading in crypto currencies is a basic prerequisite for mainstream adaptation. Without the necessary legal certainty and consumer protection, it will be difficult to convince broad sections of society and traditional companies of crypto currencies.

It remains to be seen that regulated trade in crypto currencies is possible – it is already happening in Japan. The successes there prove the system right: Japan has risen (following the ban on crypto exchanges in China) to become the world’s largest market for trading in crypto currencies. In view of this development, it seems only a matter of time before similar laws are also applied in Europe.