Ransomware Attacks and the Impact on Bitcoin's Legality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Office_Shredder
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of ransomware attacks, specifically focusing on a recent incident involving the Colonial Pipeline. Participants explore the consequences of such attacks on infrastructure, public response, and the motivations of the attackers. The conversation touches on cybersecurity practices, the legality of Bitcoin in ransom payments, and the broader geopolitical context of cybercrime.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern about the societal impact of ransomware attacks, suggesting that the panic buying of gasoline is a troubling consequence of such incidents.
  • There are differing opinions on the ethics of price gouging during emergencies, with some arguing it encourages responsible consumption while others propose alternative methods to manage demand.
  • Participants discuss the hackers' alleged apology for targeting a high-value target, with skepticism about the sincerity of this apology and its implications for their business model.
  • Questions are raised regarding the distinction between attacks by independent hackers and those potentially backed by state actors, particularly the Russian government.
  • Some participants highlight the importance of cybersecurity measures, noting that poor practices may have facilitated the attack on the Colonial Pipeline.
  • There is a discussion about the financial motivations behind ransomware attacks, with some suggesting that attackers prioritize profit over causing damage.
  • One participant elaborates on the nature of ransomware as a business model that relies on maintaining a good reputation for reliability and customer service.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the motivations and implications of ransomware attacks, with no clear consensus on the ethical considerations of price gouging, the nature of the attackers, or the effectiveness of current cybersecurity practices. The discussion remains unresolved on several points, particularly regarding the relationship between state actors and independent hackers.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the potential limitations of cybersecurity measures and the complexities involved in distinguishing between different types of cyberattacks. There is also mention of the financial calculus companies face in deciding whether to pay ransoms.

  • #31
Colonial Pipeline didn't tell CISA about ransomware incident, highlighting questions about information sharing
https://www.cyberscoop.com/colonial-pipeline-senate-homeland-solarwinds/

olonial Pipeline didn’t notify the Homeland Security Department’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency of its ransomware incident, and CISA still didn’t have technical details about the attack as of Tuesday morning, the agency’s top official told senators.

Acting director Brandon Wales also said he didn’t think Colonial would have reached out to CISA if the FBI hadn’t alerted his agency, he said in testimony before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
  • #32
Never heard of CISA.

They called the feds. Is the problem that they didn't call the right feds? FBI sounds like the right place. DOE? (Or DoE,,,never can seem to get them straight). It's energy, after all. The attack came from overseas - doesn't that make it State's business? Or maybe Defense?

The US government has set up an alphabet soup of agencies with unclear and overlapping responsibilities. It seems a bit unfair to expect the citizens to sort this all out on their own.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
  • #33
Vanadium 50 said:
It seems a bit unfair to expect the citizens to sort this all out on their own.
But that's a company. And (I think) not really a small one.
I would expect them having some kind of guideline about major IT troubles?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
  • #34
  • Wow
Likes   Reactions: collinsmark
  • #35
Astronuc said:
The $-value dropped after the seizure.
That's an interesting commentary on the underlying value of Bitcoin.

I wonder if Colonial is going to get the money back.
 
  • #36
russ_watters said:
That's an interesting commentary on the underlying value of Bitcoin.
Bitcoin has been decrease in $US for some time. On Saturday, it was about $37800. On Monday morning, it hovered around $36 - $36.5k, then about $35.6k at 8pm EDT during Monday evening, and down to ~$34k by 10 pm. Since then the price has fluctuated between $31.4 and $33.8k. I don't think the Colonial ransom had much to do with it, but one would have to look at when they paid to see if there was a price spike, and what was going on yesterday when the DOJ announced the seizure of the Bitcoin ransom from the hacker's wallet.

One can only speculate on how much Colonial will recover. It would seem a drop in the bucket for them.
 
  • #37
Astronuc said:
I don't think the Colonial ransom had much to do with it, but one would have to look at when they paid to see if there was a price spike, and what was going on yesterday when the DOJ announced the seizure of the Bitcoin ransom from the hacker's wallet.
I do agree; bitcoin can fluctuate 10% while you go get another cup of coffee, and it doesn't necessarily mean anything. We'll see if there is a more real/significant impact.

The article is making the commentary that since Bitcoin's value is heavily based on its utility as pre-laundered dirty money, law enforcement action that overcomes that attribute lessens its value. I would tend to agree. Even worse, the FBI now has the Bitcoin. So not only can law enforcement trace the money, they can seize it. And what if Colonial doesn't get it back? If that becomes a normal thing, I think it is a huge problem for Bitcoin moving forward.

I've been surprised by Bitcoin's resilience (though not its volatility) for several years. I'm surprised the Treasury Department is allowing Bitcoin ATMs to be set up. I think Bitcoin is clearly illegal and its viability thus far has been based primarily on the government not taking it seriously enough to bother shutting it down. This action gives a vibe that the government may be paying more attention.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vanadium 50
  • #38
I don't get why the attackers didn't use XMR which ensures a higher level of anonymity instead. Now news reports that the bitcoins have been retrieved by FBI through accessing the private key. I wonder how they did it.
 
  • #39
russ_watters said:
I think Bitcoin is clearly illegal
Breaking which law exactly?

I do agree that its value to the criminal underworld is lessened if they can be seized by a major world government.
 

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
5K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
5K