Hacker from Russian crime group jailed for global blackmail conspiracy(nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk)
nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk
Hacker from Russian crime group jailed for global blackmail conspiracy
https://nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/hacker-from-russian-crime-group-jailed-for-multi-million-pound-global-blackmail-conspiracy
53 comments
You're shocked that an online news agency wouldn't advocate for users to install an adblocker?
It's the BBC, they're taxpayer funded and don't advertise (within the UK).
But they're really, really Establishment. They wouldn't advocate adblocking, because it would challenge the status quo.
It has quite a few articles on the topic, such as this one, which has a "What's the benefit to users?" section.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34173732
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34173732
>But they're really, really Establishment.
What does that mean exactly?
I see folks say 'establishment' and other phrases that seem heavily loaded and used as evidence of something they're proposing... but it isn't evidence of anything.
What does that mean exactly?
I see folks say 'establishment' and other phrases that seem heavily loaded and used as evidence of something they're proposing... but it isn't evidence of anything.
More like calling them out for it, actually.
“...the attack kit would have been downloaded on approximately 165,000 PCs. Some 5% of those - about 8,000 users - were likely to have fallen victim to the ransom demand”
This is clearly a severe underestimation of how ignorant most people are about ransomware and how to recognize it when installed on one’s computer.
This is clearly a severe underestimation of how ignorant most people are about ransomware and how to recognize it when installed on one’s computer.
> If the home computer was not protected with up-to-date anti-virus software, the Angler would search for vulnerabilities and, if possible, deliver the "ransomware" that seized control of the machine.
> It immediately splashed a full screen message to the user,
It's unclear if this exploit / malware was capable of actually encrypting files or if it did something else which could easily be fixed without data loss. I think most peoples reaction would be to pull out their phones and google how to fix it.
> It immediately splashed a full screen message to the user,
It's unclear if this exploit / malware was capable of actually encrypting files or if it did something else which could easily be fixed without data loss. I think most peoples reaction would be to pull out their phones and google how to fix it.
I think many people who aren’t as tech savvy wouldn’t think about doing this. Even if they assumed it could be fixed (which many probably didn’t), in a state of heightened emotions (of embarrassment, fear of possibly breaking the law), many people would try their best to comply with the instructions.
Is this something that Pi-hole can protect you from? I intended to set up one for a while but never found the time. It looks like ads are not only annoying but increasingly dangerous at this point.
> ...booked advertising space on some of the world's most popular legal pornography websites...
> ...visitor to the adult site who clicked on one of Qaiser's fake adverts would trigger the download...
So, yes—if you filter out those domains down the pi-hole.
> ...visitor to the adult site who clicked on one of Qaiser's fake adverts would trigger the download...
So, yes—if you filter out those domains down the pi-hole.
I guess yes, but I would suggest to you to use a plugin like umatrix as I think it is more likely to catch unknown rogue player's actions. If in doubt, use both, it doesn't hurt that much but benefits a lot.
Only if you stay on your network, either by using a VPN or never leaving the house, I recommend the latter.
Increasingly? Are you a time traveller?
Ads (and web browsing in general) certainly have been getting much much safer in the past years, working exploit kits are vastly more difficult to come by than they were only a few years ago.
The landscape simply is nothing like it was during blackhole kits heyday.
Ads (and web browsing in general) certainly have been getting much much safer in the past years, working exploit kits are vastly more difficult to come by than they were only a few years ago.
The landscape simply is nothing like it was during blackhole kits heyday.
I couldn’t find whether he gets to keep the money. If he does he’ll be a millionaire when he leaves prison in ~6 years.
Recovery of criminal proceeds is regulated in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. There are certain instruments to recover illegal proceeds, either by restraint ("freeze") and/or confiscation orders. There is also a civil procedure possible, e.g. for assets that have been bought with criminal proceeds.
If a legal system were to allow a criminal his proceeds you effectively make property rights useless. Because why should I pay for a transaction if I could simply force you to do it and pay nothing in exchange.
If a legal system were to allow a criminal his proceeds you effectively make property rights useless. Because why should I pay for a transaction if I could simply force you to do it and pay nothing in exchange.
There's been a few recent cases reported in our local UK paper where drug gangs are reported to have made £500k, say, and instructed to pay back £50k. They get a 2 or 3 years inside, rent free, then.
Given median wages it seems like they're getting a reasonable return provided they don't mind the stay in prison. Like would you go to prison if you were paid £70k a year to do so?
Given median wages it seems like they're getting a reasonable return provided they don't mind the stay in prison. Like would you go to prison if you were paid £70k a year to do so?
This sounds so far fetched that you should really cite the local UK paper and article if you make a comment like this.
It's got all the hallmarks something made up to incite anger and opinion. A believable yet outragious "fact" from a newspaper followed by a conclusion that any reasonable person would make. This gives the "fact" more credibility because of how we rationalize things.
It's got all the hallmarks something made up to incite anger and opinion. A believable yet outragious "fact" from a newspaper followed by a conclusion that any reasonable person would make. This gives the "fact" more credibility because of how we rationalize things.
I'm not prepared to dox myself for this, so ... whenever I see a drug story where they state numbers I calculate the yearly 'wage' they're getting for their prison sentence and often it's more than £30k. AFAICT they're getting much more, because they often get out early.
First from the list in my local paper for "drug gang 'ordered to repay'" (censored):
>A Proceeds of Crime Act hearing was told K and E had benefitted to the tune of £55k each.
>The pair appeared in $place Crown Court from custody and were told by Judge $judge to repay <£1k ea. within 30 days or face an extra 7 days in prison.
>$Y members of the gang who made nearly £200,000 were forced to hand over just over <<£10k between them. //
The next story is headlined about paying back £6k from £180k taking; these are both stories from the last 6 months.
The drugs in the stories are mostly cocaine and heroin in my UK location.
First from the list in my local paper for "drug gang 'ordered to repay'" (censored):
>A Proceeds of Crime Act hearing was told K and E had benefitted to the tune of £55k each.
>The pair appeared in $place Crown Court from custody and were told by Judge $judge to repay <£1k ea. within 30 days or face an extra 7 days in prison.
>$Y members of the gang who made nearly £200,000 were forced to hand over just over <<£10k between them. //
The next story is headlined about paying back £6k from £180k taking; these are both stories from the last 6 months.
The drugs in the stories are mostly cocaine and heroin in my UK location.
That is indeed strange. But one must always keep in mind that the media often gets the law wrong - whether it is the specific crime they were indicted for or the reasoning for a judgement. But, I cannot tell here. It just seems strange.
My naive read is that $500k is an estimate of their profit over X time period, likely based on the $50k restitution over Y time period, which is the conduct they’re actually charged for.
The reason for the discrepancy is simple: the government can only relcaim money connected to what they indict you for — not all the crimes people suspect, but can’t prove; in contrast, a newspaper is free to speculate “Well, if a month long sting caught them doing $50k, then they did like $500k/yr!”
You can get similar estimates if the government catches them with unsold drugs, and the paper reports how much money they would have made selling it. Again, a reasonable estimate of their cash flow, but sensible the police seize the drugs rather than money they haven’t earned yet. (And can’t seize past money, if not connected to a crime.)
I don’t have specific citations, but I’ve seen both in local papers over the years.
The reason for the discrepancy is simple: the government can only relcaim money connected to what they indict you for — not all the crimes people suspect, but can’t prove; in contrast, a newspaper is free to speculate “Well, if a month long sting caught them doing $50k, then they did like $500k/yr!”
You can get similar estimates if the government catches them with unsold drugs, and the paper reports how much money they would have made selling it. Again, a reasonable estimate of their cash flow, but sensible the police seize the drugs rather than money they haven’t earned yet. (And can’t seize past money, if not connected to a crime.)
I don’t have specific citations, but I’ve seen both in local papers over the years.
In Britain, you actually can. This is a result of the "criminal lifestyle" provisions; once the government has proved that you've made money from an ongoing course of criminal activity you then need to specifically show that your assets were legally acquired, or they're subject to forfeiture.
I do not know the right term for this, what if they try to cycle it once more through a legit transaction, like they release an music album on Amazon, and use the proceeds of the crime to buy 1000s of numbers of it, or some variation of such a scheme, then is the gains from the albums sales legit earnings or not?
Money laundering is actually also covered in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Part 7. It is defined in the most abstract term possible. That is done in order to make the example you provided an offense as well:
"A person commits an offence if he enters into or becomes concerned in an arrangement which he knows or suspects facilitates (by whatever means) the acquisition, retention, use or control of criminal property by or on behalf of another person."
"A person commits an offence if he enters into or becomes concerned in an arrangement which he knows or suspects facilitates (by whatever means) the acquisition, retention, use or control of criminal property by or on behalf of another person."
"Money laundering" is the term you're looking for; IANAL, but money laundering is illegal AF.
Money Laundering, usually refers to activities where the illegal cash is mixed in with legit cash flow, especially with help from a cash intensive business like a car wash or a salon, but in the scheme I mentioned about, the second leg of the scheme, of buying albums, etc, there is nothing illegal about the transaction itself, only that the proceeds used for it was obtained through non-legit means.
In your example, the illegal cash is mixed in with legit album sales. Whether you actually buy your own album or simply claim that extra albums were sold is besides the point. Buying an album isn't illegal, but concealing the origin of illegally obtained funds by passing them through a legitimate business is. Driving a car isn't illegal, but running a red light is; the fact that you were legally driving a car doesn't mean you aren't breaking another law in the process. The fact that you are legally buying an album doesn't mean you aren't money laundering in the process.
Isn't that the definition of money laundering?
I'd guess it'll be confiscated, assuming he hasn't hidden it away somewhere the authorities can't get to it.
Well, the article implies that the majority has been hidden away somewhere, and hasn't been found yet.
probably in some sort of tumbled crypto if he's even casually familiar with hiding money
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptocurrency_tumbler
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptocurrency_tumbler
His fellow inmates may want to have a share, if they find out.
https://www.ft.com/content/dbaea8c6-2541-11e9-b329-c7e6ceb5f...
https://www.ft.com/content/dbaea8c6-2541-11e9-b329-c7e6ceb5f...
From the NCA article:
>Qaiser spent the proceeds of his criminal activity on stays in high-end hotels, prostitutes, gambling, drugs and luxury items including a £5,000 Rolex watch.
... and he probably wasted the rest ...
WC Fields' quote:
“I spent half my money on gambling, alcohol and wild women. The other half I wasted.”
>Qaiser spent the proceeds of his criminal activity on stays in high-end hotels, prostitutes, gambling, drugs and luxury items including a £5,000 Rolex watch.
... and he probably wasted the rest ...
WC Fields' quote:
“I spent half my money on gambling, alcohol and wild women. The other half I wasted.”
[deleted]
I'm curious if this is connected to the Danish guy who got caught laundering $450k of Bitcoin. They mentioned they found him depositing laundered money in another persons account who was arrested for hacking - but didn't mention which person it was.
https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2019/04/08/danish-man-senten...
https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2019/04/08/danish-man-senten...
This is clickbait... yes, clickbait on BBC
The guy was a ransomware distributor who used malvertising campaigns to hijack traffic from all sort of sites, not just porn sites.
NCA press release: https://nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/hacker-from-russian-...
The guy was a ransomware distributor who used malvertising campaigns to hijack traffic from all sort of sites, not just porn sites.
NCA press release: https://nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/hacker-from-russian-...
I'm confused. The press release says Qaiser "bought masses of advertising traffic from pornographic websites" -- so what's wrong with the BBC's reporting, here?
I went through the article. I'm not seeing exactly how this is clickbait, or as some other comments that are strangely claiming, buzzfeed-like. Are we missing something here?
Emphasizing porn users and blackmail implies that the hacker blackmailed porn users by threatening to expose their usage (like what kind of porn they watch or somwthing).
The correct title is guy got jailed for infecting computers with ransomware through regular ads. This is something that happens weekly I would assume, and is barely newsworthy.
The correct title is guy got jailed for infecting computers with ransomware through regular ads. This is something that happens weekly I would assume, and is barely newsworthy.
The BBC reported though, that he claimed to have captured video of the victim which, to me, sounds like exposing their usage of porn in a very personal way. Comparing this headline to buzzfeed is not justified imho.
It's been a while since bbc shed any notion of journalistic reputability. Now their news page is as vacuous and turpid as the next. That said there is still quality reporting being done, especially in the longform articles.
Some of the nature reporting (non-climate-change related) is also good and seems to have people who genuinely care about their area.
But yes, mostly the BBC news output has become trash now. Technology/politics seems especially bad.
But yes, mostly the BBC news output has become trash now. Technology/politics seems especially bad.
It's actually been more than a few years now that www.bbc.com has been full of click bait. Scroll down to the "Editor Picks" and it's not very different from what you would see on something like Mashable.
You know how some people say, "No, no ad whitelisting. #GETOUT?"
This is why.
This is why.
bbc is now bbzzfeed
Buzzfeed news has easily surpassed them in quality recently. I say that as someone who still harbors a strong grudge against BF for their part in this clickbait mess.
bbc submissions should be mod approved. Their titles are buzzfeed level now
It is amusing that they don't mention that ad bocking extensions also protect against this sort of thing. In fact, defense in depth against malicious ads are one of the best reasons to run an adblocker.