Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security

Ransomware Gang Claims Attack on NRA (therecord.media) 210

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
The operators of the Grief ransomware have listed today the US National Rifle Association (NRA) as a victim of one of their attacks. From a report: The organization's name was listed on a dark web portal, often called a "leak site," where the Grief gang typically lists companies they infected and which haven't paid their ransom demands. It remains unclear if the Grief gang hit one of the NRA's smaller branches or if the attack hit the organization's central network. Ransomware gangs often like to exaggerate their attacks.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ransomware Gang Claims Attack on NRA More

Ransomware Gang Claims Attack on NRA

Comments Filter:

  • shoot! (Score:3, Funny)

    by spads ( 1095039 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2021 @12:37PM (#61932489)
    looks like they've been dry-gulched!

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2021 @12:48PM (#61932515)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • I mean, we can put a man on the moon...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mark-t ( 151149 )

      You're telling me with all our technology, we can't figure out who these assholes are.

      In a word, nope.

    • You're telling me with all our technology, we can't figure out who these assholes are.

      No. Technology can be used to track people. It can also be used to help people hide. That's a good thing. You may be frustrated to see criminals hide their identity, but it is more important that dissidents and whistleblowers can also hide theirs. The ability to speak anonymously should be preserved.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by NFN_NLN ( 633283 )

        > You may be frustrated to see criminals hide their identity, but it is more important that dissidents and whistleblowers can also hide theirs.

        He's pissed about the whistleblowers too. He thinks Assange is a traitor to the deep state to which he pledges his loyalty.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    • Perhaps the NRA should had better protected itself.
      This wouldn't had happened if the NRA had better IT Security.

      Now I don't really believe my above statement. As I feel there should be much more effort and action against modern Ransomware dealers. But for an organization who at least at face value, is all about protection (After any crime, the NRA would often respond like "This wouldn't have happened if their was an armed citizen there"), you would think they would have better IT Security and backups.

    • You're telling me with all our technology, we can't figure out who these assholes are. People say blame Microsoft, while it's true that Windows security is a joke, it's still a crime to walk into someone's open house and steal shit.

      If it's a country, it's an act of war.. if it's an individual, a very public execution is in order. I'm sure the CIA has got pretty good at blackbagging people in other countries.

      Sorry, it just pisses me off that NOTHING is effectively is being done to curtain this BS.

      I would hope somebody on slashdot already appreciates the technical difficulty in bringing the perpetrator to justice. However, that doesn't mean nothing can be done. The answer is simple: make it a crime to pay the ransom. It'll hurt, but it's better than the inevitable ransomware disaster that looms ahead if we do nothing.

      • I would hope somebody on slashdot already appreciates the technical difficulty in bringing the perpetrator to justice. However, that doesn't mean nothing can be done. The answer is simple: make it a crime to pay the ransom. It'll hurt, but it's better than the inevitable ransomware disaster that looms ahead if we do nothing.

        Eaxctly. That was my solution to the illegal worker issue. Walls? Bah, expensive and stupid and easy to defeat.

        Putting the owner of a company in jail a year for every illegal immigrant they employ. Watch the problem go away overnight. give the CEO a day in jail for every cent they pay in ransomware.

    • Sorry, it just pisses me off that NOTHING is effectively is being done to curtain this BS.

      Countries can ban the exchange of cryptocurrencies for goods, services, or fiat currencies when they're ready to turn ransomware back into a rare oddity.

    • Re:Ransomware Gangs (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2021 @02:45PM (#61932997) Homepage Journal

      The casual way you talk about committing crimes in other countries, potentially sending CIA operatives to a foreign jail for a long long time...

      What is your opinion of other countries doing the same thing, grabbing US citizens and rendering them?

    • You're telling me with all our technology, we can't figure out who these assholes are.

      Actually, the FBI has identified individuals involved in many different ransomware gangs. The problem is that they are located in nations for which we lack an extradition treaty. Check it: https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/cyb... [fbi.gov]

      it just pisses me off that NOTHING is effectively is being done to curtain this BS.

      Honestly, if companies just invested in real security then this wouldn't be a problem. Stopping them entirely will only provide a false sense of security to corporations which will make them easy targets even for small nation-states. I much rather have corporations spending money and

    • > I'm sure the CIA has got pretty good at blackbagging people in other countries.

      In the interests of state security all communications platforms has had security much diluted. That's why the crooks have such an easy time in getting in.
    • Until it's made illegal to pay ransoms this shit will continue. Remove the money, remove the incentive. Your company got hacked, put what you would have payed into ransom INTO YOU IT DEPARTMENT.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by mark-t ( 151149 )
      Too soon man, waaaay too soon.
    • Yes sure if you want to make fun of a tragedy when it seems that Alec Baldwin was not at fault.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by schwit1 ( 797399 )

        Alec Baldwin was at fault. Once you pickup a firearm you are 100% responsible for its safe operation.

        Every firearms class will harp on these basic firearms rules. Alec failed on 3 of them

        1. Always treat every gun as if it's loaded.
        2. Always point the muzzle in a safe direction.
        3. Always keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot.
        4. Always be sure of your target and beyond.

        • 1. The gun was supposed to have dummy rounds that look real. Unless Baldwin loaded the gun himself (and he is not allowed to do so) how would he know that the rounds were real ammo. 2) He was supposed to draw POINTING at the camera. How is he supposed to not point at the camera when pointing at the camera. 3) He should have been practicing with a non-functioning prop gun but that was not the gun he was given.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mark-t ( 151149 )

          Actually, I'd say that he failed on all four.

          While I don't think anyone would ever try to argue that this was in any way deliberate, it was certainly very avoidable. And Baldwin deserves no small part of the blame for his role, not only as the one who handled the weapon, but also in his responsibilities as producer to ensure that no live guns, let alone live guns with live ammo, ever even get onto the set.

          I can see a rather large fine coming his way. Not that this will compensate the family of the vi

        • Alec Baldwin was at fault. Once you pickup a firearm you are 100% responsible for its safe operation.

          Every firearms class will harp on these basic firearms rules. Alec failed on 3 of them

          1. Always treat every gun as if it's loaded.
          2. Always point the muzzle in a safe direction.
          3. Always keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot.
          4. Always be sure of your target and beyond.

          If you follow 1 and 2, you can never ever film a gunfight.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mikaere ( 748605 )

            If you follow 1 and 2, you can never ever film a gunfight.

            You can if you only use replica firearms that cannot accept nor fire live ammunition. Sure, live weapons are "safe" as long as nobody fucks up, but go tell that to Brandon Lee.

      • Yes sure if you want to make fun of a tragedy when it seems that Alec Baldwin was not at fault.

        As many people have pointed out, Alec himself would not have held back in this circumstance.

  • There are better gun associations (Score:3, Insightful)

    by spun ( 1352 ) <loverevolutionary&yahoo,com> on Wednesday October 27, 2021 @12:52PM (#61932531) Journal

    Ignore these grifters, there are better groups if you want to support and protect your second amendment rights. Don't fund grifters, don't help Russia spread propaganda, don't help elect insane politicians, go to one of these groups instead: https://www.pewpewtactical.com... [pewpewtactical.com]

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Type44Q ( 1233630 )

      Lemme guess: The Gun Owners of America and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership?

      NRA are astroturf (not a true grassroots org); their intended purpose is to put on a show and make it look like they're defending the 2nd but their actual purpose is to achieve carefully-calculated losses.

      • Re:There are better gun associations (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2021 @01:09PM (#61932587) Homepage Journal

        NRA are astroturf (not a true grassroots org); their intended purpose is to put on a show and make it look like they're defending the 2nd but their actual purpose is to achieve carefully-calculated losses.

        I think that's why they've largely been abandoned for. a good time now by the 2A community.

        So far I like what I hear and see about the GOA, what do you have against them?

        Honest question.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by spun ( 1352 )

        My only preference is "not the NRA." I'm not shilling for anyone, or pushing any agenda other than "don't fund grifters."

    • This needs to be modded up. The NRA board has basically used the NRA to become even more rich. The bankruptcy needs to happen so the NRA can refocus on what it should need to do. There are better groups out there.

      • From the NRA's own actions, they're actually a gun manufacturer's lobby masquerading as a gun owner's/gun rights lobby. How can you tell this? Look at what they do on any issue where gun owners and gun manufacturers disagree. They side with the gun manufacturers every...single...time.

  • How do you stop bad guys without guns? (Score:5, Informative)

    by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2021 @12:55PM (#61932537)

    The NRA says the only way to Stop Bad Guys with Guns are Good Guys with Guns.

    But the bad guys no longer need Guns, nor do they feel threatened by those who do, because they are able to commit their crime far away from where said gun can hit them.

    In my youth the NRA, was big into Gun Safety, and proper use of the Gun as a Tool. I learned how to handle and fire gun via NRA Approved training session (threw the Boy Scouts). The gun was something you wouldn't even consider pointing at a person and always remember to be safe with it. Also it actively discouraged people trying to be "Manly MEN" who get the biggest gun, where a smaller and safer gun will fit the actual use case.

    However over time, Gun ownership became part of the nations sub cultures. I think around the late 1990's and early 2000's where the Red States vs Blue States cultural divide has been promoted by the media. Where the Gun has been moved from a tool, to symbol of your sub culture.

    We see online videos of people misusing or dangerously using guns, and the NRA will support them, while attack anyone who says Perhaps you shouldn't do that right next to the road. They support people buying the biggest and least accurate gun out there, just because they think it looks cool, and they will support them whole hartedly, because they are a Gun User, and a member of that sub-culture.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by JDAustin ( 468180 )

      When the meth-head is attempting to beat down your door and the police are unable to respond, then having a gun and knowing how to use it is the optimal solution.

      • Re:How do you stop bad guys without guns? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2021 @01:17PM (#61932625)

        Is that a common occurrence where you live?
        Back in the days where I use to live in the city (and not the nicest part of the city), that was never an issue. Besides having someone knock down your door, means you can just get a baseball bat, or a tire iron, and stand right at the side for if they actually break in, you just beat them to a pulp. A gun is about range, when you are in the same room often 12x12 or less (with furniture) you are going to have to handle a rather complex tool, under a lot of stress, as well its range may hit people you don't want to hit. While a Baseball bat, will be just as effective, easy to use, as we all know how to use a club instinctively, and you will damage less of your property, as well target mostly the person you want to hit.

        • Back in the days where I use to live in the city (and not the nicest part of the city), that was never an issue. Besides having someone knock down your door, means you can just get a baseball bat, or a tire iron, and stand right at the side for if they actually break in, you just beat them to a pulp. A gun is about range, when you are in the same room often 12x12 or less (with furniture) you are going to have to handle a rather complex tool, under a lot of stress, as well its range may hit people you don't

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by skam240 ( 789197 )

            all around my house I have multiple guns, mostly pistols or shotguns that are loaded and chambered, and all I have to do is pick one up and start pulling the trigger.

            Maybe some day you'll be that real life action hero you desperately want to be just like in the movies!

            All you've probably done though is waste a bunch of money. I mean all over your house? Do you also leave poison cans of beer in your fridge in case the criminal stops for a drink after breaking in. It could happen!

        • Besides having someone knock down your door, means you can just get a baseball bat, or a tire iron, and stand right at the side for if they actually break in, you just beat them to a pulp.

          In addition to being horribly macabre, using an impromptu melee weapon requires getting very close to the perpetrator. The whole point of having a firearm is so that you can keep your distance from someone who likely intends on doing you harm.

          There also are plenty of people who don't have the physical strength and/or stamina to beat a person to a pulp (and again, that's sickeningly macabre even assuming you do have the strength). Furthermore, from a legal standpoint, it might be harder to claim self defen

      • When the meth-head is attempting to beat down your door and the police are unable to respond, then having a gun and knowing how to use it is the optimal solution.

        Same thing with the Zombie apocalypse. Too bad The Walked Dead is fiction, just like your argument. In theory, yes, a gun is an optimal solution to a crazed methhead. How many crazed methheads beat down your door? What do you do to piss them off?

        I've lived in BAD neighborhoods...shitty high crime parts of Chicago when crime rate was at peak. I've known many people who grew up in the projects. Statistically, it's unlikely anyone you've never met will invade your home. You've never seen it. I've n

      • These days, the problem is not methheads with guns invading your house, it is politicians with social media invading your brain.

        No matter how many guns, you won't win. You need to stamp out social media - which may require the use of nukes, I don't know.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by skam240 ( 789197 )

      Also it actively discouraged people trying to be "Manly MEN" who get the biggest gun, where a smaller and safer gun will fit the actual use case.

      My favorite is people who think their wall penetrating guns are a good form of home defense. Have fun shooting into your child's bedroom because you missed the crook and your shots went through a wall.

      • The best part, is that crook will often target the people who have guns.
        Guns make a lot of money on the Black and Gray market. The more Zealous the Gun Owner, the more over confident they are, so the guns may not be locked up, if they are first to the guns (which is more likely, because they will get in quietly, or while you are away) then when you confront them, they will be armed (with your gun)

      • My favorite is people who think their wall penetrating guns are a good form of home defense. Have fun shooting into your child's bedroom because you missed the crook and your shots went through a wall.

        It isn't that hard to choose your ammo and home defense weapons so that they penetrate enough and give up all energy on the bad guy targets to stop them, without over penetration.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by skam240 ( 789197 )

          And how many gun owners do you think do the homework on that? It's not as if we require training to be licensed to own a gun.

          I'd wager a majority do not do their homework.

          • I don't believe either of us knows if the majority does or does not.

            The fast that the firearm(s) that MOST people own, are handguns, I'd put money down that they are not in danger of over penetration of walls from their house to other folks houses next door or across the street.

            But again, this is just a guess based on the overwhelming number of guns sold the past couple years and what type firearms they were.

            As for anecdotal...everyone I know is heavily armed, and they have the arms and ammo for home pro

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by skam240 ( 789197 )

              The fast that the firearm(s) that MOST people own, are handguns, I'd put money down that they are not in danger of over penetration of walls from their house to other folks houses next door or across the street.

              Yeah, that's why that's not what I cited as a danger.

      • One of my favorite copy pastas:

        Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shre

    • Re:How do you stop bad guys without guns? (Score:5, Informative)

      by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2021 @01:20PM (#61932633) Homepage Journal

      The NRA says the only way to Stop Bad Guys with Guns are Good Guys with Guns.

      Well, while I like the saying, I don't care for the NRA.

      But it appears last year that this was not only true, but that citizen's use of firearms to put down a felony in progress, was greater than the police's use of firearms to stop a felony.

      FBI Tables and Stats [cloud.gov]

      See tables 14 and 15...citizens justifiable homicide 405 vs cops 303.

      Of course this is just what was reported to FBI and where the perp took the room temperature test....the numbers are actually higher.

      According to this survey [ssrn.com] :

      "Consistent with other recent survey research, the survey finds an overall rate of adult firearm ownership of 31.9%, suggesting that in excess of 81.4 million Americans aged 18 and over own firearms. The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work. "

      • Those numbers are low because the cops simply don't report how many people they shoot.

        https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
        https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by skam240 ( 789197 )

        Those are awfully small numbers to draw meaningful conclusions from. Meanwhile the homicide rate in the US is 5 times higher than in the UK and pretty much every other first world nation (who all have far more restrictive gun laws) enjoy the same low rate as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] .

        Going by this obviously they don't but if guns actually make us safer I'd hate to see what our murder rate would be without them!

      • The NRA says the only way to Stop Bad Guys with Guns are Good Guys with Guns.

        Well, while I like the saying, I don't care for the NRA.

        But it appears last year that this was not only true, but that citizen's use of firearms to put down a felony in progress, was greater than the police's use of firearms to stop a felony.

        FBI Tables and Stats [cloud.gov]

        See tables 14 and 15...citizens justifiable homicide 405 vs cops 303.

        Of course this is just what was reported to FBI and where the perp took the room temperature test....the numbers are actually higher.

        According to this survey [ssrn.com] :

        "Consistent with other recent survey research, the survey finds an overall rate of adult firearm ownership of 31.9%, suggesting that in excess of 81.4 million Americans aged 18 and over own firearms. The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work. "

        That survey implies falsehoods. Roughly 1/3 of gunowners THINK they used their gun to defend themselves. There's no way of knowing if the gun actually made a difference. I know a LOT more than 3 gun owners, probably over 100 living all over the place, from ghettos to trailer parks to suburbs and even deep blue cities. With the exceptions of some former gang members (allegedly, I never really asked follow up questions), none have used a gun to defend themselves. I know of no single law-abiding citizen w

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry

Close