FBI Struggled To Disrupt Dangerous Casino Hacking Gang, Cyber Responders Say

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has struggled to stop a hyper-aggressive cybercrime gang that's been tormenting corporate America over the last two years, according to nine cybersecurity responders, digital crime experts and victims. Reuters: For more than six months, the FBI has known the identities of at least a dozen members tied to the hacking group responsible for the devastating September break-ins at casino operators MGM Resorts International and Caesars Entertainment, according to four people familiar with the investigation. Industry executives have told Reuters they were baffled by an apparent lack of arrests despite many of the hackers being based in America. "I would love for somebody to explain it to me," said Michael Sentonas, president of CrowdStrike, one of the firms leading the response effort to the hacks.

"For such a small group, they are absolutely causing havoc," Sentonas told Reuters in an interview last month. Sentonas said the hackers were "known" but didn't provide specifics. He did say, "I think there is a failure here." Asked who was responsible for the failure, Sentonas said, "law enforcement." [...] Dubbed by some security professionals as "Scattered Spider," the hacking group has been active since 2021 but it grabbed headlines following a series of intrusions at several high profile American companies.

Casinos hacked

[ebcdic]

It couldn't happen to nicer people.

Re:

[ihavesaxwithcollies]

Just like the bank robberies that were celebrated in the early 20th centuries, these people should have streets named after them and statues built in their honor.

Re: Casinos hacked

[Growlley]

not conent with stealing their land and resources you americans know want to take Native american Jerbs?

Re:

[iMadeGhostzilla]

If everyone told the extortionists to fuck off like the casino people did there would be no ransomware. Yes they lost $200M but the hackers wasted a bunch of time and got nothing in return. And the insurance is supposed to cover most of the $200M anyway.

Re:

[gweihir]

Indeed. More like a public service than "dangerous".

Because the FBI

[Midnight_Falcon]

I have responded to over a dozen security incidents, in which the FBI was involved in some capacity, during my career. I can say each time I was greatly disappointed. Essentially, they look for cases in which there will be millions in assets to seize. Without that, they generally only provide basic advice and don't invest much resources. My experience is that the FBI cyber crimes dept is being run as a business and only goes after threat actors that give them 10x returns in seizures.

Re:

[ihavesaxwithcollies]

So just like the local podunk rubes in the police department. They do nothing but pull people over looking for cash they can seize by any means possible.

Re:

[TechyImmigrant]

I have responded to over a dozen security incidents, in which the FBI was involved in some capacity, during my career. I can say each time I was greatly disappointed. Essentially, they look for cases in which there will be millions in assets to seize. Without that, they generally only provide basic advice and don't invest much resources. My experience is that the FBI cyber crimes dept is being run as a business and only goes after threat actors that give them 10x returns in seizures.

I was asked to help an FBI investigation to give technical analysis of a particular hack. Then they proceeded to not give me the information I needed to analyze the attack. It was hard to fathom what their goals were. Preventing further attacks didn't seem to be on the menu.

Re: Investigation, not prevention

[Midnight_Falcon]

That would be a strange way for a law enforcement agency to operate. Investigations often take place while a criminal conspiracy is getting started but has not taken overt action to complete any of their objectives. Terrorism is a great example, then there FBI agents posing as hitmen to prevent murders. FBI itself sponsors infragard to prevent attacks supposedly, it's just run incompetently and they only share basic, unactionable information with membership.

Re:

[dargaud]

I always thought that the NSA should be split in 2: one looking for vulnerability with the power to FORCE companies to fix their shit, and an OBLIGATION to reveal those vulnerabilities and fix them (for instance in various encryption algos). And another one with an attack goal, but only when it's in foreign products.

Re:

[Baron_Yam]

The problem is those agencies wouldn't cooperate, because every domestic vulnerability discovered and fixed in a private entity is one you've just revealed to the rest of the world so they can patch it too... and the foreign-tasked NSA would want those vulnerabilities still in the wild to exploit.

FBI minimum loss figure

[Okian Warrior]

I have responded to over a dozen security incidents, in which the FBI was involved in some capacity, during my career. I can say each time I was greatly disappointed. Essentially, they look for cases in which there will be millions in assets to seize. Without that, they generally only provide basic advice and don't invest much resources. My experience is that the FBI cyber crimes dept is being run as a business and only goes after threat actors that give them 10x returns in seizures.

In years past, the FBI had a policy of not worrying about incidents where less than $50,000 was lost.

That amount might have changed since then, but basically they only consider large-scale theft as worth their time. Scammers can act with impunity across America - if an individual will loses their retirement savings of $10K to a scammer the FBI won't help. (Contact your local states attorney general, because they totally arrest someone in another jurisdiction.)

This came up years ago when the New York Times w

Re: FBI minimum loss figure

[Midnight_Falcon]

All of the incidents I was involved in (last decade) had losses of over 50k, heck..my own incident response billing was over 50k in all cases. I think the real threshold is in the millions.

Re:

[gweihir]

So basically similar to a typical criminal enterprise? Makes sense to me.

Flip for it

[PPH]

they were baffled by an apparent lack of arrests

Heads, we plead guilty. Tails, we walk away, Scott free.

Re: Flip for it

[AcidFnTonic]

I aint gonna flip it

Casinos?

[Baron_Yam]

They prey on gambling addiction, and if by chance you happen to find a way to beat the odds you're going to have a bad time.

If you can successfully rob a casino without any ancillary crimes like extortion or assault, I consider that an entirely ethical thing to do.

Maybe the criminals made ...

[Big Bipper]

Maybe the criminals made ... major contributions to Democrat campains ;-) Or they know somebody high up.

Re:

[cashew76]

Reverse. You need to buy an FBI agent to get any action on your extortion matter.

I can't say I'm surprised

[Miles_O'Toole]

"FBI Struggled To Disrupt Dangerous Casino Hacking Gang"

Let's face it, the FBI "struggles" to do much more than peep into the bedrooms of lefties.

Reason for lack of arrests

[Varenthos]

If the FBI isn't arresting the known criminals, then they must be running for president.

Congress

[jwymanm]

is probably waiting to see if they can extort any money from the hackers to launder through Ukraine before they arrest them.

Knowing isn't the same being able to prove it

[Growlley]

in a court of law.

Dangerous casino hacking is an oxymoron

[PoopMelon]

Whoever hacks and steals from a casino deserves a praise, and i am not exaggerating in a slightest

Amazing

[Annizar]

Casinos or betting sites? What do you think about connected sites that offer opportunities and casinos, as well as sports betting and more? Do you have any precautions? I'll explain what is what: I've apparently found a good website and they have a lot of features. What do you think about https://50-spins.com/online-casinos-australia/ [50-spins.com] ?